- This topic has 37 replies, 21 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 11 months ago by
.
- Posts
they think they’re wacky and irreverent, but actually they’re tacky and irrelevant
VG Clause Of The Year winner!As for the substance of your post Gladiateur, I despair. It does indeed register a new low for those folk loosely termed Bookmakers: the voraciously greedy snacking on the flotsam and jetsam before or after the regulation 364-day gorge
Do staff have the option of declining to work on Christmas Day or are they simply rostered and expected to turn up…or else…
In hindsight, it appears that this may be urban mythery.
There’s stuff online about Done wanting to open his shops until midnight on Christmas Eve (not going to do much for the RC’s Mass collection plate is it?) but actual Christmas Day opening of any sort I believe is still illegal.
Still, lovely man:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2522264/One-Britain-biggest-bookies-tells-staff-higher-weighting-attached-profits.html
Mike
I’ve just finished my morning shopping excursion and stopped off at each of the betting shops in town for a quick natter with the staff- it’s a good way of keeping abreast of what’s going on behind the scenes.
One of my local LBO managers is working her third consecutive long day- the shop opens at 07:30 and closes at 22:00. As she has to get up at 06:00 and gets home at 23:30, this means that she hasn’t seen her children (awake) since putting them to bed on Wednesday evening. One of her colleagues in another shop recently worked eight consecutive long days- he’s single and has nothing else to do but surely this is beyond the call of duty?
Of the six betting companies represented in my local town centre, all six managers reported having to work long days on occasion and five of them said that they had repeatedly had to open the shop the morning after closing down, meaning that they were getting less than the legal break between shifts. The anectodal record was of a manager having to work nine consecutive long days, as "there was nobody else to do it" according to his area manager.
Looking up employment law online, workers are entitled to a minimum break of eleven hours between shifts. There are some exceptions- armed forces, emergency services or police and they’re dealing with an exceptional catastrophe or disaster- for example.
However, betting shops don’t appear to be exempt. That being the case, why are they allowed to abuse their employees in this way?
However, betting shops don’t appear to be exempt. That being the case, why are they allowed to abuse their employees in this way?
Simple, because the employees let them. The employees should stick up for their rights. They should join a union.
When I worked on contract to BT in the late 90’s there was a European directive stating that nobody could be forced to work more than 48 hours a week. However, employees could choose to sign away those rights if they so desired. For most jobs the 48 hours is an average calculated over 17 weeks.
Workers who opt out of the 48 hours maximum week can opt back in but must give their employer seven weeks notice in writing.
Most of the jobs I have worked in have had employees who are a hound for a pound and they will run themselves into the ground, seemingly loving the idea they are taking home more money in the week than their colleagues. To be fair, some people are in a situation where they need all the hours they can get but there always seems to be an "Hours Martyr" soaking up every available hour like a sponge and it gets that management expect everyone else to be as obliging.
Employees need to get together and start to change the culture of apathy towards their legal rights.
Thanks for the good crack. Time for me to move on. Be lucky.
It is appalling that the hardest working staff are all on minimum wage so the taxpayer picks up the tax and housing credit bills instead of the employer paying a living wage.
It is even more appalling that the CEO gets paid for failure.
It is beyond any rationality that the failing CEO gets paid in 1 year what the exploited shop staff would take 335 years to earn.
No politician will stand up against the growing inequality in what is supposed to be an all in it together society. No wonder the Scots want out.
As the Weatherspoons’ CEO said it is frightening that the 2010 corporate responsibility code has 65 clauses for shareholders, 3 for staff and a fat zero for customers. He also approves the Yes vote as good for Scotland.
"The boss of one of Britain’s biggest bookmakers, Ladbrokes, has been handed a staggering 85% total remuneration rise as the firm’s operating profits plunged.
Richard Glynn, the chief executive of Ladbrokes, was given a total pay package of £4.7m ($7.8m, €5.6m) last year, an increase of 85%, thanks in part to a one-off £3.9m share plan that was voted through on his appointment in 2010 and vested last year.
According to Ladbrokes’ annual report, the first performance test under the plan occurred at the end of June 2013.
David Martin, chairman of Ladbrokes remuneration committee, said: "We recognise that our share price has decreased recently, and as our executive directors have voluntarily not sold any shares they have been exposed to the decrease in share price in the same way as all other shareholders"
Looks like some staff had the initiative to not take illegal and arbitrary sacking lying down and got £43k compensation from W Hill. With the pathetic Gambling Commission so gullible and naïve and totally in the pockets of the "Big4" they need all the help they can get from the Courts.
Let’s hope in this case they did not get reinstated and have found worthwhile jobs with decent employers.
