Reporting bad business
Discussion
I recently went on an 'observation day' with a company after having an interview with them. The advert for the job was completely misleading and, during the observation day, I became more and more suspicious of the company.
It's a group of companies all under one umbrella name. After I got home, I did some research and concluded the company was doing several illegal things. In short, they're fraudsters. However, they're a relatively large company and, even though elements of the company have been investigated by the BBC, among others, in the past, they manage to get away with what they do because they do nothing that is explicitly illegal.
My main concerns are these:
- Staff consistently earn less than the minimum wage; often nothing at all.
- Staff work extraordinarily long hours and break a rule relating to their work.
- Staff are considered 'self-employed' so the onus is on them to sort out tax/NI. None of them do.
I've been as vague as possible intentionally.
Earlier on today I contacted one of the company's 'clients' to try and find out if they were aware of how the company worked. They weren't interested, even though you would expect them to be if you knew what they did.
Who would I contact with my concerns? I don't mean newspapers - although I'm considering that - I mean regulatory bodies.
It's a group of companies all under one umbrella name. After I got home, I did some research and concluded the company was doing several illegal things. In short, they're fraudsters. However, they're a relatively large company and, even though elements of the company have been investigated by the BBC, among others, in the past, they manage to get away with what they do because they do nothing that is explicitly illegal.
My main concerns are these:
- Staff consistently earn less than the minimum wage; often nothing at all.
- Staff work extraordinarily long hours and break a rule relating to their work.
- Staff are considered 'self-employed' so the onus is on them to sort out tax/NI. None of them do.
I've been as vague as possible intentionally.
Earlier on today I contacted one of the company's 'clients' to try and find out if they were aware of how the company worked. They weren't interested, even though you would expect them to be if you knew what they did.
Who would I contact with my concerns? I don't mean newspapers - although I'm considering that - I mean regulatory bodies.
TVR Sagaris said:
I recently went on an 'observation day' with a company after having an interview with them. The advert for the job was completely misleading and, during the observation day, I became more and more suspicious of the company.
It's a group of companies all under one umbrella name. After I got home, I did some research and concluded the company was doing several illegal things. In short, they're fraudsters. However, they're a relatively large company and, even though elements of the company have been investigated by the BBC, among others, in the past, they manage to get away with what they do because they do nothing that is explicitly illegal.
My main concerns are these:
- Staff consistently earn less than the minimum wage; often nothing at all.
- Staff work extraordinarily long hours and break a rule relating to their work.
- Staff are considered 'self-employed' so the onus is on them to sort out tax/NI. None of them do.
I've been as vague as possible intentionally.
Earlier on today I contacted one of the company's 'clients' to try and find out if they were aware of how the company worked. They weren't interested, even though you would expect them to be if you knew what they did.
Who would I contact with my concerns? I don't mean newspapers - although I'm considering that - I mean regulatory bodies.
What general arena of business would this be?It's a group of companies all under one umbrella name. After I got home, I did some research and concluded the company was doing several illegal things. In short, they're fraudsters. However, they're a relatively large company and, even though elements of the company have been investigated by the BBC, among others, in the past, they manage to get away with what they do because they do nothing that is explicitly illegal.
My main concerns are these:
- Staff consistently earn less than the minimum wage; often nothing at all.
- Staff work extraordinarily long hours and break a rule relating to their work.
- Staff are considered 'self-employed' so the onus is on them to sort out tax/NI. None of them do.
I've been as vague as possible intentionally.
Earlier on today I contacted one of the company's 'clients' to try and find out if they were aware of how the company worked. They weren't interested, even though you would expect them to be if you knew what they did.
Who would I contact with my concerns? I don't mean newspapers - although I'm considering that - I mean regulatory bodies.
Just out of interest really, I've had a very similar experience in the last six months.
I was fairly keen to do something about it, but in the end I figured I'd be wasting a lot of effort for a highly uncertain outcome.
TVR Sagaris said:
I recently went on an 'observation day' with a company after having an interview with them. The advert for the job was completely misleading and, during the observation day, I became more and more suspicious of the company.
It's a group of companies all under one umbrella name. After I got home, I did some research and concluded the company was doing several illegal things. In short, they're fraudsters. However, they're a relatively large company and, even though elements of the company have been investigated by the BBC, among others, in the past, they manage to get away with what they do because they do nothing that is explicitly illegal.
My main concerns are these:
- Staff consistently earn less than the minimum wage; often nothing at all.
- Staff work extraordinarily long hours and break a rule relating to their work.
- Staff are considered 'self-employed' so the onus is on them to sort out tax/NI. None of them do.
I've been as vague as possible intentionally.
