As much as I hate gambling firms, the point of furlough was to be general and not linked to profits. Furlough was generally successful for these reasons.
The difficulty here is the question of what the furlough scheme was actually designed to do. Was it designed to protect businesses, or was it designed to protect people and jobs?
I think the article is conflating the two but I think most consensus is that it was designed to do the latter and, in that sense, Ladbrokes have used the scheme as intended. Had it not existed, they would have laid-off shop staff as their stores were closed and the performance of their online operations doesn’t really alter that fact – why would they have kept on shop staff, irrespective of how well their online channels were doing?
This isn’t to defend Ladbrokes ethically. I know some large employers have paid back some of their furlough support money, and it certainly does stick in the craw that a business that wasn’t materially impacted by the pandemic managed to claim a considerable amount of taxpayer support. But it was money that was legally available to them and, had they not taken it, their online operations would have still been as successful. The only difference (and putting aside the debate as to whether or not bookies are a positive presence on the High Street) is that the business would have laid off a significant number of shop staff who would have, more than likely, had to rely on the state to support them anyway.
Ladbrokes has a lot of betting shops, a cold hard buisness decision for their bottom line would be close all their shops for the year and lay the shopworkers off (leaving them in jobseekers allowance) furlough was a government bribe not to do that.
Jeez, the Guardian must have this article on a template I swear I’ve seen it so many times.
[Bad Company] used furlough how it was intended to be used. Quick, get angry at them.
Ermmm Ladbrokes have highstreet stores and those staff need paid who were eligible for furlough.
Fucking hell Guardian.
I really wouldn’t be surprised if after this, they shut down all but the most profitable units nationwide and made all those people redundant anyway. Why pay staff when the pandemic has proven that people are more than happy to gamble online, increasing the companies margins?
They should definitely pay back some / all of that money tbh; if benefits like UC can be claimed back from people, then furlough for businesses should too. The fact that there weren’t protections in place for obvious situations like this when furlough was set up shows that it was designed to be abused and taken advantage of from the start.
I know of many companies that have a similar story…
I have zero problem with this. Same with other places who claimed the furlough. The thing was it had to be a catch all for everyone as our economy changed overnight. No one knew how the country would look like at the other end of covid in those first few months. Ladbrokes had staff who couldnt work, they claimed the furlough.
Oh look, it’s this week’s version of an alternative headline to:
> BREAKING: Business uses Government scheme exactly as intended
It says in the article revenues dropped by a third, so yeah they would’ve been eligible and suitable for furlough cash.
It’s a bit late being outraged at gambling firms making money, the government/people has the power to regulate/ban them entirely but chooses not to.
I know people are defending Ladbrokes saying the money was for the people anyway, but if William Hill can give back the furlough money and also pay those furloughed 100% (rather than the 80%) surely Ladbrokes can? Especially since they’re owned by the massive Entain / GVC.
Shops were closed, they were entitled to claim furlough money to pay staff who were working in those shops
The fact their online business was successful in the same time period is irrelevant. Furlough was not about whether your business was still profitable, it was for paying staff in sectors which couldnt operate due to restrictions.
If Ladbrokes wish to repay that money like some other companies have then that’s fine, but I’m not outraged that they used the furlough system as intended.
12 comments
As much as I hate gambling firms, the point of furlough was to be general and not linked to profits. Furlough was generally successful for these reasons.
The difficulty here is the question of what the furlough scheme was actually designed to do. Was it designed to protect businesses, or was it designed to protect people and jobs?
I think the article is conflating the two but I think most consensus is that it was designed to do the latter and, in that sense, Ladbrokes have used the scheme as intended. Had it not existed, they would have laid-off shop staff as their stores were closed and the performance of their online operations doesn’t really alter that fact – why would they have kept on shop staff, irrespective of how well their online channels were doing?
This isn’t to defend Ladbrokes ethically. I know some large employers have paid back some of their furlough support money, and it certainly does stick in the craw that a business that wasn’t materially impacted by the pandemic managed to claim a considerable amount of taxpayer support. But it was money that was legally available to them and, had they not taken it, their online operations would have still been as successful. The only difference (and putting aside the debate as to whether or not bookies are a positive presence on the High Street) is that the business would have laid off a significant number of shop staff who would have, more than likely, had to rely on the state to support them anyway.
Ladbrokes has a lot of betting shops, a cold hard buisness decision for their bottom line would be close all their shops for the year and lay the shopworkers off (leaving them in jobseekers allowance) furlough was a government bribe not to do that.
Jeez, the Guardian must have this article on a template I swear I’ve seen it so many times.
[Bad Company] used furlough how it was intended to be used. Quick, get angry at them.
Ermmm Ladbrokes have highstreet stores and those staff need paid who were eligible for furlough.
Fucking hell Guardian.
I really wouldn’t be surprised if after this, they shut down all but the most profitable units nationwide and made all those people redundant anyway. Why pay staff when the pandemic has proven that people are more than happy to gamble online, increasing the companies margins?
They should definitely pay back some / all of that money tbh; if benefits like UC can be claimed back from people, then furlough for businesses should too. The fact that there weren’t protections in place for obvious situations like this when furlough was set up shows that it was designed to be abused and taken advantage of from the start.
I know of many companies that have a similar story…
I have zero problem with this. Same with other places who claimed the furlough. The thing was it had to be a catch all for everyone as our economy changed overnight. No one knew how the country would look like at the other end of covid in those first few months. Ladbrokes had staff who couldnt work, they claimed the furlough.
Oh look, it’s this week’s version of an alternative headline to:
> BREAKING: Business uses Government scheme exactly as intended
It says in the article revenues dropped by a third, so yeah they would’ve been eligible and suitable for furlough cash.
It’s a bit late being outraged at gambling firms making money, the government/people has the power to regulate/ban them entirely but chooses not to.
I know people are defending Ladbrokes saying the money was for the people anyway, but if William Hill can give back the furlough money and also pay those furloughed 100% (rather than the 80%) surely Ladbrokes can? Especially since they’re owned by the massive Entain / GVC.
Shops were closed, they were entitled to claim furlough money to pay staff who were working in those shops
The fact their online business was successful in the same time period is irrelevant. Furlough was not about whether your business was still profitable, it was for paying staff in sectors which couldnt operate due to restrictions.
If Ladbrokes wish to repay that money like some other companies have then that’s fine, but I’m not outraged that they used the furlough system as intended.