Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Furlough/Annual Leave question
Comments
-
??? People are trying to help clarify matters for you here ... it’s you that has the attitude.Sarrf_London said:
It’s not at all clear from what you are outlining.stonemuse said:So your question was not furlough related after all? It’s not at all clear from what you are outlining.I am merely pointing out that it now appears your question is not actually furlough related.Becoming more apparent that you are trying to make political leeway out of an excellent furlough solution.2 -
As an aside, most companies will be offering based on statutory minimum £16k salary. I suffered from this from a company in the FTSE 100.0
-
*shakes head3
-
Sarrf_London said:As an aside, most companies will be offering based on statutory minimum £16k salary. I suffered from this from a company in the FTSE 100.
Offering what?
0 -
Offering special offers? Offering out? Offa's Dyke?bobmunro said:Sarrf_London said:As an aside, most companies will be offering based on statutory minimum £16k salary. I suffered from this from a company in the FTSE 100.
Offering what?
Who knows?!3 -
Apologies. Redundancies. I assumed by your comments you have been following my posts. Again, why the aggression?Sarrf_London said:If I have a contract to be paid £2000 per month and they give me £1600 how is that legal? Why am I sensing animosity in these replies? These are serious issues, as I have relatives suffering this treatment, having already been given offers of sub-standard, 'take it or leave it' new deals with statutory minimum redundancy.
Perhaps someone with legal knowledge could reply.0 -
Bob has done nothing but try to offer you help and advice.Sarrf_London said:
Apologies. Redundancies. I assumed by your comments you have been following my posts. Again, why the aggression?Sarrf_London said:If I have a contract to be paid £2000 per month and they give me £1600 how is that legal? Why am I sensing animosity in these replies? These are serious issues, as I have relatives suffering this treatment, having already been given offers of sub-standard, 'take it or leave it' new deals with statutory minimum redundancy.
Perhaps someone with legal knowledge could reply.
And to be honest, accusing people of having underlying aggression is a bit ironic. Let's not forget you kicked off when people were posting their favourite netflix shows!
2 -
Sporadic, thanks for a reasoned reply, but from an earlier post:-
1. BA have been targeting higher paid employees for more than a decade.
2. It is unlikely that any airline will come out of this crisis as solvent. BA will be nationalised..
3. 80% wage is not legal according to CAFCFan1990, nor my 2yr legal study. Nobody has quoted an Act of Parliament suggesting otherwise.
4. Does nobody realise the old rules of commerce are out? Companies can no longer get away with exploiting the weak.0 -
Sarrf_London said:
Apologies. Redundancies. I assumed by your comments you have been following my posts. Again, why the aggression?Sarrf_London said:If I have a contract to be paid £2000 per month and they give me £1600 how is that legal? Why am I sensing animosity in these replies? These are serious issues, as I have relatives suffering this treatment, having already been given offers of sub-standard, 'take it or leave it' new deals with statutory minimum redundancy.
Perhaps someone with legal knowledge could reply.If a company making staff redundant has the readily available funds to pay enhanced redundancy then good for them. If a company is making people redundant because they refuse to be furloughed or the company is about to go tits up because of a crash in revenue then it is highly unlikely they will be able to pay any more than statutory redundancy https://www.gov.uk/calculate-your-redundancy-pay - and maybe not even that so the government pick up the tab because the company has gone out of business.There was no clear link to what you meant - you've spent most of the thread talking about furlough, then sprung on us that it wasn't furlough it was a company seeking a pay sacrifice from staff but still giving them work (so no furlough possible) and then you switch to redundancy.It's not aggression - it's frustration!
5 - Sponsored links:
-
-
No it's not legal to just do it. But it is a legally binding change to terms and conditions if the employee signs it. Only a selfish idiot would refuse to sign it in the current climate. Those people (IMO) deserve a redundancy and a struggle to get a job.Sarrf_London said:Sporadic, thanks for a reasoned reply, but from an earlier post:-
1. BA have been targeting higher paid employees for more than a decade.
2. It is unlikely that any airline will come out of this crisis as solvent. BA will be nationalised..
3. 80% wage is not legal according to CAFCFan1990, nor my 2yr legal study. Nobody has quoted an Act of Parliament suggesting otherwise.
