London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
@oceanpassage
"Ridiculous comments here.
No such thing as supply chain governing bodies"
No but there are business and employer ones
Most "accusations" from the Lewitt report seem to have come from that anonymous online "complaint" form, which had several fold more entries than the past, present and future Leicester workforce combined ;-)
Ridiculous comments here.
No such thing as supply chain governing bodies.
Dream on.
Mr.neutral, no problems, it's hard to keep up today with volume of posts!
Newguy76, it does raise some interesting points. Say boohoo had checked some of the pay records of their supplies who were subsequently found to have underpaid. I can virtually guarantee they would have shown pay at the minimum wage. Is that enough though?- it's pretty obvious that it will have been the hours recorded that will have been manipulated. So we are then looking at some basic checks to establish whether the actual hours worked by individuals match those on wage records as the being the minimum needed to have any usefulness or credibility.
Aim4
Did not read full thread so did not know context of your message (my fault there).
Mr.neutral, Considering the original poster was using the example of employing a gardener in relation to the boohoo supply chain, my example of another type of small cash job was quite reasonable I think.
You point out that by checking the relevant licence/insurance is in place the employer/borrower in my examples has covered themselves. That's the point, it's not just up to the other party to have complied with the law, with no comeback if they haven't. There is obviously going to be a difference between the checks an individual is expected to make in those examples and those of a large company with multiple suppliers. It's generally the principle that the larger the business, the more they are expected to comply with increased regulation and scrutiny in their dealings.
@WolfofWarks
While I agree there is and should be a diligence process I've seen first hand the extra effort some put in for the purpose of a planned audit/visit where everything may not be seen.
That said, as I understand boohoo knew of some issues and were working toward trying to get them resolved. I'm just saying that on occasion some may not know the full gravity of a situation.
After reading the replies I agree with both points. it’s quite clear that it needs its own governing body, not just leaving it to companies to trust their suppliers.
I take your point aim4
@aim4
However boo didn't use an unlicensed business.
So the only real analogies could be if you used a company with a waste licence and one of their appointed drivers dumped the rubbish who is responsible then?
Similarly if you lend your car to another driver who is insured to drive it and they then let someone else drive it who isn't without your consent who is responsible?
Though I do agree with the part where you say governments and agencies should take more responsibility.
How can Leicester supply chain be compared to paying to get rubbish removed or lending your car. If you have a written invoice with licenced removal and disposal firm then you are covered. Similarly if you check the person you lend your car has his own insurance you're covered. Problem is if you need to lend your car to 500 people it might be time to own your own car rental business! In due course.....
Similar if you lend your car to someone who isn't insured themselves and is not covered under your own policy - you have committed an offence.
@aim4, incorrect , if person allows another to use his/her vehicle on express condition that the other person insures it first the lender cannot be convicted of permitting ( newbury v Davis )
Think there’s a lack of business acumen showing here. Anyone who has been involved in the due diligence or tendering process knows there a massive box ticking exercise to be carried out through the main supply chain. It’s a massive oversight on Boohoo’s part. It goes some way to explain why the margins are so back and in all likelihood BH turned a blind eye to it and enjoyed the sun while it was shining.
Boohoo are most likely not quite large enough yet that they can probably just about get away with it. That said I like making money as well and think companies being expected to play the role of government has probably gone a bit too far.
Harveyspectre. For context, if you have some rubbish you want removing and give the job to the bloke with a van who charges the least, do you think that's all there is to it as he drives away? If so think again - if there is anything that traces it back to you, you will be getting a summons and typically £400 fine if your local council is similar to mine. You are held responsible for checking that the bloke was legit with a waste disposal licence. Similar if you lend your car to someone who isn't insured themselves and is not covered under your own policy - you have committed an offence.
When we already have examples like this binding us as individuals to take responsibility for checking that others are acting within the law, I would be a bit miffed if multi million business contracts by big business were completely exempt from any such considerations.
That said, the conditions in the supply chain should have been more vigorously investigated by the various government agencies who have primary responsibility for enforcement of the various regulations.
Not controversial at all Harvey. Not to anyone with any common sense. A lefty-snowflake-virtue-signalling-marxist-guardian-reading type might disagree but then if they had any less brain cells they'd forget to breathe.
Yeah, I just can’t get my head around it. It should be based solely on the supplier. Not who they offer their services too
It isn't anything to do with BOO.
Its the way the media spin it thats the problem
This is going to be a bit controversial here.
But how the suppliers treat their staff, is this anything to do with boohoo?
It’s like me paying my gardener to do my garden, to find out he’s paying someone else way less to do the job. I’d expect the person I’m paying to do the job, to already be doing it correctly.
I know it’s bad, people should get paid a proper wage, but is it down to boohoo really?
I ordered a few hats online the other day, with my own logo on it from a website. Should I have gone an audited them first to make sure they were doing their job correctly? Or am I just paying for their service?
I look forward to your replies