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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Absolutely not - the fact that we could afford it meant it was the right thing to do. I have no angst against companies who are using the furlough scheme to stay alive.
90% of our business is sports book, so pretty badly hit.
Sorry but my relative did not agree to take 80% of her salary. Nor was she happy to work in conditions that made her vunerable to Covid. She did so because she had the notification of redundancy proceedings and she will lose her job because BA have been trying to put long term employees on lesser contracts. She was irresponsibly put at risk of catching the lurgy by an employer that is threatening to sack her. She didn't agree to furlough on 80% wages or work in unsafe conditions. She was forced. If she is still working is she furloughed? She certainly takes home less pay.
Legal action kicked down the road. And prior to the virus they were a FTSE 100 company.They obviously didn't employ very good disaster management advisors.
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.
I that's out of order. Bob has gone above and beyond to provide detailed advice. I couldn't be arsed to go into such detail, although despite having some decent qualifications myself you're not going to better advice than from him anyway.
You haven't actually said anything about what your relatives have been asked to do.
If they have signed/agreed to 80% of their wages whilst doing nothing, they haven't been stitched up. It's possible they MAY have if their employers didn't consult and are paying 80% anyway.
If you provided more details with less attitude you might get even more advice. Although like Off it says, this has been provided anyway.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Absolutely not - the fact that we could afford it meant it was the right thing to do. I have no angst against companies who are using the furlough scheme to stay alive.
90% of our business is sports book, so pretty badly hit.
I think I had a massive blonde moment when I asked that question! Obviously no sport, although I believe your casino is probably actually doing better as people move to another form of gambling.
Surprised at that figure though, I presumed Casino, Poker and Bingo would make up more than 10%. You learn something new.
Sorry but my relative did not agree to take 80% of her salary. Nor was she happy to work in conditions that made her vunerable to Covid. She did so because she had the notification of redundancy proceedings. She was irresponsibly put at risk of catching the lurgy by an employer that is threatening to sack her. She didn't agree to furlough but is on 80% wages. If she is still working is she furloughed? She certainly takes home less pay.
Legal action kicked down the road. And prior to the virus they were a FTSE 100 company.They obviously didn't employ very good disaster management advisors.
Without meaning to criticise your niece, this is a difficulty employers are facing and one I have sympathy for. People do not want to be furloughed nor work in an unsafe environment. It's a big problem because not all companies have the equipment or means for those employeers to work from home so furloughing and redundancy becames their only options.
To answer your questions: 1 - Did the employer threaten to sack her or make her redundant? They are two different things entirely. 2 - If she's on 80% and hasn't agreed, that is wrong. The employer should have consulted and seek consent. 3 - No, an employee should not carry on working whilst being furloughed.
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.
I think you’re getting pretty amazing, in depth, high level advice, for free, on a forum where people are giving up time on their Saturday night to assist you. Yet you continue to respond with zero warmth or gratitude.
I suggest you seek professional advice in the right way (probably at a cost) and not seek it on a football forum.
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.
I think you’re getting pretty amazing, in depth, high level advice, for free, on a forum where people are giving up time on their Saturday night to assist you. Yet you continue to respond with zero warmth or gratitude.
I suggest you seek professional advice in the right way (probably at a cost) and not seek it on a football forum.
Let’s just say it’s all the Tories fault, then he will be happy, close the thread, jeez
@bobmunro some great advice there thanks, it's a tough time for a lot or people and companies. It's a shame some of the more cash rich companies are not more like you guys 👍🏻.
Out of interest how big an impact has UFC and bundesliga return had?
@bobmunro some great advice there thanks, it's a tough time for a lot or people and companies. It's a shame some of the more cash rich companies are not more like you guys 👍🏻.
Out of interest how big an impact has UFC and bundesliga return had?
Thanks.
UFC is relatively small (as is boxing) - certainly compared to football which is by far our biggest product. The Bundesliga has certainly generated increased transactions, although the results have been mixed! La Liga coming back mid-June and maybe the Premier League and Championship will help, as will UK horse racing which may be back in a week or so behind closed doors. It seems to have worked reasonably well in France.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Absolutely not - the fact that we could afford it meant it was the right thing to do. I have no angst against companies who are using the furlough scheme to stay alive.