4. Does nobody realise the old rules of commerce are out? Companies can no longer get away with exploiting the weak.
Bob's lot are I believe topping up the 20% which is a great gesture and one that should be encouraged if possible to do so. But there's a lot of businesses out there struggling so I don't think they should face any criticism if they decide not to. Staff will still be getting a minimum of 80% of their net salary. Full-time employees are only around 13% down and won't have travel costs. That's a very good deal for doing nothing.
2 -
Next time Bob, make sure you get your crystal ball out before offering advice alright mate?bobmunro said:Sarrf_London said:
Apologies. Redundancies. I assumed by your comments you have been following my posts. Again, why the aggression?Sarrf_London said:If I have a contract to be paid £2000 per month and they give me £1600 how is that legal? Why am I sensing animosity in these replies? These are serious issues, as I have relatives suffering this treatment, having already been given offers of sub-standard, 'take it or leave it' new deals with statutory minimum redundancy.
Perhaps someone with legal knowledge could reply.If a company making staff redundant has the readily available funds to pay enhanced redundancy then good for them. If a company is making people redundant because they refuse to be furloughed or the company is about to go tits up because of a crash in revenue then it is highly unlikely they will be able to pay any more than statutory redundancy https://www.gov.uk/calculate-your-redundancy-pay - and maybe not even that so the government pick up the tab because the company has gone out of business.There was no clear link to what you meant - you've spent most of the thread talking about furlough, then sprung on us that it wasn't furlough it was a company seeking a pay sacrifice from staff but still giving them work (so no furlough possible) and then you switch to redundancy.It's not aggression - it's frustration!
1 -
Slightly ironic. My thread was for top 10 Netflix shows and people just jammed it up with their favourites which was already another thread. I merely asked to post on subject. You criticise me for posting just on furloughing rather than annual leave furloughing. No other thread on furloughing, and given above I am reluctant to start one.cafcfan1990 said:
Bob has done nothing but try to offer you help and advice.Sarrf_London said:
Apologies. Redundancies. I assumed by your comments you have been following my posts. Again, why the aggression?Sarrf_London said:If I have a contract to be paid £2000 per month and they give me £1600 how is that legal? Why am I sensing animosity in these replies? These are serious issues, as I have relatives suffering this treatment, having already been given offers of sub-standard, 'take it or leave it' new deals with statutory minimum redundancy.
Perhaps someone with legal knowledge could reply.
And to be honest, accusing people of having underlying aggression is a bit ironic. Let's not forget you kicked off when people were posting their favourite netflix shows!
On the current subject, perhaps we can agree that paying staff 80% salary is illegal, however morally? justified. How many CEOs are on 80%? Some might forgoe obscene bonuses.0 -
Maybe u had some of what I’m on, u almost as crazy as me!Sarrf_London said:
Slightly ironic. My thread was for top 10 Netflix shows and people just jammed it up with their favourites which was already another thread. I merely asked to post on subject. You criticise me for posting just on furloughing rather than annual leave furloughing. No other thread on furloughing, and given above I am reluctant to start one.cafcfan1990 said:
Bob has done nothing but try to offer you help and advice.Sarrf_London said:
Apologies. Redundancies. I assumed by your comments you have been following my posts. Again, why the aggression?Sarrf_London said:If I have a contract to be paid £2000 per month and they give me £1600 how is that legal? Why am I sensing animosity in these replies? These are serious issues, as I have relatives suffering this treatment, having already been given offers of sub-standard, 'take it or leave it' new deals with statutory minimum redundancy.
Perhaps someone with legal knowledge could reply.
And to be honest, accusing people of having underlying aggression is a bit ironic. Let's not forget you kicked off when people were posting their favourite netflix shows!
On the current subject, perhaps we can agree that paying staff 80% salary is illegal, however morally? justified. How many CEOs are on 80%? Some might forgoe obscene bonuses.2 -
It's illegal if the staff don't agree. If the staff provide consent it's a legally binding change to terms and conditions.Sarrf_London said:
Slightly ironic. My thread was for top 10 Netflix shows and people just jammed it up with their favourites which was already another thread. I merely asked to post on subject. You criticise me for posting just on furloughing rather than annual leave furloughing. No other thread on furloughing, and given above I am reluctant to start one.cafcfan1990 said:
Bob has done nothing but try to offer you help and advice.Sarrf_London said:
Apologies. Redundancies. I assumed by your comments you have been following my posts. Again, why the aggression?Sarrf_London said:If I have a contract to be paid £2000 per month and they give me £1600 how is that legal? Why am I sensing animosity in these replies? These are serious issues, as I have relatives suffering this treatment, having already been given offers of sub-standard, 'take it or leave it' new deals with statutory minimum redundancy.
