Pizza Hut workers accuse franchisee of docking wages
Pizza Hut workers are accusing a franchise of ''blatantly unlawful'' behaviour alleging it has altered timesheets, docked wages and stopped payments per delivery.
Glenshire Group which runs all 22 Pizza Hut delivery outlets in Scotland has been served with a grievance by the Unite union on behalf of drivers who claim they were told of changes by text with no consultation.
Delivery driver, Cian, told the BBC that Glenshire had shown ''a complete disdain for their staff and their customers'' and said it was ''quite honestly abysmal''.
Glenshire said it is "absolutely committed to robust employment practices" and said it is "listening to our colleagues, to understand where there are concerns".
Cian, 30, has been delivering pizzas in the west of Glasgow for more than two years. An employee of Pizza Hut franchise, Glenshire Group, he has always been paid the National Living Wage plus a fee of £1.45 per delivery.
But he said his terms and conditions were changed without consultation or warning.
He said two weeks ago he and several other drivers were told via text message that his pay had increased to £12.21 an hour but he had lost his £1.45 delivery payments, or what the company calls "discretionary driver commissions".
''The £1.45 would pay for my fuel and a tiny bit of the running cost of my car but I've been living paycheque to paycheque," he told the BBC.
"We had multiple drivers just quit because they simply can't afford to do this job if they're having to pay for their own fuel. There's one shop that has lost every single one of their drivers.''
In a letter to staff dated 10 March, seen by the BBC, Glenshire said: "We have removed discretionary driver commissions with effect from today. This change is necessary to ensure the sustainability of our operations."
The letter does not state that the company has any plans in place to ensure drivers' expenses will be paid by Glenshire.
In a statement to the BBC, the company said that ''driver commissions have not been reduced, rather the remuneration model has changed from a 'per delivery' amount to a 'per mile' basis".
Unite's head of hospitality, Bryan Simpson has accused Glenshire of ''a cynical attempt to offload over 100 drivers'' before the rise in employers' National Insurance Contributions (NICs), the National Minimum Wage (NMW) and the National Living Wage on 1 April.
Among the increases next month, the National Living Wage for people aged 21 and over will rise from £11.44 to £12.21.
"I have never seen something so blatantly unlawful occur, even in an industry, frankly, that is not known for decent workers rights. This is the worst that I've came across in over a decade," Mr Simpson said.
He said the loss of drivers' commission per delivery could effectively mean that "these workers are going to be brought below the minimum wage.
"They're going to be losing thousands of pounds a year. So, as far as we are concerned, this is fire and rehire under a different name.''
Unite's grievance, seen exclusively by the BBC, also accused Glenshire of acting ''fraudulently'' by going into old staff timesheets and retroactively adding unpaid 20 minute rest breaks.
In a text message seen by the BBC, Glenshire director Zibby Ghafoor told store managers ''all time sheets have been deleted for last week..can we please add breaks in."
Unite claims Glenshire unlawfully deducted these breaks from their wages.
In its statement, Glenshire said that there have been "no changes to break policies".
A manager called Adam, not his real name, said he works for hours on his own in his store. He said it's simply not possible to take breaks.
"You do not get your 20 minutes of uninterrupted time ever...so not only do we not get breaks, we now get charged for the breaks that we don't take.''
Cian says it's his ''civic duty'' to speak out even though he knows it could put him at risk of losing his job. ''I'm trying to help people who can't stand up for themselves, because the way the Glenshire group have treated everyone is abysmal. The long term ramifications of what they are doing, it's just not worth me keeping my job.''
Glenshire Group employs more than 200 staff including more than 100 delivery drivers although over the last few days, the BBC understands several have quit.
In the 10 March letter to staff, Glenshire said that with the increases in employer NICs and the National Living Wage rise on 1 April it was having to "reassess our driver delivery model in order to retain business viability".
It also said drivers could choose to switch from being employed to self-employed.
The letter stressed this would be a voluntary choice and would not be compulsory. Glenshire last night told the BBC there were "no blanket changes to self-employed contracts taking place".
Employment lawyer Joanne Moseley of Irwin Mitchell warned that from 1 April, when the new National Living Wage is introduced, Glenshire could be in breach of minimum wage regulations.
"If Glenshire doesn't reimburse its drivers for payments they've incurred in connection with their employment - in this case their petrol expenses - they will be in breach of the NMW regulations. HMRC will investigate and has the power to impose financial penalties," she says.
Adam called on bosses of the Pizza Hut company to investigate the Glenshire franchise.
"Please be aware of what this company are doing to your brand. Please be aware of what they're doing to the staff and all for their own benefit, all to save them money," he said.