90% of our business is sports book, so pretty badly hit.
I think I had a massive blonde moment when I asked that question! Obviously no sport, although I believe your casino is probably actually doing better as people move to another form of gambling.
Surprised at that figure though, I presumed Casino, Poker and Bingo would make up more than 10%. You learn something new.
I might have exaggerated slightly - but sport is around 85% and that's where we made our name, especially with in-play.
The gaming products are bolt-ons really - although as a stand alone business it would still be worth having!
Sorry AFKA if you feel that way, especially as I only let loose on the HoC group.
I am seriously seeking advice on people close to me who have been been disadvantaged by unlawful attacks on their livelihood. Despite numerous posts, there has been only one poster (apologies I cannot remember who) that had confirmed my assertion that the employer action was illegal. Can you confirm that it is not? Instead I have been subject to open abuse without anyone addressing the issues with any facts. Almost all posts have highlighted that cutting people's wages is ok without any reasoning why apart from the fact that it saves the country money. I suspect most are not seeing a personal financial downturn of the crisis.
Apologies for not expressing gratitude, but contrary to your assertion I do not feel I have had any meaningful professional advice.
Please feel free to cut and paste to force a grovelling apology.
To clarify, the government is paying 80% of employee wages, but that doesn't allow companies to reduce contracted employees wages by 20%. Is this bollocks from me or the law?
Last time: YOU ARE CONFUSING TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.
1. The furlough scheme : employees don't work at all - they are not allowed to - and the government picks up 80% of their salary. Some employers are topping up the extra 20% and some aren't. That's their choice.
2. Change of contract/working hours/conditions, etc : This is something completely different and will be specific to individual circumstances. Bob has already outlined the legalities of this. The fact he hasn't "confirmed your assertions" doesn't make his input any less valid.
You seem to already have made your mind up that whatever is happening is "unlawful" and don't appear to be able to take in any contrary information that challenges that view.
If you want "meaningful professional advice" then you will have to pay for it, and I would encourage you to do so.
PS. No need to thank me for explaining this to you again. And I wont bill you for my time.
Sorry Dan if you feel that way, especially as I only let loose on the HoC group.
I am seriously seeking advice on people close to me who have been been disadvantaged by unlawful attacks on their livelihood. Despite numerous posts, there has been only one poster (apologies I cannot remember who) that had confirmed my assertion that the employer action was illegal. Can you confirm that it is not? Instead I have been subject to open abuse without anyone addressing the issues with any facts. Almost all posts have highlighted that cutting people's wages is ok without any reasoning why apart from the fact that it saves the country money. I suspect most are not seeing a personal financial downturn of the crisis.
Apologies for not expressing gratitude, but contrary to your assertion I do not feel I have had any meaningful professional advice.
Please feel free to cut and paste to force a grovelling apology.
To clarify, the government is paying 80% of employee wages, but that doesn't allow companies to reduce contracted employees wages by 20%. Is this bollocks from me or the law?
Mate you shouldn't come on here after a day on the sauce!
This is going to be my last post in response as I've got a serious headache.
These are simple facts with furloughing and redundancy:
1 - Does the company have the work and/or the means for the employees to carry on working? If yes, that employee should carry on working on full pay. If no, the employee(s) might be made redundant or furloughed. Both of these are legally justified because the work is no longer available for paid employment to continue.
2 - If furloughed, the company have no obligation to pay 100% of their wages. The government will pay 80% of their wages. To be furloughed, as it is a change in terms and conditions of employment (unless the original contract gives the employer the right to amend without consultation), then the employee has to provide written consent.
3 - If the work is not available, and the employee does not provide consent to furlughing, then redundancy becomes the probability.
4 - If furloughed, the employee should do no work for their employer.
Not one person on here has said employers are able to just stick their employees on furlough. Both myself and others have stated there should be a consultation. I'm sorry but if those closest to you are refusing to be furloughed (and cannot work), they are in the wrong (morally). If this leads to a redundancy then that is what they deserve.
You have provided such little facts it's been difficult to provide specific advice. All you keep banging on about is how the employer is breaking the law by deducting 20% of their wages. This is true if the employee is working full-time, or if the employee has been furloughed but is still working. It's not true if furlughing has been agreed. I really don't think it's difficult to grasp.
The 80% is a fantastic move by the Government and has helped millions. If some people, in the middle of the pandemic have a gripe about getting 80% of their wages for sitting on their arse whilst millions of others are putting themselves at risk day in day out then shame on them.
Sarrf, it reads to me like you’re asking questions until you get the answer you want to hear. All of the posts that have been in response to your questions have been based on the info you provided, and all of the posters that have replied to you aren’t on a wind up.
If you don’t want to take on board/agree with their answers then it’s entirely up to you. I really wouldn’t spend anymore time on this subject on here and would get in touch with ACAS. I promise there’s no aggression in this response, simply a suggestion so as to not frustrate and annoy other posters, but also for your own enjoyment of the forum
1.the employee is still working but only receiving 80% of wages. Admittedly not working at previous levels but not pro-rata. Furloughed?
2. Furloughed! Was there a HoC vote to allow companies to override legally binding contracts of employment? They are obligated to employment contracts. Or not. Link please.
3. my relative has been offered the opportunity to apply for her existing job on reduced terms with the likelihood she won't get it, so redundancy on statutory minimum redundancy is a certainty. BA was a FTSE 100 company.
4. My relative is still being asked to work, under threat of redundancy, so cannot be furloughed, but is still only getting 80% pay and breathing air of potential contagious passengers/staff.
There has been no consultation. An e-mail to start the 3 month 'consultation' process. Refusal to meet Union reps. I have given lots of info on the issue, you just don't listen. I have praised the 80%, I am critical of the missing 20%.
1.the employee is still working but only receiving 80% of wages. Admittedly not working at previous levels but not pro-rata. Furloughed?
2. Furloughed! Was there a HoC vote to allow companies to override legally binding contracts of employment? They are obligated to employment contracts. Or not. Link please.
3. my relative has been offered the opportunity to apply for her existing job on reduced terms with the likelihood she won't get it, so redundancy on statutory minimum redundancy is a certainty. BA was a FTSE 100 company.
4. My relative is still being asked to work, under threat of redundancy, so cannot be furloughed, but is still only getting 80% pay and breathing air of potential contagious passengers/staff.
There has been no consultation. An e-mail to start the 3 month 'consultation' process. Refusal to meet Union reps. I have given lots of info on the issue, you just don't listen. I have praised the 80%, I am critical of the missing 20%.
Are you thinking that she has been furloughed because she has been offered 80% of her wages by BA ? Being asked to take a pay decrease & being furloughed are two different things & I think you are confusing the two maybe because she has been offered 80% & coincidentally furlough is also 80%?
No attitude from me m8 just a straight question as it really sounds like you are misinterpreting what furlough is.
Comments
Legal action kicked down the road. And prior to the virus they were a FTSE 100 company.They obviously didn't employ very good disaster management advisors.
Surprised at that figure though, I presumed Casino, Poker and Bingo would make up more than 10%. You learn something new.
To answer your questions:
1 - Did the employer threaten to sack her or make her redundant? They are two different things entirely.
2 - If she's on 80% and hasn't agreed, that is wrong. The employer should have consulted and seek consent.
3 - No, an employee should not carry on working whilst being furloughed.
I suggest you seek professional advice in the right way (probably at a cost) and not seek it on a football forum.
Out of interest how big an impact has UFC and bundesliga return had?
I am seriously seeking advice on people close to me who have been been disadvantaged by unlawful attacks on their livelihood. Despite numerous posts, there has been only one poster (apologies I cannot remember who) that had confirmed my assertion that the employer action was illegal. Can you confirm that it is not? Instead I have been subject to open abuse without anyone addressing the issues with any facts. Almost all posts have highlighted that cutting people's wages is ok without any reasoning why apart from the fact that it saves the country money. I suspect most are not seeing a personal financial downturn of the crisis.
