Key Worker wishes to furlough while shielding

banana101

Hi there,
I work for a small business in the health and social sector.  I've had a member of staff decide to go on a leave of absence to shield her husband who has underlying health issues.  I was of the impression that SSP would be paid from day 1; however this individual is adamant that she be furloughed.  I'm quite uncertain of this, but the business would not survive if she were to be furloughed, and I have not made her redundant, so I doubt I can claim the 80% back from the state.
Can anyone advise in this area please?  Thank you

7Phil

She won't be covered for SSP unless she has an official reason for SSP. Staying home to protect another member of the family that does not have symptoms is not a valid reason but businesses are asked to be lenient when asking for evidence.
Surely businesses can choose to pay them SSP even if the business can't get that money back from HMRC...

She can't demand to be furloughed and whether you decide to do that is up to you. You will get the money back to you from HRMC but that will take a bit of time, putting you out of pocket.

I recommend you get some professional advice before knowing how you should correctly deal with this situation as it sounds like it is getting difficult. We would not want to give you incorrect advice or you may end up in serious hot water.

Mrsn

She cannot demand to be furloughed that’s not how the scheme works. Nor do I believe she is eligible for SSP because it is not herself with the medical condition. It is harsh but there are restrictions in place. If you do chose to pay her SSP then that is very generous of you to do so.

suki1964

She is entitled to SSP if she is shielding her husband who has been advised by the government that he needs to self isolate for the 12 weeks

She is also entitled to SSP from day one

The employer is able to claim the sick pay back from the government 

No one living in a household where someone is isolating should be forced into work, the government is quite clear on this

"The extended SSP will be available for all those who are advised to self-isolate, even if they haven’t yet presented with symptoms. This also includes individuals who are caring for people in the same household and have therefore been advised to do a household quarantine."

She can get a sick note of NHS111 online

unforeseen

Who is advising household quarantine?
Has the partner received the letter. 'underlying issues' could be anything in the lower risk group as well
The changes were 

Temporarily extend SSP to cover: individuals who are unable to work because they have been advised to self-isolate; and people caring for those within the same household who display COVID-19 symptoms and have been told to self-isolate.

Nothing about household quarantine. If you wish to take the time off its at your cost. 

HornetSaver

@suki1964 do you have a source for that quote? Not questioning the validity, perfectly believe it, but haven't been able to track that down from official sources.

@banana101 you say "but the business would not survive if she were to be furloughed" just curious what is meant by this?

The reason I ask these questions, is that prior to seeing suki's answer - suki is a far more experienced forumite than myself - my understanding would have been that SSP would cost the business more (because apart from a 14 day period where I'm certain the Government will reimburse, any further SSP would be for the employer to pay).

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/support-for-those-affected-by-covid-19/support-for-those-affected-by-covid-19

"Information for businesses

If you are a small- or medium-sized business, you may be entitled to reclaim the costs of Statutory Sick Pay (SSP) for sickness absence due to COVID-19:

this refund will cover up to two weeks’ SSP per eligible employee who are either ill or been told to self-isolate because of COVID-19."

On the other hand, furlough shouldn't cost the employer anything, albeit there would be cash-flow implications until the payment was received. The entire link would be useful for any business considering furlough but the quote relevant to the point being discussed:

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/claim-for-wage-costs-through-the-coronavirus-job-retention-scheme

If your employee is on Statutory Sick Pay

Employees on sick leave or self-isolating should get Statutory Sick Pay, but can be furloughed after this.

Employees who are shielding in line with public health guidance can be placed on furlough.