A spokesperson for Pizza Hut UK said: "Pizza Hut is deeply committed to ensuring a safe and fair working environment for all employees and as such has strict policies in place that its franchise businesses must adhere to.
"Although Glenshire Group operates as an independent franchisee and is ultimately responsible for its own employment practices, we take these allegations seriously.
"Glenshire will be actively engaging in the coming days with any concerned employees, and we will continue to investigate this situation."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Why the BBC thinks it can get Labour to give it more funding
Tim Davie struck a gloomy tone when discussing the BBC's finances on Tuesday, as he renewed calls for extra funding. 'I want proper investment and not begrudging, grinding cuts to the BBC, which you've had in the last 10 years, which have just not helped,' the director general said. The timing of his comments was key. Davie is currently locked in talks with ministers ahead of the BBC's Charter renewal in 2027, as he fights for the future of the licence fee. Bosses in W1A acknowledge that the funding model requires reform in the modern media age. But how this will affect the BBC's stretched finances is a critical question as it continues to lose viewers at an alarming rate. The licence fee has existed in some guise since the BBC's launch in 1922, when the government decided the new broadcaster should be publicly funded. This, the corporation says, allows its UK output to remain 'free of advertisements and independent of shareholder and political interest'. While the BBC was initially limited to radio services, the first combined radio and TV licence was issued in 1946 for £2. Fast-forward to the 21st century and the BBC has transformed from a fledgling broadcaster into a public service behemoth. Income from the licence fee stood at £3.7bn last year, a significant chunk of the UK's entertainment and media market, which is valued at around £100bn by PwC. However, this scale does not tell the full story. With the emergence of streaming rivals such as Netflix and Disney, as well as social media platforms such as YouTube and TikTok, the BBC is facing an identity crisis. While the public service broadcaster continues to dominate the UK media space – around 86pc of adults consume its services each week, according to the latest Ofcom figures – it is losing ground. This is particularly acute among 16 to 24-year-olds, who spend just 5pc of their in-home video time with the BBC, compared to the 23pc for over-35s. Waning interest has meant lower income as viewers vote with their feet. The number of households paying the licence fee dropped to 23.9m last year – a 500,000 fall that sucked £80m from the BBC's budget. The figure is 2.3m lower than the peak of 26.2m between 2017 and 2019. Cost is likely to be a factor. At £174.50 per year, the licence fee comes in at around £14.50 a month. That compares to £5.99 a month for Netflix's ad tier, or £12.99 for its standard ad-free service. Disney charges £4.99 with ads or £8.99 without. While the BBC argues it offers good value for money given the breadth of its service, this is unlikely to win over apathetic youngsters who consider Auntie irrelevant. The fall in licence fee payers is not the only driving force behind the BBC's squeezed finances, however. Over the last 15 years, repeated government interventions have taken their toll. In 2010, George Osborne announced the licence fee would be frozen for seven years at £145.50. Nadine Dorries, former culture secretary, then froze the levy again in 2022, even as inflation surged. The fee will now increase in line with inflation until the end of the Charter in 2027, but only after another Tory culture secretary, Lucy Frazer, stepped in to prevent a 9pc – or £15 – rise amid concerns it would fuel the cost of living crisis. Adding further strain to the budget, the government in 2015 forced the BBC to take over the cost of providing free licence fees to the over-75s, while it also handed over the main burden of funding the World Service. Analysis shows that Government interference, coupled with a decline in licence fee payers, amounts to a real-terms decrease of around 30pc – or £1.4bn – in the broadcaster's domestic funding over the last 15 years. The question, then, is how to plug the gap. Davie has been wielding the axe on both staff and programming as he seeks to strip £700m from the BBC's annual budget. Yet this whittling down of resources has fuelled anger and concern about the impact on the quality of the broadcaster's output, with spending on new shows poised to fall by £150m this year. The BBC has also ramped up enforcement of the licence fee, with 41m warnings sent out in the 2024 financial year – an increase of almost 13pc year on year. Another method championed by Davie, the former BBC Studios boss, is to boost the broadcaster's commercial income to help balance the books. Measures so far have included taking full control of BritBox International, the BBC's joint streaming venture with ITV, after buying out its rival for £225m. The BBC has also struck a co-production deal with Disney to air Doctor Who overseas, worth an estimated $100m (£73m). But other schemes, such as its plan to run adverts around radio and podcast output, have been scrapped in the face of fierce opposition from commercial rivals. Despite its bold aims, the BBC's commercial income fell to £1.7bn last year from just under £2bn the year before. Overall, the BBC is forecasting a £33m deficit for the coming year. While this is down from the eye-watering £500m shortfall the previous year, it highlights the ongoing strain on the corporation's finances. It is against this precarious backdrop that the BBC has entered discussions with the Government. Ministers have made it clear, however, that reform, or even scrapping, of the licence fee is top of the agenda. While the licence fee is now lower as a proportion of average household income – 0.46pc last year compared to 0.64pc in 2012 – the levy is facing scrutiny in a world where viewers have a plethora of entertainment options. What's more, the licence fee is regressive, with poorer households paying more relative to their income and women disproportionately prosecuted for not paying. So if the licence fee were to be scrapped, what could take its place? One option is replacing it with a subscription model, similar to those of streaming services. However, critics have warned that such a move risks undermining the BBC's ability to serve its audiences and would limit the scope of its output. 