Bit sickening that a scheme designed to save jobs and small businesses is being used by huge companies and football clubs. Easyjet furloughing most of their staff but still paying their CEO a 60 million bonus this month...
Bit sickening that a scheme designed to save jobs and small businesses is being used by huge companies and football clubs. Easyjet furloughing most of their staff but still paying their CEO a 60 million bonus this month...
I believe you need explicit permission from the employer furloughing you to take a “second” job so be careful...
Yes indeed. My renewed contract for furlough was very specific about that.
I was put on notice of furlough last Wednesday, the letter very firmly said that in line with my contract on employment I couldn’t take a second job. I spoke to my employer and we agreed that the role would have to be outside of our existing industry and pretty much they had to authorize it before I accepted. I was offered a temp driver job for Iceland while furloughed, I started today and have a few 4 hours shifts over the coming weeks.
You must get this agreed with your employer prior to accepting, they would have to be a right Scrooge if they stopped you from doing it.
Sunderland taking the piss by placing their first team squad on Furlough leave ??? WTF
So, their first team squad, can no longer work / train. That will put them at a disadvantage, if things ever turn back to "normal".
I would hope that most players are doing some home-based training
LOL! You could actually be right about this!
An instruction to stay fit during furlough is not likely to be considered work. They certainly couldn't train together in an organised way, that's for sure.
Sunderland taking the piss by placing their first team squad on Furlough leave ??? WTF
So, their first team squad, can no longer work / train. That will put them at a disadvantage, if things ever turn back to "normal".
I would hope that most players are doing some home-based training
LOL! You could actually be right about this!
An instruction to stay fit during furlough is not likely to be considered work. They certainly couldn't train together in an organised way, that's for sure.
True. Gives us half a chance of staying up then cos god knows what we were doing in training.
Well, well, well. Our "friends" down the road the first Championship club to climb aboard the furlough scheme for their players.
We surely can't be far behind.
not really a story is it. The players and all non playing staff are all still getting their normal wages but the Government are paying for 80% of it. No different to what most companies in the country are doing.
the government are paying 80% of an employees wages upto a maximum of £2,500 per month. not 80% of an overpaid footballers wage. So at best Millwall will get from the government £2,500 of a players wages per month. The average player wage in the Championship is £16,000 per week. So it will be a drop in the ocean for an club at championship level.
Kent CCC have furloughed all their players apart from Sam Billings who has taken a 20% cut and is going to continue to work in the community.
This is the top level that cricketers can play at domestically and the comparison between power of players and money in the Premier League is an obvious one. The PCA were consulted in the same way as the PFA have been but the end result is somewhat different.
Tottenham have reversed their decision to use the government's furlough scheme for some non-playing staff during the coronavirus crisis following criticism from supporters.
On 31 March, the club announced 550 employees would take a 20% pay cut in an attempt "to protect jobs".
But on Monday, a Spurs statement said non-playing staff will receive "100% of their pay for April and May".
Only board members will now take salary reductions, the statement added.
On Friday, Tottenham Hotspur Supporters' Trust (THST) urged the club to "do the right thing" and reverse the decision, saying "mass supporter opinion against these decisions had solidified".
Spurs' statement on Monday said: "With no clarity on when football might resume, and under what conditions, we shall continue to keep this under ongoing review.
"We are acutely aware that many supporters were against the decision we made regarding furloughing staff who could not carry out their jobs from home.
"This once again underlines that we bear different pressures to other businesses, many of whom have and will continue to apply for support from the scheme as the government intended."
The Premier League club added they would continue to consult with stakeholders and the THST, "who share our desire to protect jobs".
Tottenham chairman Daniel Levy said: "We regret any concern caused during an anxious time and hope the work our supporters will see us doing in the coming weeks, as our stadium takes on a whole new purpose, will make them proud of their club."
Bit sickening that a scheme designed to save jobs and small businesses is being used by huge companies and football clubs. Easyjet furloughing most of their staff but still paying their CEO a 60 million bonus this month...
Just a point of order, Stelios is not CEO but his family is a minority shareholder. The £60m is a dividend, not a bonus, and he will have no say in how Easyjet is being run, nor the decision the business has made in relation to Furlough. He is in fact a long time critic of the Easyjet executive and remains at odds with them over their current aircraft orders (though not over the £60m dividend).