Earlier on today I contacted one of the company's 'clients' to try and find out if they were aware of how the company worked. They weren't interested, even though you would expect them to be if you knew what they did.
Who would I contact with my concerns? I don't mean newspapers - although I'm considering that - I mean regulatory bodies.
I would do nothing.It's a group of companies all under one umbrella name. After I got home, I did some research and concluded the company was doing several illegal things. In short, they're fraudsters. However, they're a relatively large company and, even though elements of the company have been investigated by the BBC, among others, in the past, they manage to get away with what they do because they do nothing that is explicitly illegal.
My main concerns are these:
- Staff consistently earn less than the minimum wage; often nothing at all.
- Staff work extraordinarily long hours and break a rule relating to their work.
- Staff are considered 'self-employed' so the onus is on them to sort out tax/NI. None of them do.
I've been as vague as possible intentionally.
Earlier on today I contacted one of the company's 'clients' to try and find out if they were aware of how the company worked. They weren't interested, even though you would expect them to be if you knew what they did.
Who would I contact with my concerns? I don't mean newspapers - although I'm considering that - I mean regulatory bodies.
Chances are they are not breaking the law, despite appearances. If they have had investigators all over them they will probably be technically on the right side of the law. Is my guess anyway.
There is a grey area surrounding a lot of legislation which allows some firms to do things which are "suspect" but not actually illegal. But the fact that most people think they are illegal or unlawful means that the operations are often highly profitable.
Legality and lawfulness being different from moral and ethical of course.
Personally I'd just forget I'd ever been there and move on.
In a free world. People should be free to chose or not chose who to work for and what work to do.
As long as they are being mislead.
So what if its under minimum wage. Any positive number is bigger than Zero.
Might be shady morals, but as mentioned above someone can always say "no" if they dont like it.
As long as they are being mislead.
So what if its under minimum wage. Any positive number is bigger than Zero.
Might be shady morals, but as mentioned above someone can always say "no" if they dont like it.
okgo said:
For gods sake, keep your nose out of it. Staff are not FORCED to work there.
I don't know the details of the OP's situation, but that's not strictly true from what I saw. The potential employees were mostly immigrants. I was the only the only white person not working for the company. I don't think that the others had too much choice. Some were struggling with the language, the rest, their education.The thing that really got to me, was that the basic product wasn't even British. Even the rich people in the organisation, and there were some, they weren't making the majority of the money. The basic business happens in other countries too, but it's odd that foreign people come to the UK to exploit UK people and then send the body profit elsewhere.
There comes a point when a product actually worth £350 is being sold for £2500, to people who are a bit vulnerable, and you think "That's not quite right".
Edited by dilbert on Wednesday 18th August 17:10
The Moose said:
I would do nothing and if it doesn't look like a good situation to you, then walk away...
...but keep a note of their business name incase you come into contact with them in the future and won't waste their time.
Cheers
The Moose
Why would I worry about wasting their time?...but keep a note of their business name incase you come into contact with them in the future and won't waste their time.
Cheers
The Moose
I did walk away, and in the back of my mind I might do something about it.
Some of the people on this thread have posted like this type of employer is doing the UK a favour, but I just can't see it myself.
Edited by dilbert on Wednesday 18th August 17:40
Original Poster said:
To be honest, I do not think it is any of your business. You do not work there so it does not concern you, just my view of course.
I'll feel better if I try and do something. Nobody should avoid tax or national insurance payments and, since it's the law, everyone should be paid minimum wage. Although this company is not quite running a pyramid scheme, they're getting very close to that. The people who work there are sucked in.
Manks said:
I would do nothing.
Chances are they are not breaking the law, despite appearances. If they have had investigators all over them they will probably be technically on the right side of the law. Is my guess anyway.
There is a grey area surrounding a lot of legislation which allows some firms to do things which are "suspect" but not actually illegal. But the fact that most people think they are illegal or unlawful means that the operations are often highly profitable.
Legality and lawfulness being different from moral and ethical of course.
Personally I'd just forget I'd ever been there and move on.
This company is one name made up of lots of little companies. That means it's very difficult to plant responsibility on anyone. The investigation into the company by the BBC focused only on one of those little companies, based in one small area. It was then easy for the company at the top to claim it was only an issue with that one element.Chances are they are not breaking the law, despite appearances. If they have had investigators all over them they will probably be technically on the right side of the law. Is my guess anyway.
There is a grey area surrounding a lot of legislation which allows some firms to do things which are "suspect" but not actually illegal. But the fact that most people think they are illegal or unlawful means that the operations are often highly profitable.
Legality and lawfulness being different from moral and ethical of course.