'A subscription funding model would be antithetical to the BBC's public service mission, necessarily ending universality of access and undermining its breadth of content,' said analysts at Enders Analysis. Similarly, funding the BBC through advertising has been viewed as a non-starter as it would draw too much money away from the commercial TV and radio sector. Both Davie and Samir Shah, the BBC chairman, have pushed to retain the licence fee with reforms, acknowledging the shortcomings of a regressive flat tax. But what would this look like? Lisa Nandy, the Culture Secretary, has pushed back against the idea of funding the BBC through general taxation, saying it would leave the broadcaster exposed to political interference. Another option is a household tax similar to the one used in Germany. This would boost the BBC's income by widening the payment of the licence fee to all households, rather than just those who use its services. It could also be linked to council tax bands, creating a more progressive system where wealthier households pay more. Other options under consideration include linking the levy to broadband bills – a measure that would take on particular relevance as Britain prepares to switch off terrestrial TV and move to a streaming-only model. It is thought that any of these reforms would reduce the rate of evasion, though ministers will no doubt be reluctant to introduce new taxes, especially in light of the upcoming spending review. In a speech last month, Davie said: 'When it comes to funding, we are not asking for the status quo. We want modernisation and reform. But in doing so, we must safeguard universality.' Alternatively, as the BBC's Charter comes up for renewal, ministers could opt for a bolder rethink. The corporation retains its Reithian principles to inform, educate and entertain. But in the modern age, does the BBC still need to be all things to all people? Some industry watchers note that the BBC could drop some of its more peripheral services, such as its education unit Bitesize. BBC bosses are themselves alive to this possibility, and the broadcaster in March launched its largest ever public survey to ask audiences what they want from the broadcaster in the future. A more radical view espoused by a number of industry bigwigs is a merger between the UK's public service broadcasters. Sir Peter Bazalgette, the former chairman of ITV, says: 'There's no doubt in my mind that there ought to be mergers between domestic broadcasters, not just in England, but right across Europe, in order for those broadcasters to survive and have big enough businesses in their streaming services.' Speaking at a conference in London this week, Sony Pictures international boss Wayne Garvie said: 'We've got five public service broadcasters in Britain. The rest of the world might have one. 'It is unsustainable and the future has got to be, surely, Channel 4 and the BBC coming together.' The idea of slimming down the BBC or combining it with its rivals will no doubt rankle supporters who view the universality of access as a key tenet of its purpose. But as competition grows and audiences continue to defect, it is clear the status quo cannot continue. Instead of trying to do more with less, it may be time for the public service broadcaster to simply do less. Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
12 hours ago
- Yahoo
Government struggles to cut foreign aid spent on asylum hotels
The government is struggling to cut the amount of foreign aid it spends on hotel bills for asylum seekers in the UK, the BBC has learnt. New figures released quietly by ministers in recent days show the Home Office plans to spend £2.2bn of overseas development assistance (ODA) this financial year - that is only marginally less than the £2.3bn it spent in 2024/25. The money is largely used to cover the accommodation costs of thousands of asylum seekers who have recently arrived in the UK. The Home Office said it was committed to ending asylum hotels and was speeding up asylum decisions to save taxpayers' money. The figures were published on the Home Office website with no accompanying notification to media. Foreign aid is supposed to be spent alleviating poverty by providing humanitarian and development assistance overseas. But under international rules, governments can spend some of their foreign aid budgets at home to support asylum seekers during the first year after their arrival. According to the most recent Home Office figures, there are about 32,000 asylum seekers in hotels in the UK. Labour promised in its manifesto to "end asylum hotels, saving the taxpayer billions of pounds". Contracts signed by the Conservative government in 2019 were expected to see £4.5bn of public cash paid to three companies to accommodate asylum seekers over a 10-year period. But a report by spending watchdog the National Audit Office (NAO) in May said that number was expected to be £15.3bn. Asylum accommodation costs set to triple, says watchdog Asylum hotel companies vow to hand back some profits On June 3, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper told the Home Affairs Committee she was "concerned about the level of money" being spent on asylum seekers' accommodation and added: "We need to end asylum hotels altogether." The Home Office said it was trying to bear down on the numbers by reducing the time asylum seekers can appeal against decisions. It is also planning to introduce tighter financial eligibility checks to ensure only those without means are housed. But Whitehall officials and international charities have said the Home Office has no incentive to reduce ODA spending because the money does not come out of its budgets. The scale of government aid spending on asylum hotels has meant huge cuts in UK support for humanitarian and development priorities across the world. Those cuts have been exacerbated by the government's reductions to the overall ODA budget. In February, Sir Keir Starmer said he would cut aid spending from 0.5% of gross national income to 0.3% by 2027 - a fall in absolute terms of about £14bn to some £9bn. Such was the scale of aid spending on asylum hotels in recent years that the previous Conservative government gave the Foreign Office an extra £2bn to shore up its humanitarian commitments overseas. But Labour has refused to match that commitment. Gideon Rabinowitz, director of policy at the Bond network of development organisations, said: "Cutting the UK aid budget while using it to prop up Home Office costs is a reckless repeat of decisions taken by the previous Conservative government. "Diverting £2.2bn of UK aid to cover asylum accommodation in the UK is unsustainable, poor value for money, and comes at the expense of vital development and humanitarian programmes tackling the root causes of poverty, conflict and displacement. "It is essential that we support refugees and asylum seekers in the UK, but the government should not be robbing Peter to pay Paul." Sarah Champion, chair of the International Development Committee, said the government was introducing "savage cuts" to its ODA spending, risking the UK's development priorities and international reputation, while "Home Office raids on the aid budget" had barely reduced. "Aid is meant to help the poorest and most vulnerable across the world: to alleviate poverty, improve life chances and reduce the risk of conflict," she said. "Allowing the Home Office to spend it in the UK makes this task even harder." "The government must get a grip on spending aid in the UK," she said. "The Spending Review needs to finally draw a line under this perverse use of taxpayer money designed to keep everyone safe and prosperous in their own homes, not funding inappropriate, expensive accommodation here." Shadow home secretary Chris Philp said: "Labour promised in their manifesto to end the use of asylum hotels for illegal immigrants. But the truth is there are now thousands more illegal migrants being housed in hotels under Labour. "Now these documents reveal that Labour are using foreign aid to pay for asylum hotel accommodation – yet another promise broken." A Home Office spokesperson said: "We inherited an asylum system under exceptional pressure, and continue to take action, restoring order, and reduce costs. This will ultimately reduce the amount of Official Development Assistance spent to support asylum seekers and refugees in the UK. "We are immediately speeding up decisions and increasing returns so that we can end the use of hotels and save the taxpayer £4bn by 2026." Is the government meeting its pledges on illegal immigration and asylum?
Yahoo
13 hours ago
- Yahoo
Will Musk's explosive row with Trump help or harm his businesses?
When Elon Musk recently announced that he was stepping back from politics, investors hoped that would mean he would step up his involvement in the many tech firms he runs. His explosive row with President Donald Trump - and the very public airing of his dirty White House laundry - suggests Musk's changing priorities might not quite be the salve they had been hoping for. Instead of Musk retreating somewhat from the public eye and focusing on boosting the fortunes of Tesla and his other enterprises, he now finds himself being threatened with a boycott from one of his main customers - Trump's federal government. Tesla shares were sent into freefall on Thursday - falling 14% - as he sounded off about President Donald Trump on social media. They rebounded a little on Friday following some indications tempers were cooling. Even so, for the investors and analysts who, for months, had made clear they wanted Musk off his phone and back at work, the situation is far from ideal. Some though argue the problems for Musk's businesses run much deeper than this spat - and the controversial role in the Trump administration it has brought a spectacular end to. For veteran tech journalist Kara Swisher, that is especially so for Tesla. "Tesla's finished," she told the BBC on the sidelines of the San Francisco Media Summit early this week. "It was a great car company. They could compete in the autonomous taxi space but they're way behind." Tesla has long attempted to play catch-up against rival Waymo, owned by Google-parent Alphabet, whose driverless taxis have traversed the streets of San Francisco for years - and now operate in several more cities. This month, Musk is supposed to be overseeing Tesla's launch of a batch of autonomous robo-taxis in Austin, Texas. He posted to X last week that the electric vehicle maker had been testing the Model Y with no drivers on board. "I believe 90% of the future value of Tesla is going to be autonomous and robotics," Wedbush Securities