Apologies for not expressing gratitude, but contrary to your assertion I do not feel I have had any meaningful professional advice.
Please feel free to cut and paste to force a grovelling apology.
To clarify, the government is paying 80% of employee wages, but that doesn't allow companies to reduce contracted employees wages by 20%. Is this bollocks from me or the law?
the company can pay the other 20 if they want/ can
the whole government thing is to protect jobs. No save the government money as it is costing them billions.
1. The furlough scheme : employees don't work at all - they are not allowed to - and the government picks up 80% of their salary. Some employers are topping up the extra 20% and some aren't. That's their choice.
2. Change of contract/working hours/conditions, etc : This is something completely different and will be specific to individual circumstances. Bob has already outlined the legalities of this. The fact he hasn't "confirmed your assertions" doesn't make his input any less valid.
You seem to already have made your mind up that whatever is happening is "unlawful" and don't appear to be able to take in any contrary information that challenges that view.
If you want "meaningful professional advice" then you will have to pay for it, and I would encourage you to do so.
PS. No need to thank me for explaining this to you again. And I wont bill you for my time.
1. Reapply for her job which as a top tier employee, she won't get.
2. They didn't ask just cut her wages
3. Agree, but she is on 80% wages and still required to work.
BA will be bailed out by HMG and all of these issues will be paid for by us, or they will bomb and nobody will pay legitimate remuneration.
This is going to be my last post in response as I've got a serious headache.
These are simple facts with furloughing and redundancy:
1 - Does the company have the work and/or the means for the employees to carry on working? If yes, that employee should carry on working on full pay. If no, the employee(s) might be made redundant or furloughed. Both of these are legally justified because the work is no longer available for paid employment to continue.
2 - If furloughed, the company have no obligation to pay 100% of their wages. The government will pay 80% of their wages. To be furloughed, as it is a change in terms and conditions of employment (unless the original contract gives the employer the right to amend without consultation), then the employee has to provide written consent.
3 - If the work is not available, and the employee does not provide consent to furlughing, then redundancy becomes the probability.
4 - If furloughed, the employee should do no work for their employer.
Not one person on here has said employers are able to just stick their employees on furlough. Both myself and others have stated there should be a consultation. I'm sorry but if those closest to you are refusing to be furloughed (and cannot work), they are in the wrong (morally). If this leads to a redundancy then that is what they deserve.
You have provided such little facts it's been difficult to provide specific advice. All you keep banging on about is how the employer is breaking the law by deducting 20% of their wages. This is true if the employee is working full-time, or if the employee has been furloughed but is still working. It's not true if furlughing has been agreed. I really don't think it's difficult to grasp.
The 80% is a fantastic move by the Government and has helped millions. If some people, in the middle of the pandemic have a gripe about getting 80% of their wages for sitting on their arse whilst millions of others are putting themselves at risk day in day out then shame on them.
If you don’t want to take on board/agree with their answers then it’s entirely up to you. I really wouldn’t spend anymore time on this subject on here and would get in touch with ACAS. I promise there’s no aggression in this response, simply a suggestion so as to not frustrate and annoy other posters, but also for your own enjoyment of the forum
1.the employee is still working but only receiving 80% of wages. Admittedly not working at previous levels but not pro-rata. Furloughed?
2. Furloughed! Was there a HoC vote to allow companies to override legally binding contracts of employment? They are obligated to employment contracts. Or not. Link please.
3. my relative has been offered the opportunity to apply for her existing job on reduced terms with the likelihood she won't get it, so redundancy on statutory minimum redundancy is a certainty. BA was a FTSE 100 company.
4. My relative is still being asked to work, under threat of redundancy, so cannot be furloughed, but is still only getting 80% pay and breathing air of potential contagious passengers/staff.
There has been no consultation. An e-mail to start the 3 month 'consultation' process. Refusal to meet Union reps. I have given lots of info on the issue, you just don't listen. I have praised the 80%, I am critical of the missing 20%.
Being asked to take a pay decrease & being furloughed are two different things & I think you are confusing the two maybe because she has been offered 80% & coincidentally furlough is also 80%?