See below from a real bookmaker:
"BEN’S BLOG: ‘More collusion between the Gambling Commission and the Big Firms’
Published On September 10, 2014 | Ben Keith
ben_keith_team-150x150Today, on Corporate Hypocrisy Watch, we’re off to Hamilton, I’m afraid, Blog… Those who read Tuesday’s Racing Post (I find that corporate types rarely do), will have seen the article, written by Graham Green, on page 6. William Hill have been found-out, for being the holier-than-thou, suck-up wets, that they are, and ordered to pay £43k, to three Staffs, they’ve unfairly dismissed.
gcThe three, had served a 16 year old, who was using fake ID. I am ABSOLUTELY DELIGHTED that Hills have lost this case. As I’m CERTAIN, that the management, who were trying to sacrifice the previous employees, only to look good to the Gambling Commission, neeevvveeeerrr eeevvvveeeerrrr, would have had a drink, or a bet, before they were 18 years old, themselves. Oh no, no, no, no, noooo, Blog! CORPORATE PEOPLE’S FARTS DON’T SMELL ONE BIT!!
In other news:
rpI then moved along (like I think it’s fine if the moaning Jocks do (with nothing) and reached Betting Window, on page 10, where Bill Barber informs us, that the GC have been testing, to see if under-18s, are being served in betting-shops. Oh, but they only checked out the independents. Why’s that then, Blog? Because the Big Firms have told them that they do their own checks. HAHAHAHA! I’M DELIGHTED to hear that!! If the Firms have said they don’t need to be checked, we should all just believe them, and let the Gam Comm concentrate on bullying small operators out of the game. IT’S NICE TO KNOW THE RULES AT LAST.
It sounds like the GC’s recent efforts at Royal Ascot, where, using a tarted-up 17 year old girl, they spent the afternoon, helpfully trying to put bets on with the busy bookmakers. On questioning the Gam Comm rep, the bookies asked ‘But did you check the The Tote?’. The answer that came back, Blog? ‘Oh no, we were just doing the on-course bookies’.
JUST KEEP COLLECTING YOUR MONEY-FOR-NOTHING, RIP-OFF CHARGES, AND LET US GET ON WITH OUR BUSINESS IN PEACE, PLEASE.
Over and out, B x
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/may/31/big-gamble-dangerous-british-betting-shops
Thought-provoking stuff.
A depressing litany of violent crime in which the overwhelming link seems to be FOBT players. Quelle surprise.
Mike
I used to work in a hills shop around 15 years ago when a student, at that time they were just bringing in virtual racing (do they still show that crap?). but the atmosphere and the punters in the shop was still good. Nowadays they are no go zones (from my experience in London). Now that we have FOBT and that they make so much money, they will never be banned. Personally I would rather go to the betting shop on a Saturday morning instead of online and put a few lines and coupons on and placepots etc, but shops are such a state its not an option. Your average betting shop cashier in central London couldn’t tell you the difference between a horse and a greyhound..
If Ladbrokes are saving £15m per annum as a result of single manning, and the company gives £150,000 to every employee who dies while working for them, they can afford to have 100 fatalities a year in their shops before single manning becomes uneconomic.
Of course, that equation only exists in a moral vacuum, and I’m sure there is some element of morality within the Ladbrokes hierarchy, however difficult it is to seek out. The prospect of more deaths in their outlets must have been discussed at a very senior level and I’m curious to know how that discussion played out, not that the consensus will ever be revealed.
The Ladbrokes policy following the killing of Andrew Iacovou was, ‘to sell it as a one-in-a-million anomaly that can never happen again’. They can’t do that next time so how will they ‘sell’ a second fatality to their staff, to the government, and to the public at large.
Sadly, I think the chances of this happening again are shorter than Ladbrokes would have us believe. This is not to argue that double manned shops are totally safe, but a single manned shop is a more likely target simply because it is single manned.
I’m also curious to know how much, if anything, Miss X received from Ladbrokes following the sexual assault on her in Leicestershire in June last year. I can find no information on that subject online.
Long time listener first time caller here. Former betting shop deputy manager of over 5 years, one of the major high street firms. I wont mention which as there really is little difference between them past the name above the front door. I’m also a relatively small staking punter and have used FOBTs (although very much not any more in the case of the latter).
A very good and interesting piece. Sadly, for once, I don’t think the article is particularly exaggerating or making things up. I was lucky enough to work in a shop in a small town and most of the time I enjoyed it, we had a good group of regulars and the staff all got on too. I can’t say I’ve witnessed much of what is described in the article first hand but I have little doubt that it does happen exactly as described.
