Furlough choice? - employers said no!?

dglc2410

Appreciate the feedback , Thanks

calcotti

phillw said: I would check your contract, but if sick pay was at the discretion of your employer then you could end up on SSP or worse.

Or not even that. Staying at home doesn't necessarily allow you to be treated as sick in my opinion.

Crumble2018

A company has to be losing money and at risk of laying off staff to access the scheme. As an employee, you can't just choose to not work and expect the government to pay you. The problem with all this is that the government are sending out mixed messages - they want us all to stay at home, but are keeping quite about the fact that they want industry to carry on as normal!!

Crumble2018

calcotti said:

phillw said: I would check your contract, but if sick pay was at the discretion of your employer then you could end up on SSP or worse.

Or not even that. Staying at home doesn't necessarily allow you to be treated as sick in my opinion.

We were told that you only get SSP is you or a family member are sick.  And then only for 2 weeks.

Jeremy535897

"Under the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme, all UK employers will be able to access support to continue paying part of their employees’ salary for those employees that would otherwise have been laid off during this crisis.

Eligibility

All UK businesses are eligible."

Nothing about a requirement to be losing money.

robbiez

Any idea how to contact Martin Lewis website to get them to clarify the coronavirus 'help' regarding furloughed workers.
"Ask your employer to 'furlough' you and Govt will cover 80% of your salary up to £2,500/mth."
"It's up to employers to decide and define who is furloughed. It could be because you've no work to do (eg, you work in a closed restaurant), or as you have to be at home to look after children or you're self-isolating."
This is factually incorrect. You cannot be furloughed to look after children or self isolate. You can only be furloughed if the employer cannot pay your wages due to the effects coronavirus has had on the business turnover.
Suggesting an employee can be furloughed to look after children or self isolate is suggesting an employer commits fraud.

Crumble2018

robbiez said:

Any idea how to contact Martin Lewis website to get them to clarify the coronavirus 'help' regarding furloughed workers.
"Ask your employer to 'furlough' you and Govt will cover 80% of your salary up to £2,500/mth."
"It's up to employers to decide and define who is furloughed. It could be because you've no work to do (eg, you work in a closed restaurant), or as you have to be at home to look after children or you're self-isolating."
This is factually incorrect. You cannot be furloughed to look after children or self isolate. You can only be furloughed if the employer cannot pay your wages due to the effects coronavirus has had on the business turnover.
Suggesting an employee can be furloughed to look after children or self isolate is suggesting an employer commits fraud.

Exactly. So much misinformation out there, no wonder we are all confused!!

calcotti

Crumble2018 said: We were told that you only get SSP is you or a family member are sick.  And then only for 2 weeks.

That's my reading of all the information available - but it really would help if the government stated this clearly and offered advice on what they expect to happen to people staying at home for 12 weeks. As far as I can see they are not entitled to  SSP, they cannot be furloughed and their employer is within their rights not to pay them anything. It would seem therefore that their only option is to claim UC (if they are eligible).

robbiez

This website is a trusted source of information, so it should be correct and certainly shouldn't be suggesting employers commit fraud. 
I have one employee who opted to self isolate a week ago - they will get SSP, but they are very upset as they want/expect 80% wages. 
I also know for a fact, if I agree to commit fraud for one employee by furloughing them so they can look after their children, many other employees will want the same(and why wouldn't they!). This would mean I have to shut down my business due to having no staff.

nickmacd

The mixed messages and uncertainty around the scheme makes it all very confusing

My son works in the Travel Industry and therefore is very at threat at the moment. His company has retained him, and is thankfully still giving him work, but has drastically reduced his hours, his hourly rate has been cut to NMW and the small performance bonuses etc removed. He will effectively be on about 1/3 - 1/2 of what was not a huge salary to begin with. When this scheme was announced the headlines announced appeared on the surface to be a god send to someone like him, where the impact would not be so great, and he would potentially retain 80%+ of his salary. Reading a bit more now it looks like it would have been better financially for his company to, for all intent and purpose, make him redundant / furlough him and claim the Govt package

It appears as long as they keep him employed then this will not happen. But someone on a much better salary who's employer claims they would otherwise be made unemployed could sit at home on £2500+ pm

I am not so daft to think it is as simple as that and the majority of employers / employee's do not want to be in that position and therefore this could do with being made more simple, with clear direction to actually help the workers and not leave them even more at the mercy of the employers who can't/won't apply for it to help them retain somewhere near their basic earnings