Personally I'd just forget I'd ever been there and move on.
Don't get me wrong: I'm not going to go out of my way and put lots of effort in to try and do something about this.
The HMRC website says this with regard to minimum wage:
"Who can get the minimum wage?
Most adult workers who:
* are working legally in the UK
* are not genuinely self-employed
* have a written, oral or implied contract"
I would say this company had some form of contract with their employees, so HMRC seems like the place to go.
ringram said:
In a free world. People should be free to chose or not chose who to work for and what work to do.
As long as they are being mislead.
So what if its under minimum wage. Any positive number is bigger than Zero.
Might be shady morals, but as mentioned above someone can always say "no" if they dont like it.
As long as they are being mislead.
So what if its under minimum wage. Any positive number is bigger than Zero.
Might be shady morals, but as mentioned above someone can always say "no" if they dont like it.
okgo said:
For gods sake, keep your nose out of it. Staff are not FORCED to work there.
Staff are misled. As I said in my original post, even the advert is incredibly misleading. People are enticed by the company's nonsense.Like I said originally, people often work a full day without earning anything. I was with five people; at least three of them made no money whatsoever and they worked from 11:00 to 23:30. The minimum wage is the law; whether you agree with it or not is irrelevant. It's also very difficult to get a job at the moment.
I got a much better e-mail from one of this company's clients earlier today so that might come to something.
dilbert said:
The Moose said:
I would do nothing and if it doesn't look like a good situation to you, then walk away...
...but keep a note of their business name incase you come into contact with them in the future and won't waste their time.
Cheers
The Moose
Why would I worry about wasting their time?...but keep a note of their business name incase you come into contact with them in the future and won't waste their time.
Cheers
The Moose
I did walk away, and in the back of my mind I might do something about it.
Some of the people on this thread have posted like this type of employer is doing the UK a favour, but I just can't see it myself.
Edited by dilbert on Wednesday 18th August 17:40
What I meant to say was that make a mental note so your own time isn't wasted in the future.
Sorry!!
Cheers
The Moose
TVR Sagaris said:
Original Poster said:
To be honest, I do not think it is any of your business. You do not work there so it does not concern you, just my view of course.
I'll feel better if I try and do something. Nobody should avoid tax or national insurance payments and, since it's the law, everyone should be paid minimum wage. Although this company is not quite running a pyramid scheme, they're getting very close to that. The people who work there are sucked in.
Manks said:
I would do nothing.
Chances are they are not breaking the law, despite appearances. If they have had investigators all over them they will probably be technically on the right side of the law. Is my guess anyway.
There is a grey area surrounding a lot of legislation which allows some firms to do things which are "suspect" but not actually illegal. But the fact that most people think they are illegal or unlawful means that the operations are often highly profitable.
Legality and lawfulness being different from moral and ethical of course.
Personally I'd just forget I'd ever been there and move on.
This company is one name made up of lots of little companies. That means it's very difficult to plant responsibility on anyone. The investigation into the company by the BBC focused only on one of those little companies, based in one small area. It was then easy for the company at the top to claim it was only an issue with that one element.Chances are they are not breaking the law, despite appearances. If they have had investigators all over them they will probably be technically on the right side of the law. Is my guess anyway.
There is a grey area surrounding a lot of legislation which allows some firms to do things which are "suspect" but not actually illegal. But the fact that most people think they are illegal or unlawful means that the operations are often highly profitable.
Legality and lawfulness being different from moral and ethical of course.
Personally I'd just forget I'd ever been there and move on.
Don't get me wrong: I'm not going to go out of my way and put lots of effort in to try and do something about this.
The HMRC website says this with regard to minimum wage:
"Who can get the minimum wage?
Most adult workers who:
* are working legally in the UK
* are not genuinely self-employed
* have a written, oral or implied contract"
I would say this company had some form of contract with their employees, so HMRC seems like the place to go.
ringram said:
In a free world. People should be free to chose or not chose who to work for and what work to do.
As long as they are being mislead.
So what if its under minimum wage. Any positive number is bigger than Zero.
Might be shady morals, but as mentioned above someone can always say "no" if they dont like it.
As long as they are being mislead.
So what if its under minimum wage. Any positive number is bigger than Zero.
Might be shady morals, but as mentioned above someone can always say "no" if they dont like it.
okgo said:
For gods sake, keep your nose out of it. Staff are not FORCED to work there.
Staff are misled. As I said in my original post, even the advert is incredibly misleading. People are enticed by the company's nonsense.Like I said originally, people often work a full day without earning anything. I was with five people; at least three of them made no money whatsoever and they worked from 11:00 to 23:30. The minimum wage is the law; whether you agree with it or not is irrelevant. It's also very difficult to get a job at the moment.