I know this is hardly a groundbreaking revelation but there is something about FOBTs that is different than all of the over the counter gambling. We never had machines smashed up but people do quickly get incredibly angry and respectable looking adults can make themselves look very childish when losing on machines. Certainly far more than when the same happens on horses and dogs. I think deep down we (I include myself in this as I have played, and of course lost more than I should have, on machines) know that there is only one person to blame for our machine losses and it certainly isn’t Mr Hill, Mr Coral, Fred or the poor sod behind the counter. The ease and speed with which money can be lost of course only adds to the problem. Sadly some people take their anger too far and take it out on the wrong people and these awful events happen.
I think the difference with over the counter betting is that it is of course a slower process. Even if you are compelled to gamble on every horse/dog/virtual race it’s nothing like the two or three spins a minute you can do on roulette. Also you can (sometimes legitimately) blame the jockey, the pea-brained dog or the clown who missed an open goal to chin your football acca. Even when people did get angry at such things, it was far less severe and died down much quicker. The belief that it was not us at fault but someone else is much easier to take.
As I said before, it may only be deep down or sub-concious, but at the end of the day we know machine losses are our own fault and ours alone. Of course outwardly everybody under the sun is at fault bar us. What sort of rational being walks up to a machine with their hard earned, reads the 92% payout message and piles it in regardless?
Thanks for reading my poorly structured waffle, hope you somehow find it relevant. Happy to answer any questions about my time behind enemy lines although from my lurking I know there a few current or former employees about.
having worked in betting shops in the nineties for several companies I feel I am at least a little bit informed on the subject!!
IMO FTOB machines attract a completely different type of customer to betting shops. The usual or used to be usual customer bet on horses dogs football or whatever and over a period of time they learnt to cope or accept their losses.
FTOB customers seem to not be anything like as laisse faire about things and the anger and frustration builds up much quicker than it would do if they were betting on horses dogs etc.
I know nothing about FTOB machines but I do know that when one arm bandits or whatever they are called were introduced into shops I worked in they almost guaranteed an income for the shop of between ten and twenty thousand pounds a year each and we had two per shop !
From a business point of view it makes it a no brainer to have them and I imagine that FTOB’s make even more profit for the shop and the company and majot high street bookies are not going to do away with them whatever the circumstances!!It is a shame because betting shops used to be interesting places and a lot of them were almost like social clubs with the regulars all knowing each other but now they are just turnover machines for corporate thieves who care not a jot for staff!!
My own experience of working in a betting shop dates back to the 60’s and I’ve rarely entered a shop since going full time in the 90’s – but I do have a sister that managed shops for Coral up until six years ago.
Just maybe the reason the some people losing on FOBTs resort to criminal behaviour, is because they are in fact criminals. I mean, where else is all that money coming from?
Criminals are using the machines to launder money, but the majority of play is straight, I think. That 92% Richard mentions is actually between 97% and 98% return of ‘investment’ and therein lies much of the attraction of FOBTs: you can spend a longer time turning over your money than at the 80% return route on horses.
The upside of FOBTs for bookies is the profit. The downside is that FOBTs are now the basket in which they’ve unwittingly placed all their eggs. Drastic cuts to FOBT turnover would see at least 50% of High Street shops close. In many cases FOBTs are subsidising racing coverage in shops.
What the answer is to the violence, I don’t know. It has always existed in the industry. Many a time in the 1970s from behind a shop counter I saw staff challenged to come out and fight over late bets, refused bets, wrongly settled bets etc.
If shops must double-man for security rather than commercial reasons, then each shop will reach a tipping point. Even in the booming 70s I saw shops closed which were profitable but simply unmanageable. When the security men at the door were scared to turn up for work, that was the time to pull the plug.
I used to enjoy working in the industry – those really were the good old days – and I know there are still plenty of shops where staff love the game and wouldn’t do anything else. It’s not all savagery and gloom.
Condolences to all those affected by violence.
The 92% figure is approximately what it is for the slot games (which it is also entirely possible to do your brains on but roulette is where the problem comes from, we all know that) sorry, crossed wires. Either way, you will lose on machines. Of course the vast majority lose on horses/dogs/sports but the fact is people can and do win, but not even Mr Curley himself can make a roulette number come in 10 times in a row.
I should add that I genuinely enjoyed my time there. Like I said I was in a small town, we had a decent group of regulars, some of whom I still count as friends, and little trouble. The staff were also good and knowledgeable, we had most sports covered between us. Sadly more of an exception than a rule. Someone mentioned London, I tried getting a boxing bet on last time I was there. Would have had more chance jumping in the ring myself
I soon left and used my phone.
VG 
I soon left and used my phone.- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.