Reason why I don't think training should be given during this period is because companies usually pay their employees for the time they're training.
they are paying them aren't they? You said you wife was still getting full pay, 20% from her employer and 80% by the Government.
Yeah sorry, my post was badly written. What I meant was, the company usualy pay their wages for training so, in theory, the companies could now cram a load of their taining into the next 3 weeks, and get maximum productivity out of their staff after this lockdown, having had 80% of their training salary paid for by the Government.
One thing I keep reading is reports of business owners stuck between a rock and a hard place, which is understandable and must be really difficult, but what stumps me is how some refer to the low salary they take, an example was two painter and decorators who take £600 a month each as salary, surely thats against minimum wage rules (unless they are only working about 65 hours a month), or does that not apply if you own the business?
Depends on how they are setup. If they are setup as Ltd Company then Company Directors are not usually classed as workers, therefore minimum wage law doesn't apply.
Reason why I don't think training should be given during this period is because companies usually pay their employees for the time they're training.
they are paying them aren't they? You said you wife was still getting full pay, 20% from her employer and 80% by the Government.
Yeah sorry, my post was badly written. What I meant was, the company usualy pay their wages for training so, in theory, the companies could now cram a load of their taining into the next 3 weeks, and get maximum productivity out of their staff after this lockdown, having had 80% of their training salary paid for by the Government.
Not really a moan, just an observation
Fair point, but those companies are presumably losing their income stream hence why the workers aren't doing their usual jobs.
I think the Government have taken the view that very few companies will be able to abuse the scheme by training their employees for several weeks. Yes they will effectively be training employees without paying them, but I am sure 90% of them would prefer to be operational and earning money. It also gives people something to do alongside keeping active so should be good for the mental well being.
Just wanted to point out that my Mrs's isn't workshy or uncooperative
when it comes to this type of thing (she's the only one in her store that never
“self-isolated” before they closed and she volunteered to go in for 2 days to
closed the store up and do a thorough clean), but I do think the 2 to 3
conference calls per week and some of the requests that have come through have
been a bit overwhelming during an already anxious time for people
Just wanted to point out that my Mrs's isn't workshy or uncooperative
when it comes to this type of thing (she's the only one in her store that never
“self-isolated” before they closed and she volunteered to go in for 2 days to
closed the store up and do a thorough clean), but I do think the 2 to 3
conference calls per week and some of the requests that have come through have
been a bit overwhelming during an already anxious time for people
I’m sure she’s not, I certainly didn't make any assumption of that kind from what you have written.
Bottom line is if she's been furloughed she shouldn't be working, irrespective of whether they are paying the extra 20% or not.
For anyone else like me stuck in the shithouse world of ‘zero hour contracts’, the furlough policy is a two edged sword. At the end of March the law was tweaked to include Zero Hour contractors:
Good news in theory - but all of the Isolating/Shielding / Furlough scenarios end with the guidance....
“then you should speak to your employer about whether they plan to place staff on furlough.”
Essentially, Zero hour contractors are entitled to access the furlough scheme but it’s at the employers discretion/choice. Mine have already confirmed that if I need to isolate or shield then I will be instructed to claim SSP (which is far less than 80% of my average monthly salary). Nothing I can do about it other than keep looking for different jobs elsewhere. I seriously fucking hate the culture of zero hour contracts.
My understanding up until this point is the I, as the employer, will pay any furloughed staff the 80% of their salary and then claim it back from HMRC however a friend's daughter was told yesterday she will get paid by HMRC and her boss cannot guarantee when this will be. (HMRC apparently "aim" to pay within 6 working days)
Obviously 2 very different scenarios and with the system on HMRC not being set up until Monday 20th April...and highly likely to crash on day one...I'm wondering if this is going to be a massive clusterfuck and people will get paid late etc etc
Anyone got any insight on this as much of the wording I have found online is so fucking woolly and non--comittal however I found something on the CIPD website yesterday that implied HMRC will be paying the individuals however my accountant is of the opinion I will pay it and reclaim.
Poxy virus!
The employer pays the staff on the normal payroll. HMRC then pays 80% (up to the ceiling level) to the employer.
(You can choose to pay the staff anything between 80% and 100% of their normal salary. You can defer other payments such as pension contributions. You have to have seek and get the agreement of the staff).
Thanks. I'm happier this way as I know my guys will get paid on time and that is my priority.
I'll let my mate's daughter know her boss has the wrong end of the stick (or is maybe just trying it on)
The last point (that the member of staff has to agree to being furloughed) is often missed.
Very true, but the conversation could go something like: "There is no work for you to do and we have two options, furlough where you will get 80% of your pay, or redundancy. You don't have to agree to be furloughed, but regrettably if you do not agree then there will be no alternative but to make your role redundant".
Hmmm tricky one!
That position is not difficult to defend at all - irrespective of length of service.
I'd have thought that would be a really difficult position to defend. In effect, the company would, in that instance, be saying, "we have insufficient work for you, so your position is redundant, but, if you like, you can stay on, be furloughed, and save us the cost of making you redundant".
