Page 3 of 4

Re: Jess Varnish ..

Posted: 17 Dec 2018, 11:47am
by Vorpal
We should fund university for anyone wants it, and similarly do more to subsidise sport at all level.

:mrgreen: :mrgreen:

FIFY :wink:

Re: Jess Varnish ..

Posted: 16 Jan 2019, 10:37pm
by TrevA
Jess Varnish has lost her employment tribunal claiming unfair dismissal, as she has been deemed not to be an employee of British Cycling and therefore not entitled to employment rights.

Re: Jess Varnish ..

Posted: 16 Jan 2019, 10:43pm
by Vorpal
That's not especially surprising. But I hope that they employ elite athletes in the future, instead of funding them through grants.

Re: Jess Varnish ..

Posted: 17 Jan 2019, 6:30am
by landsurfer
Vorpal wrote:That's not especially surprising. But I hope that they employ elite athletes in the future, instead of funding them through grants.


Good idea, then the money won at events, appearance money and money from advertising etc. would stay in BC rather than ending up in the athletes bank account.

Re: Jess Varnish ..

Posted: 17 Jan 2019, 7:51am
by pjclinch
landsurfer wrote:
Vorpal wrote:That's not especially surprising. But I hope that they employ elite athletes in the future, instead of funding them through grants.


Good idea, then the money won at events, appearance money and money from advertising etc. would stay in BC rather than ending up in the athletes bank account.


A bit of a non-sequitur even as sarcasm because it would be down to the fine print on the contract.

Re: Jess Varnish ..

Posted: 17 Jan 2019, 9:32am
by Vorpal
I'm not suggesting that they should lose prize & advertising money.

Re: Jess Varnish ..

Posted: 17 Jan 2019, 2:42pm
by Marcus Aurelius
landsurfer wrote:
Vorpal wrote:That's not especially surprising. But I hope that they employ elite athletes in the future, instead of funding them through grants.


Good idea, then the money won at events, appearance money and money from advertising etc. would stay in BC rather than ending up in the athletes bank account.



Many a true word spoken in jest.

Re: Jess Varnish ..

Posted: 17 Jan 2019, 3:54pm
by landsurfer
Marcus Aurelius wrote:
landsurfer wrote:
Vorpal wrote:That's not especially surprising. But I hope that they employ elite athletes in the future, instead of funding them through grants.


Good idea, then the money won at events, appearance money and money from advertising etc. would stay in BC rather than ending up in the athletes bank account.



Many a true word spoken in jest.


That was my take. HMRC will now have these athletes on their radar and soon the bean counters will be looking closely at total income. Money won at events, appearance money and money from advertising etc. will be able to be taxed at a higher rate if the "grant" from BC becomes classed as their taxable allowance (tax free) income element. Possibly.

Re: Jess Varnish ..

Posted: 17 Jan 2019, 4:29pm
by PH
I'm not surprised by the tribunal's decision and I have no particular opinion on whether a different result would have been in the interest of other sports men and women receiving funding. I am however really disappointed that the ability for anyone to deal with unfair treatment depends on their employment status.

Re: Jess Varnish ..

Posted: 17 Jan 2019, 5:36pm
by landsurfer
PH wrote:I'm not surprised by the tribunal's decision and I have no particular opinion on whether a different result would have been in the interest of other sports men and women receiving funding. I am however really disappointed that the ability for anyone to deal with unfair treatment depends on their employment status.


I may be wrong but ... being treated unfairly needs a standard to apply to.
What is unfair ?
How did a person suffer loss ?
There has to a comparison standard.
A gauge of unfair.

In this case the gauge was employment and the law associated with employment.

There has to be a standard / gauge of fair and comparison is the measurement.

Re: Jess Varnish ..

Posted: 17 Jan 2019, 6:00pm
by landsurfer
She says her legal case cost £1m ....(Grauniad).
So either she is very wealthy ... or someone else paid the bloodsuckers .. sorry Lawyers, bills.

Re: Jess Varnish ..

Posted: 17 Jan 2019, 6:37pm
by Norman H
The unfair treatment hinges on whether her removal from the elite programme was justified or whether it was retribution for going public on management shortcoming at British Cycling. Sadly that's not been tested.

Re: Jess Varnish ..

Posted: 17 Jan 2019, 6:49pm
by landsurfer
Norman H wrote:The unfair treatment hinges on whether her removal from the elite programme was justified or whether it was retribution for going public on management shortcoming at British Cycling. Sadly that's not been tested.


There are quite a few on here who are good with stats ..
How do JV's stats look against fellow riders .. Kenny and Archibald where her peers .. at the time it all kicked off .... I think.

Re: Jess Varnish ..

Posted: 17 Jan 2019, 6:50pm
by fastpedaller
PH wrote:I'm not surprised by the tribunal's decision and I have no particular opinion on whether a different result would have been in the interest of other sports men and women receiving funding. I am however really disappointed that the ability for anyone to deal with unfair treatment depends on their employment status.


Agreed. It seems to be a bad situation these days where employees are 'deemed to have accepted an employment contract' by dint of working in a company (I had this happen to me once when I asked for a contract and was never given one), yet when there is an issue (there wasn't for me) they are told they aren't really employees. The abundance of zero hours contracts is another example - I've heard of people being told 'you are sacked' from a zero hours contract because they were unable to turn up at short notice. It's ok for the employer to say 'we don't need you today' though. One rule for the rich and another for the poor unfortunately we have moved backwards in employment conditions in recent years IMHO

Re: Jess Varnish ..

Posted: 17 Jan 2019, 7:00pm
by PH
landsurfer wrote:
Norman H wrote:The unfair treatment hinges on whether her removal from the elite programme was justified or whether it was retribution for going public on management shortcoming at British Cycling. Sadly that's not been tested.


There are quite a few on here who are good with stats ..
How do JV's stats look against fellow riders .. Kenny and Archibald where her peers .. at the time it all kicked off .... I think.

How do JV's stats compare to those she was told were required to retain her place? I know you think you know enough to come to a conclusion, others think it would have been better if some independent body looked at all the facts. Sadly it doesn't look like there is such a body for those not directly employed.