And none of any of the apologists have remotely come close to excusing the fact that they're putting people on very low incomes in an impossible position, a position from which many will have to turn to loans themselves, loans which will not be interest free.
Loan us some money or lose your job is not appropriate, no matter what way you spin it it will never be appropriate.
It's not excusing, jesus. Nobody knows the full facts to make excuses, the same as they don't know the full facts to makes assumptions or wild criticisms.
It's explaining that it
might be the best of an extremely bad situation, regarding their employer's industry, and the entire economy. We know for a fact that the industry and economy as a whole have took an absolute beating.
The company might be in an impossible situation. If it's impossible for the company, it's going to trickle down to everyone related to the company, which also, surprisingly, will include the staff. The thing is the company has lost LOADS, which it cannot get back, the staff have took a 20% cut in return for doing no work. They're being asked to go to make that a 30% cut for 3 months (still for doing no work), and in return, they will get 110% the 3 months after.
It might have been badly worded, or interpreted, but being nice about doesn't excuse the fact we're in a pandemic, have been for a year, and this sector (so hence it's staff) has been hit hardest of them all. Not to mention their employer has only been going 3 years, which is also an additional risk for the staff, the company and the directors.
Is folding up, and making 500 people redundant a better choice for everyone, including the staff?
Keep in mind most of them would get zero pay, as not been there 2 years and the rest have likely not been there four years. Effectively the best they poorly paid staff would get is one weeks pay. This outcome is about 25 times worse considering the chance of getting other employment is probably slim.
We hear regularly from the same voices about business owners being entitled to their spoils and the fruits of their labours - even on this thread when addressing the owner has multiple Ferraris. It works both ways.
I wouldn't dream of ever visiting one of their establishments now.
Business owners are entitled to the spoils when things go well, that's what happens when you invest time and money for decades, taking unimaginable risks, but the vast majority who attempt it go broke, and not many get to the Ferrari stage.
Regarding the "ferraris" anyway, which owner? The one that has a 30% share in the company that had the wealth/ assets (although it's probably 30% of a lot less now). Or probably 30% of a load of debt. Are the Ferraris owned outright, or leased, or on loans? By selling them he may end up worse off, as the market is $hyte.
If people don't visit, then all they're doing is taking away jobs from those that have took part in the 10% loan scheme, or limiting the probability of their employer continuing. Maybe someone else will step up and fill the space, but I wouldn't bank on it, not after this year, a recession and brexit.
I'll probably go back, pending seeing further information (all their accounts are long overdue), but if I do I'll be giving the staff a decent tip.