Perhaps someone with legal knowledge could reply.
And to be honest, accusing people of having underlying aggression is a bit ironic. Let's not forget you kicked off when people were posting their favourite netflix shows!
On the current subject, perhaps we can agree that paying staff 80% salary is illegal, however morally? justified. How many CEOs are on 80%? Some might forgoe obscene bonuses.
Your point about CEO's is undoubtedly justified in some cases. Regarding the 80%, I would imagine the majority are still working and so are not furloughed.
0 -
IT'S NOT ILLEGAL IF IT'S AN AGREED CHANGE.
Seriously, are you on a wind up now?
But if you're that worried about it then tell them to refuse the furlough and take their chances with redundancy.0 -
Are you being deliberately obtuse Bob? Companies paying employees 80% of their salary is not about asking them to take a salary sacrifice, it is about twisting HMG furloughing to misinform them to take reduced pay. Otherwise why not ask people to take 25%, 30% or more? I have contacted people in this scenario and they were not given a choice, their pay packet was light. Not agreed by them.bobmunro said:Sarrf_London said:
Apologies. Redundancies. I assumed by your comments you have been following my posts. Again, why the aggression?Sarrf_London said:If I have a contract to be paid £2000 per month and they give me £1600 how is that legal? Why am I sensing animosity in these replies? These are serious issues, as I have relatives suffering this treatment, having already been given offers of sub-standard, 'take it or leave it' new deals with statutory minimum redundancy.
Perhaps someone with legal knowledge could reply.If a company making staff redundant has the readily available funds to pay enhanced redundancy then good for them. If a company is making people redundant because they refuse to be furloughed or the company is about to go tits up because of a crash in revenue then it is highly unlikely they will be able to pay any more than statutory redundancy https://www.gov.uk/calculate-your-redundancy-pay - and maybe not even that so the government pick up the tab because the company has gone out of business.There was no clear link to what you meant - you've spent most of the thread talking about furlough, then sprung on us that it wasn't furlough it was a company seeking a pay sacrifice from staff but still giving them work (so no furlough possible) and then you switch to redundancy.It's not aggression - it's frustration!
I am not suggesting that employees should not take salary reduction to protect their jobs and those of colleagues, but that is not what we have. We have subterfuge. Kicking the legal action can down the road.0 -
I have no idea what practices BA adopt so the following is generic.Sarrf_London said:
Slightly ironic. My thread was for top 10 Netflix shows and people just jammed it up with their favourites which was already another thread. I merely asked to post on subject. You criticise me for posting just on furloughing rather than annual leave furloughing. No other thread on furloughing, and given above I am reluctant to start one.cafcfan1990 said:
Bob has done nothing but try to offer you help and advice.Sarrf_London said:
Apologies. Redundancies. I assumed by your comments you have been following my posts. Again, why the aggression?Sarrf_London said:If I have a contract to be paid £2000 per month and they give me £1600 how is that legal? Why am I sensing animosity in these replies? These are serious issues, as I have relatives suffering this treatment, having already been given offers of sub-standard, 'take it or leave it' new deals with statutory minimum redundancy.
Perhaps someone with legal knowledge could reply.
And to be honest, accusing people of having underlying aggression is a bit ironic. Let's not forget you kicked off when people were posting their favourite netflix shows!
On the current subject, perhaps we can agree that paying staff 80% salary is illegal, however morally? justified. How many CEOs are on 80%? Some might forgoe obscene bonuses.Your 2 years of legal training will have equipped you with all the knowledge required - so forgive me if I'm teaching granny to suck eggs.Generally speaking, unless there is a very specific flexibility clause in the contract, any change to terms and conditions have to be agreed by both parties. Employees should be consulted and it should be explained why the changes need to take place and what the company is looking to achieve by making those changes. A two-way process ensues, involving a Trades Union if there is union recognition, to genuinely seek to reach an agreement. If that agreement cannot be reached then the employer has the option (risky) of making the change unilaterally, or (the nuclear option) firing the employees giving due contractual notice, offering the right to appeal that dismissal, and then re-engaging on the new terms (fire and rehire!). If the employees continue to work under the new terms and do not state they are working under protest then Bob's your uncle - change made.However, employees may decide to claim the dismissal is unfair and seek redress using the Employment Tribunal Service. In the current climate where an employer can demonstrate they have followed due process (consultation, contractual notice and so on) and can justify the change on the basis of business survival and/or as an alternative to redundancies, then it is highly unlikely a tribunal would deem the dismissal unfair.So in response to your statement that 'perhaps we can agree that paying staff 80% is illegal' - my answer is no, we may not. It may or may not be proven to be unlawful but only a tribunal can decide that - and as I have said in the current climate that would be unlikely as long as due process has been followed.3 -
cafcfan1990 said:
No it's not legal to just do it. But it is a legally binding change to terms and conditions if the employee signs it. Only a selfish idiot would refuse to sign it in the current climate. Those people (IMO) deserve a redundancy and a struggle to get a job.Sarrf_London said:Sporadic, thanks for a reasoned reply, but from an earlier post:-