Some companies seem to using it fraudulently; not for what it is for but to save money
Isn't that exactly what its for - protecting individuals income whilst allowing the employer to offset cost to ensure there is a business to return to in the future?
Some companies seem to using it fraudulently; not for what it is for but to save money
It is designed to allow companies to claim up to £2,500 or 80% of an employees salary (whichever is less) in order to continue to pay that portion of salary to the employee, saving money and reducing the need to make redundancies and therefore protecting those jobs.
Furlough is being used to protect jobs by saving employers money.
Some companies seem to using it fraudulently; not for what it is for but to save money
Isn't that exactly what its for - protecting individuals income whilst allowing the employer to offset cost to ensure there is a business to return to in the future?
In theory but being abused by some companies abusing as an option to get the taxpayer to pay their employees. Football clubs, as previously mentioned, for one
Some companies seem to using it fraudulently; not for what it is for but to save money
Isn't that exactly what its for - protecting individuals income whilst allowing the employer to offset cost to ensure there is a business to return to in the future?
In theory but being abused by some companies abusing as an option to get the taxpayer to pay their employees. Football clubs, as previously mentioned, for one
Every company, irrespective of size, will be looking at every opportunity to retain cash and offset cost. If the government provides a facility to do the latter through Furlough then its going to get used and I don't see how its possible determine a moral approach to who should and shouldn't access it. Genuine, question, why shouldn't football clubs access it? I understand the argument, but if its morally wrong for them to use it, where do you draw the line? There will be big "wealthy" companies that many will say shouldn't use it who will go out of business, and there will be many small firms who many will argue Furlough was set up to support who have plenty of cash to see them through but who will be using Furlough and people won't bat an eyelid. And there are many many nuances in between..
Not an easy one I know but this isn't means tested, and nor should it be.
Some companies seem to using it fraudulently; not for what it is for but to save money
Isn't that exactly what its for - protecting individuals income whilst allowing the employer to offset cost to ensure there is a business to return to in the future?
In theory but being abused by some companies abusing as an option to get the taxpayer to pay their employees. Football clubs, as previously mentioned, for one
Every company, irrespective of size, will be looking at every opportunity to retain cash and offset cost. If the government provides a facility to do the latter through Furlough then its going to get used and I don't see how its possible determine a moral approach to who should and shouldn't access it. Genuine, question, why shouldn't football clubs access it? I understand the argument, but if its morally wrong for them to use it, where do you draw the line? There will be big "wealthy" companies that many will say shouldn't use it who will go out of business, and there will be many small firms who many will argue Furlough was set up to support who have plenty of cash to see them through but who will be using Furlough and people won't bat an eyelid. And there are many many nuances in between..
Not an easy one I know but this isn't means tested, and nor should it be.
I agree it is difficult but I think there should be some policing of it. I know that would be difficult and of course I wouldn't knowwhere to start. Some are more worthy and it is only fair to determine that and not a handout to all and sundry
I know companies that are busier than ever, but have still Furloughed staff. It may be a minority but there are companies using it as an opportunity to increase profit, impossible to police though.
Some companies seem to using it fraudulently; not for what it is for but to save money
Isn't that exactly what its for - protecting individuals income whilst allowing the employer to offset cost to ensure there is a business to return to in the future?
In theory but being abused by some companies abusing as an option to get the taxpayer to pay their employees. Football clubs, as previously mentioned, for one
Every company, irrespective of size, will be looking at every opportunity to retain cash and offset cost. If the government provides a facility to do the latter through Furlough then its going to get used and I don't see how its possible determine a moral approach to who should and shouldn't access it. Genuine, question, why shouldn't football clubs access it? I understand the argument, but if its morally wrong for them to use it, where do you draw the line? There will be big "wealthy" companies that many will say shouldn't use it who will go out of business, and there will be many small firms who many will argue Furlough was set up to support who have plenty of cash to see them through but who will be using Furlough and people won't bat an eyelid. And there are many many nuances in between..
Not an easy one I know but this isn't means tested, and nor should it be.
I agree it is difficult but I think there should be some policing of it. I know that would be difficult and of course I wouldn't knowwhere to start. Some are more worthy and it is only fair to determine that and not a handout to all and sundry
Some companies seem to using it fraudulently; not for what it is for but to save money
Isn't that exactly what its for - protecting individuals income whilst allowing the employer to offset cost to ensure there is a business to return to in the future?
In theory but being abused by some companies abusing as an option to get the taxpayer to pay their employees. Football clubs, as previously mentioned, for one
Every company, irrespective of size, will be looking at every opportunity to retain cash and offset cost. If the government provides a facility to do the latter through Furlough then its going to get used and I don't see how its possible determine a moral approach to who should and shouldn't access it. Genuine, question, why shouldn't football clubs access it? I understand the argument, but if its morally wrong for them to use it, where do you draw the line? There will be big "wealthy" companies that many will say shouldn't use it who will go out of business, and there will be many small firms who many will argue Furlough was set up to support who have plenty of cash to see them through but who will be using Furlough and people won't bat an eyelid. And there are many many nuances in between..
Not an easy one I know but this isn't means tested, and nor should it be.
I agree it is difficult but I think there should be some policing of it. I know that would be difficult and of course I wouldn't knowwhere to start. Some are more worthy and it is only fair to determine that and not a handout to all and sundry
I agree with your principle, and yes there will be some companies that do not need the solvency that use furlough.
However, setting up a scheme that delivers immediate cash to employees of those companies that cannot do business or only reduced business in lockdown is one of the most impressive things I’ve seen in my lifetime.
While some policing or further restrictions, tweaks, whatever you want to call them may be possible in time, it’s not the most important issue and we do not have the systems or resources to deliver a lot of maintenance.
We are rightly helicoptering in money to keep the mess that will be the recession from this in as much check as possible.
Unfortunately there will always be takers and that’s why we should keep a personal and public tally of the companies that are takers and those that are givers.
What goes around, comes around and tmoat of the takers will hopefully get called to account. Just not quite yet.
I know companies that are busier than ever, but have still Furloughed staff. It may be a minority but there are companies using it as an opportunity to increase profit, impossible to police though.
If they are busier than ever how are they coping without the furloughed staff?
I know companies that are busier than ever, but have still Furloughed staff. It may be a minority but there are companies using it as an opportunity to increase profit, impossible to police though.
If they are busier than ever how are they coping without the furloughed staff?
Getting the remaining staff to do more work. The company I contract too are doing it big time.
Comments
Not all huge companies and football clubs!
good luck all, keep safe.
I would hope that most players are doing some home-based training
An instruction to stay fit during furlough is not likely to be considered work. They certainly couldn't train together in an organised way, that's for sure.
I have. Any HR bods can help please?
Well, well, well. Our "friends" down the road the first Championship club to climb aboard the furlough scheme for their players.
We surely can't be far behind.
Sorry
This is the top level that cricketers can play at domestically and the comparison between power of players and money in the Premier League is an obvious one. The PCA were consulted in the same way as the PFA have been but the end result is somewhat different.
Tottenham have reversed their decision to use the government's furlough scheme for some non-playing staff during the coronavirus crisis following criticism from supporters.
On 31 March, the club announced 550 employees would take a 20% pay cut in an attempt "to protect jobs".
But on Monday, a Spurs statement said non-playing staff will receive "100% of their pay for April and May".
Only board members will now take salary reductions, the statement added.On Friday, Tottenham Hotspur Supporters' Trust (THST) urged the club to "do the right thing" and reverse the decision, saying "mass supporter opinion against these decisions had solidified".
Spurs' statement on Monday said: "With no clarity on when football might resume, and under what conditions, we shall continue to keep this under ongoing review.
"We are acutely aware that many supporters were against the decision we made regarding furloughing staff who could not carry out their jobs from home.
"This once again underlines that we bear different pressures to other businesses, many of whom have and will continue to apply for support from the scheme as the government intended."
The Premier League club added they would continue to consult with stakeholders and the THST, "who share our desire to protect jobs".
Tottenham chairman Daniel Levy said: "We regret any concern caused during an anxious time and hope the work our supporters will see us doing in the coming weeks, as our stadium takes on a whole new purpose, will make them proud of their club."
Furlough is being used to protect jobs by saving employers money.
Not an easy one I know but this isn't means tested, and nor should it be.
You don't have to prove to someone in A&E that you are poor and don't have enough money to pay for the treatment yourself.
Basic Income anyone? Might have been very useful in this situation. If only people could accept non means tested benefits!
What goes around, comes around and tmoat of the takers will hopefully get called to account. Just not quite yet.