My understanding up until this point is the I, as the employer, will pay any furloughed staff the 80% of their salary and then claim it back from HMRC however a friend's daughter was told yesterday she will get paid by HMRC and her boss cannot guarantee when this will be. (HMRC apparently "aim" to pay within 6 working days)
Obviously 2 very different scenarios and with the system on HMRC not being set up until Monday 20th April...and highly likely to crash on day one...I'm wondering if this is going to be a massive clusterfuck and people will get paid late etc etc
Anyone got any insight on this as much of the wording I have found online is so fucking woolly and non--comittal however I found something on the CIPD website yesterday that implied HMRC will be paying the individuals however my accountant is of the opinion I will pay it and reclaim.
Poxy virus!
The employer pays the staff on the normal payroll. HMRC then pays 80% (up to the ceiling level) to the employer.
(You can choose to pay the staff anything between 80% and 100% of their normal salary. You can defer other payments such as pension contributions. You have to have seek and get the agreement of the staff).
Thanks. I'm happier this way as I know my guys will get paid on time and that is my priority.
I'll let my mate's daughter know her boss has the wrong end of the stick (or is maybe just trying it on)
The last point (that the member of staff has to agree to being furloughed) is often missed.
Very true, but the conversation could go something like: "There is no work for you to do and we have two options, furlough where you will get 80% of your pay, or redundancy. You don't have to agree to be furloughed, but regrettably if you do not agree then there will be no alternative but to make your role redundant".
Hmmm tricky one!
That position is not difficult to defend at all - irrespective of length of service.
I'd have thought that would be a really difficult position to defend. In effect, the company would, in that instance, be saying, "we have insufficient work for you, so your position is redundant, but, if you like, you can stay on, be furloughed, and save us the cost of making you redundant".
Furloughing an employee is a direct alternative to redundancy. Yes I agree an employer benefits too because they don’t have to pay the 80% nor suffer redundancy costs. But an employee also benefits as they have a job to come back to.
There is clearly going to be a change in the employment viewpoint. It’s very rare that businesses are almost able to guarantee that work is going to pick up. Effectively these are short term redundancies.
My understanding up until this point is the I, as the employer, will pay any furloughed staff the 80% of their salary and then claim it back from HMRC however a friend's daughter was told yesterday she will get paid by HMRC and her boss cannot guarantee when this will be. (HMRC apparently "aim" to pay within 6 working days)
Obviously 2 very different scenarios and with the system on HMRC not being set up until Monday 20th April...and highly likely to crash on day one...I'm wondering if this is going to be a massive clusterfuck and people will get paid late etc etc
Anyone got any insight on this as much of the wording I have found online is so fucking woolly and non--comittal however I found something on the CIPD website yesterday that implied HMRC will be paying the individuals however my accountant is of the opinion I will pay it and reclaim.
Poxy virus!
The employer pays the staff on the normal payroll. HMRC then pays 80% (up to the ceiling level) to the employer.
(You can choose to pay the staff anything between 80% and 100% of their normal salary. You can defer other payments such as pension contributions. You have to have seek and get the agreement of the staff).
Thanks. I'm happier this way as I know my guys will get paid on time and that is my priority.
I'll let my mate's daughter know her boss has the wrong end of the stick (or is maybe just trying it on)
The last point (that the member of staff has to agree to being furloughed) is often missed.
Very true, but the conversation could go something like: "There is no work for you to do and we have two options, furlough where you will get 80% of your pay, or redundancy. You don't have to agree to be furloughed, but regrettably if you do not agree then there will be no alternative but to make your role redundant".
Hmmm tricky one!
That position is not difficult to defend at all - irrespective of length of service.
I'd have thought that would be a really difficult position to defend. In effect, the company would, in that instance, be saying, "we have insufficient work for you, so your position is redundant, but, if you like, you can stay on, be furloughed, and save us the cost of making you redundant".
You would be wrong then.
If at the end of the furlough i.e. when the government scheme ends, if there still isn’t work then the costs of redundancy are still there. What it does is keep some income for the employee and still the chance that things pick up down the line and they still have a job. No detriment to the employee, no detriment to the employer - only positives for both. What’s to defend?
Comments
I don't see any issue with employees being asked to train whilst getting paid for doing nothing else.
Not really a moan, just an observation
I think the Government have taken the view that very few companies will be able to abuse the scheme by training their employees for several weeks. Yes they will effectively be training employees without paying them, but I am sure 90% of them would prefer to be operational and earning money. It also gives people something to do alongside keeping active so should be good for the mental well being.
Just wanted to point out that my Mrs's isn't workshy or uncooperative when it comes to this type of thing (she's the only one in her store that never “self-isolated” before they closed and she volunteered to go in for 2 days to closed the store up and do a thorough clean), but I do think the 2 to 3 conference calls per week and some of the requests that have come through have been a bit overwhelming during an already anxious time for people
Bottom line is if she's been furloughed she shouldn't be working, irrespective of whether they are paying the extra 20% or not.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/check-if-you-could-be-covered-by-the-coronavirus-job-retention-scheme
Good news in theory - but all of the Isolating/Shielding / Furlough scenarios end with the guidance....
“then you should speak to your employer about whether they plan to place staff on furlough.”
Essentially, Zero hour contractors are entitled to access the furlough scheme but it’s at the employers discretion/choice. Mine have already confirmed that if I need to isolate or shield then I will be instructed to claim SSP (which is far less than 80% of my average monthly salary). Nothing I can do about it other than keep looking for different jobs elsewhere. I seriously fucking hate the culture of zero hour contracts.
No detriment to the employee, no detriment to the employer - only positives for both. What’s to defend?