analyst Dan Ives told the BBC this week, adding that the Austin launch would be "a watershed moment". "The first task at hand is ensuring the autonomous vision gets off to a phenomenal start," Ives added. Who is Elon Musk? How the Trump-Musk feud erupted But with Musk's attention divided, the project's odds of success would appear to have lengthened. And there's something else to factor in too: Musk's own motivation. The talk in Silicon Valley lately centres less on whether Musk can turn things around and more on whether he even cares. "He's a really powerful person when he's focused on something," said Ross Gerber, President and CEO of Gerber Kawasaki Wealth and Investment Management. "Before, it was about proving to the world that he would make EVs - the tech that nobody else could do. It was about proving he could make rockets. He had a lot to prove." A longtime Tesla investor, Gerber has soured on the stock, and has been pairing back his holdings since Musk's foray into right-wing politics. He called Thursday an "extremely painful day." "It's the dumbest thing you could possibly do to think that you have more power than the president of the United States," Gerber said, referring to Musk's social media tirade against Trump. The BBC reached out to X, Tesla, and SpaceX seeking comment from Mr Musk but did not receive a response. A particular problem for Musk is that, before he seemingly created an enemy in Donald Trump, he already had one in the grassroots social media campaign against his car-maker. Protests, dubbed #TeslaTakedown, have played out across the country every weekend since Trump took office. In April, Tesla reported a 20% drop in car sales for the first three months of the year. Profits plunged more than 70%, and the share price went down with it. "He should not be deciding the fate of our democracy by disassembling our government piece by piece. It's not right," protestor Linda Koistinen told me at a demonstration outside a Berkeley, California Tesla dealership in February. Koistinen said she wanted to make a "visible stand" against Musk personally. "Ultimately it's not about the tech or the Tesla corporation," said Joan Donovan, a prominent disinformation researcher who co-organized the #TeslaTakedown protests on social media. "It's about the way in which the stock of Tesla has been able to be weaponized against the people and it has put Musk in such a position to have an incredible amount of power with no transparency," Donovan added. Another aspect of Musk's empire that has raised the ire of his detractors is X, the social media platform once known as Twitter. "He bought Twitter so that he had clout and would be able to - at the drop of a hat - reach hundreds of millions of people," Donovan said. There is another possibility here though. Could Musk's high-profile falling out with Trump help rehabilitate him in the eyes of people who turned against him because of his previous closeness to the president? Patrick Moorhead, chief analyst at Moor Insights & Strategy, thinks it could. "We're a very forgiving country," Moorhead says in a telephone interview. "These things take time," he acknowledges, but "it's not unprecedented". Swisher likened Musk's personal brand to that of Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates more than two decades ago. She said Gates was once regarded as "the Darth Vader of Silicon Valley" because of his "arrogant and rude" personality. Today, despite his flaws, Gates has largely rehabilitated his image. "He learned. He grew up. People can change," Swisher told me, even though Musk is "clearly troubled." The problem for Musk is the future for him and his companies is not just about what he does - but what Trump decides too. And while Trump needed Musk in the past, not least to help fund his presidential race, it's not so clear he does now. Noah Smith, writer of the Noahpinion Substack, said Trump's highly lucrative foray into cryptocurrencies - as unseemly as it has been - may have freed him from depending on Musk to carry out his will. "My guess is that this was so he could get out from under Elon," Smith said. In Trump's most menacing comment of the day, he suggested cutting Musk's government contracts, which have an estimated value of $38 billion. A significant chunk of that goes to Musk's rocket company SpaceX - seemingly threatening its future. However, despite the bluster, Trump's warning may be a little more hollow than it seems. That's because SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft ferries people and cargo to the International Space Station where three NASA astronauts are currently posted. It demonstrates that SpaceX has so entrenched itself in the US space and national security apparatus, that Trump's threat could be difficult to carry out. You could make a similar argument about Musk's internet satellite company, Starlink. Finding an alternative could be easier said than done. But, if there are limits on what Trump can do, the same is also true of Musk. In the middle of his row with Trump, he threatened to decommission the Dragon - but it wasn't long before he was rowing back. Responding to an X user's suggestion he that he "cool down" he wrote, "Good advice. Ok, we won't decommission Dragon." It's clear Musk and Trump's friendship is over. It's less certain their reliance on each other is. Whatever the future for Musk's businesses is then, it seems Trump - and his administration's actions - will continue to have a big say in them. Trump and Musk trade insults as row erupts in public view Tesla shares tumble as Trump-Musk feud erupts Sign up for our Tech Decoded newsletter to follow the world's top tech stories and trends. Outside the UK? Sign up here. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