1. BA have been targeting higher paid employees for more than a decade.
2. It is unlikely that any airline will come out of this crisis as solvent. BA will be nationalised..
3. 80% wage is not legal according to CAFCFan1990, nor my 2yr legal study. Nobody has quoted an Act of Parliament suggesting otherwise.
4. Does nobody realise the old rules of commerce are out? Companies can no longer get away with exploiting the weak.
Bob's lot are I believe topping up the 20% which is a great gesture and one that should be encouraged if possible to do so. But there's a lot of businesses out there struggling so I don't think they should face any criticism if they decide not to. Staff will still be getting a minimum of 80% of their net salary. Full-time employees are only around 13% down and won't have travel costs. That's a very good deal for doing nothing.Nope - we are not topping up the 20% because we have not furloughed a single employee and therefore not claimed a single penny of taxpayers money. Our business has been hit badly and revenue demolished, yet we have guaranteed 100% full contractual pay irrespective of whether there is work for employees to do, or not.We chose to do it for two reasons - we have a strong balance sheet allowing us to finance it, and it was the right thing to do.9 - Sponsored links:
-
Bob, are you being deliberately obtuse, with your clear and patient answers?3
-
Fair play, I knew you were doing something above furloughing. Maybe you mentioned you do have same staff sitting at home? I must have mistakenly assumed that meant you were furloughed. It is the right thing to do but I don’t think any criticism should be aimed at those who cannot follow suit.bobmunro said:cafcfan1990 said:
No it's not legal to just do it. But it is a legally binding change to terms and conditions if the employee signs it. Only a selfish idiot would refuse to sign it in the current climate. Those people (IMO) deserve a redundancy and a struggle to get a job.Sarrf_London said:Sporadic, thanks for a reasoned reply, but from an earlier post:-
1. BA have been targeting higher paid employees for more than a decade.
2. It is unlikely that any airline will come out of this crisis as solvent. BA will be nationalised..
3. 80% wage is not legal according to CAFCFan1990, nor my 2yr legal study. Nobody has quoted an Act of Parliament suggesting otherwise.
4. Does nobody realise the old rules of commerce are out? Companies can no longer get away with exploiting the weak.
Bob's lot are I believe topping up the 20% which is a great gesture and one that should be encouraged if possible to do so. But there's a lot of businesses out there struggling so I don't think they should face any criticism if they decide not to. Staff will still be getting a minimum of 80% of their net salary. Full-time employees are only around 13% down and won't have travel costs. That's a very good deal for doing nothing.Nope - we are not topping up the 20% because we have not furloughed a single employee and therefore not claimed a single penny of taxpayers money. Our business has been hit badly and revenue demolished, yet we have guaranteed 100% full contractual pay irrespective of whether there is work for employees to do, or not.We chose to do it for two reasons - we have a strong balance sheet allowing us to finance it, and it was the right thing to do.Out of interest, how badly have you been hit? I wouldn’t have thought you would have been too badly affected given you don’t have shops like your big online rivals?0 -
Sorry Bob, as you say any changes to contracts have to be agreed by both parties. Employee biased tribunals may find against workers, but that doesn't make breaking contracts legal. I have been in such a situation against an employer and a barrister.