I got a much better e-mail from one of this company's clients earlier today so that might come to something.
Is this a commission-only sales job?
You do also seem exceptionally concerned by all of this, do you feel that this company has wronged you personally in some respect? I don't mean to appear rude but you do seem to be quite worked up about this for someone who has simply been offered an interview.
Manks said:
There's more to this, isn't there?
Is this a commission-only sales job?
You do also seem exceptionally concerned by all of this, do you feel that this company has wronged you personally in some respect? I don't mean to appear rude but you do seem to be quite worked up about this for someone who has simply been offered an interview.
Don't we all have a broader moral duty if we find something seriously fishy? Is this a commission-only sales job?
You do also seem exceptionally concerned by all of this, do you feel that this company has wronged you personally in some respect? I don't mean to appear rude but you do seem to be quite worked up about this for someone who has simply been offered an interview.
Or is PH suddenly pro-exploitation?
There is a difference between avoiding implementing the absolute letter of all regulations (as most businesses do to survive) and a company using a bunch of tiny companies with tiny scale to avoid interest (potentially) using them to exploit people through ignorance, fear and control dodging a whole bunch of laws to to their own end - which is the implication of the OP?
plg said:
Manks said:
There's more to this, isn't there?
Is this a commission-only sales job?
You do also seem exceptionally concerned by all of this, do you feel that this company has wronged you personally in some respect? I don't mean to appear rude but you do seem to be quite worked up about this for someone who has simply been offered an interview.
Don't we all have a broader moral duty if we find something seriously fishy? Is this a commission-only sales job?
You do also seem exceptionally concerned by all of this, do you feel that this company has wronged you personally in some respect? I don't mean to appear rude but you do seem to be quite worked up about this for someone who has simply been offered an interview.
Or is PH suddenly pro-exploitation?
There is a difference between avoiding implementing the absolute letter of all regulations (as most businesses do to survive) and a company using a bunch of tiny companies with tiny scale to avoid interest (potentially) using them to exploit people through ignorance, fear and control dodging a whole bunch of laws to to their own end - which is the implication of the OP?
There's nothing wrong with using multiple small companies. It's how Duncan Bannatyne goes about things, out of interest (search Bannatyne on Companies House).
Based upon what the OP has told us, I don't think it is possible to determine that the company is doing anything seriously improper. From the description it could simply be a team of self-employed sales people working for one of a group of small companies, some of whom didn't take all the breaks they were entitled to.
Edited by Manks on Thursday 19th August 08:28
Manks said:
None of us (the OP included) knows the detail about this situation, so going on some sort of moral crusade is in my opinion unwise at best and pernicious meddling at worst.
Agree that you can use multiple companies - but not to dodge responsibilities. The OP is seeking advice. If a company working in my sector was undercutting me by avoiding some basics (like not paying min wage) and effectively exploiting it's staff, I'd feel a bit hard done by - it's unfair competition. You can't pick and choose the laws you want to operate underMoral crusade - why is unwise to flag up potentially illegal activities?
Pernicious meddling - ????
What happened to the spirit of fair play? We aren't talking about grassing up a fellow trader whose car tax has lapsed by a month - the OP has described a (potential) deliberate wide scale evasion.
Previous posters (and I agree) suggest either reporting to authorities (and allow them to make the judgement) or if your prefer to allow judgement by newspaper, then there are plenty of investigative journos would would like the lead. Min wage specifically: http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/nmw/complaint.htm
plg
You say above:
You say above:
plg said:
Don't we all have a broader moral duty if we find something seriously fishy?
Or is PH suddenly pro-exploitation?
Then you later say:Or is PH suddenly pro-exploitation?
plg said:
If a company working in my sector was undercutting me by avoiding some basics (like not paying min wage) and effectively exploiting it's staff, I'd feel a bit hard done by - it's unfair competition.
So this isn't about moral responsibility this is self interest and a desire that no one gets a competitive advantage over you.Manks said:
plg
You say above:
They aren't mutually exclusive. It can be both.You say above:
plg said:
Don't we all have a broader moral duty if we find something seriously fishy?
Or is PH suddenly pro-exploitation?
Then you later say:Or is PH suddenly pro-exploitation?
plg said:
If a company working in my sector was undercutting me by avoiding some basics (like not paying min wage) and effectively exploiting it's staff, I'd feel a bit hard done by - it's unfair competition.
So this isn't about moral responsibility this is self interest and a desire that no one gets a competitive advantage over you.Gassing Station | Business | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff