Furlough

Covered_End_Lad said:

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...

Not all huge companies and football clubs!

Elthamaddick said:

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

Fortune 82nd Minute said:

Hornchurch said:

Elthamaddick said:

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.

Has anyone who has been furloughed recieved a revised contract by email with clauses in they find unacceptable?
I have. Any HR bods can help please?

Anyone know if our staff have been placed on furlough?

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.

"And now we have no money, paying bills is tight".

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."

PrincessFiona said:

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. 

PrincessFiona said:

SporadicAddick said:

PrincessFiona said:

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.

PrincessFiona said:

SporadicAddick said:

PrincessFiona said:

SporadicAddick said:

PrincessFiona said:

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

PrincessFiona said:

SporadicAddick said:

PrincessFiona said:

SporadicAddick said:

PrincessFiona said:

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. 

Spitfire76 said:

Rob7Lee said:

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.