It is intimidating and unless you have union representation you are vunerable to intimidation. Fortunately my old man was a union rep, a regular at employment tribunals and they failed after his advice.0 -
The only twisting that has been done here is you twisting a thread to suit your agenda.Sarrf_London said:
Are you being deliberately obtuse Bob? Companies paying employees 80% of their salary is not about asking them to take a salary sacrifice, it is about twisting HMG furloughing to misinform them to take reduced pay. Otherwise why not ask people to take 25%, 30% or more? I have contacted people in this scenario and they were not given a choice, their pay packet was light. Not agreed by them.bobmunro said:Sarrf_London said:
Apologies. Redundancies. I assumed by your comments you have been following my posts. Again, why the aggression?Sarrf_London said:If I have a contract to be paid £2000 per month and they give me £1600 how is that legal? Why am I sensing animosity in these replies? These are serious issues, as I have relatives suffering this treatment, having already been given offers of sub-standard, 'take it or leave it' new deals with statutory minimum redundancy.
Perhaps someone with legal knowledge could reply.If a company making staff redundant has the readily available funds to pay enhanced redundancy then good for them. If a company is making people redundant because they refuse to be furloughed or the company is about to go tits up because of a crash in revenue then it is highly unlikely they will be able to pay any more than statutory redundancy https://www.gov.uk/calculate-your-redundancy-pay - and maybe not even that so the government pick up the tab because the company has gone out of business.There was no clear link to what you meant - you've spent most of the thread talking about furlough, then sprung on us that it wasn't furlough it was a company seeking a pay sacrifice from staff but still giving them work (so no furlough possible) and then you switch to redundancy.It's not aggression - it's frustration!
I am not suggesting that employees should not take salary reduction to protect their jobs and those of colleagues, but that is not what we have. We have subterfuge. Kicking the legal action can down the road.0 -
Alas CAFCFan1990 I have neither a company or a job. I am trying to ascertain whether relatives are being stitched up but getting little constructive advise. Think I may have upset someone on the Netflix threat. Hope nobody posting hereghere on HoC group.0
-
Incidentally, BA are far from perfect, but if you check the refund thread, you will see they come top of the ratings from a consumer perspective.stonemuse said:
The only twisting that has been done here is you twisting a thread to suit your agenda.Sarrf_London said:
Are you being deliberately obtuse Bob? Companies paying employees 80% of their salary is not about asking them to take a salary sacrifice, it is about twisting HMG furloughing to misinform them to take reduced pay. Otherwise why not ask people to take 25%, 30% or more? I have contacted people in this scenario and they were not given a choice, their pay packet was light. Not agreed by them.bobmunro said:Sarrf_London said:
Apologies. Redundancies. I assumed by your comments you have been following my posts. Again, why the aggression?Sarrf_London said:If I have a contract to be paid £2000 per month and they give me £1600 how is that legal? Why am I sensing animosity in these replies? These are serious issues, as I have relatives suffering this treatment, having already been given offers of sub-standard, 'take it or leave it' new deals with statutory minimum redundancy.
Perhaps someone with legal knowledge could reply.If a company making staff redundant has the readily available funds to pay enhanced redundancy then good for them. If a company is making people redundant because they refuse to be furloughed or the company is about to go tits up because of a crash in revenue then it is highly unlikely they will be able to pay any more than statutory redundancy https://www.gov.uk/calculate-your-redundancy-pay - and maybe not even that so the government pick up the tab because the company has gone out of business.There was no clear link to what you meant - you've spent most of the thread talking about furlough, then sprung on us that it wasn't furlough it was a company seeking a pay sacrifice from staff but still giving them work (so no furlough possible) and then you switch to redundancy.It's not aggression - it's frustration!
I am not suggesting that employees should not take salary reduction to protect their jobs and those of colleagues, but that is not what we have. We have subterfuge. Kicking the legal action can down the road.0 -
Sarrf London.I think the confusion is you dont seem to be talking about furlough at all but rather a change in work contract going forward for a BA employee who is not actually furloughed ( you said they have been working so cannot be furloughed)0
-
@MrOneLung
My point is that duplicious companies are using the well publicised furlough scheme to reduce employees wages in breach of contract. Good point that said person is on 80% wages but been asked to work. Furloughed or not? Legal can kicked down the road.0 -
Actually you're getting very good advice, but it doesn't seem to be suiting your agenda so you are ignoring it. That's your prerogative, but it's no wonder people are getting the ump with you.Sarrf_London said:Alas CAFCFan1990 I have neither a company or a job. I am trying to ascertain whether relatives are being stitched up but getting little constructive advise. Think I may have upset someone on the Netflix threat. Hope nobody posting hereghere on HoC group.
0