I'm not trying to talk the OP into giving furlough, I'm taking a purely "is the advice given so far the best advice for the OP?" approach in making this post. Therefore for me it's a matter of trying to understand why furlough is considered to be a bad option for the business? Is it cash flow? Inability for the business to function without the employee? Will not be judgemental on the answer just don't think I've fully understood.

banana101

@HornetSaver the business would struggle both fiscally and in an operational sense - if one person were to go off furloughed, I already know of 4 others who are interested in this which will cause an initial cashflow issue; but my main concern would be our lack of staffing for vulnerable Service Users who are unable to look after themselves.  Currently we have 12.5% of staff off, and despite having contingency plans, these are now running thin.
Thank you for your help. My only reasoning for the SSP route is not to provide an incentive for those who may try to abuse this system, and in so doing cause harm to others.  Crap call either way.

HornetSaver

banana101 said:

@HornetSaver the business would struggle both fiscally and in an operational sense - if one person were to go off furloughed, I already know of 4 others who are interested in this which will cause an initial cashflow issue; but my main concern would be our lack of staffing for vulnerable Service Users who are unable to look after themselves.  Currently we have 12.5% of staff off, and despite having contingency plans, these are now running thin.
Thank you for your help. My only reasoning for the SSP route is not to provide an incentive for those who may try to abuse this system, and in so doing cause harm to others.  Crap call either way.

It is, and I have tremendous sympathy for your predicament. But one thing worth re-iterating is that furlough is the decision of the employer, not the employee. If, hypothetically, the situation were that you have one person who needs to go into shielding because they are the carer of someone in the extremely vulnerable group, four people who would like to be furloughed because they are concerned about the situation, and you need your employees to work if at all possible, you'd be on safe ground to decide to furlough the one and not the others. Management of morale whilst maintaining confidentiality, keeping the others motivated, these would however be significant challenges.

For me the biggest shortcoming of furlough is that the package for those who receive it is so generous that it creates problems. Let's take a business with 10 employees whose income is down 60% - their options are to furlough a portion of the workforce, or to seek a reduction in people's hours which would take everyone below the sort of money they'd receive through furlough, or, in some cases, they want to furlough some and reduce the hours of others, creating the absurd situation where those who do no work receive more than some of those who continue to work.

suki1964

Furlough means standing them down, that there isn't the work for them at this time, you are saying this in not the case

In this employees case she need SSP for the two weeks - that will be refunded to you. After that she can use any holiday pay she's still has, then Im afraid its UC

To be furloughed, it means the business is closing or having to lay of staff to survive the downturn. You furlough the staff you would have laid off so that they still get some income without having to overwhelm the UC system and the business retains qualified experienced staff

calcotti

HornetSaver said:

For me the biggest shortcoming of furlough is that the package for those who receive it is so generous that it creates problems. Let's take a business with 10 employees whose income is down 60% - their options are to furlough a portion of the workforce, or to seek a reduction in people's hours which would take everyone below the sort of money they'd receive through furlough, or, in some cases, they want to furlough some and reduce the hours of others, creating the absurd situation where those who do no work receive more than some of those who continue to work.

One way round this, albeit rather cumbersome and possibly not efficient, would be to rotate employees on a 3 week cycle (the minimum period an employee can be furloughed for).

suki1964

calcotti said:

HornetSaver said:

For me the biggest shortcoming of furlough is that the package for those who receive it is so generous that it creates problems. Let's take a business with 10 employees whose income is down 60% - their options are to furlough a portion of the workforce, or to seek a reduction in people's hours which would take everyone below the sort of money they'd receive through furlough, or, in some cases, they want to furlough some and reduce the hours of others, creating the absurd situation where those who do no work receive more than some of those who continue to work.

One way round this, albeit rather cumbersome and possibly not efficient, would be to rotate employees on a 3 week cycle (the minimum period an employee can be furloughed for).

This is exactly what my employer is doing.

We have one on Furlough, or she will be come Monday when her SSP runs out, but hes insisting she comes in to rotate with those of us that are still doing a full week as he says its not fair on us who aren't getting their full hours to be getting paid the same as her. Hes claiming her as furloughed and using the money to even up all our wages. Might not be what the government intended, but Im not sure its illegal as the money goes to his business account for the wages to be paid. He may be wrong, but thats his intention