Key Worker wishes to furlough while shielding

calcotti

suki1964 said: 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

I think it’s fine. As long as the employer is paying at least 89% of basic salary to any furloughed employee they comply with the scheme. The grant is intended to help the employer retain staff, I think it’s entirely up to the employer how they do on this within the terms of the scheme.

gary83

Not suggesting that’s what happening here, but I could see it getting murky if people get paid different amounts. What’s to stop the employee claiming 80% of the highest salary , but then continuing to benefit from the services of the person they pay the most and just tipping the governments larger share into their general wages pool.

Hermann

suki1964 said:

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

You seem to be saying that the employer is claiming furlough for an employee, then insisting she comes in to do some work?

This is one of the few things that seems very clear, a furloughed employee can do no work for the employer that furloughs them.

It seems likely your employer is risking have his entire support claim rejected.

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

 You do not need to place all your employees on furlough. However, those employees who you do place on furlough cannot undertake work for you.

Hermann

gary83 said:

Not suggesting that’s what happening here, but I could see it getting murky if people get paid different amounts. What’s to stop the employee claiming 80% of the highest salary , but then continuing to benefit from the services of the person they pay the most and just tipping the governments larger share into their general wages pool.

The employer can only claim for a furloughed employee.
The furloughed employee can do no work for that employer.

That said whats to stop the employer furloughing staff, claiming the wages then trousering all the money themselves and sailing off into the sunset without a penny going to the employees?

gill1912

My husband is a chef working full time in a residential home.  He is on immunosuppressants to control rheumatoid arthritis.  He has received a phone call from the Rheumatology consultant who advised he is extremely vulnerable and should stay at home for 12 weeks.  Could someone please advise whether we are entitled to any money from any source - I have looked but can't find a definitive answer.  Thank you.

calcotti

Hermann said:

You seem to be saying that the employer is claiming furlough for an employee, then insisting she comes in to do some work?

This is one of the few things that seems very clear, a furloughed employee can do no work for the employer that furloughs them.

I thought they were following the suggestion I made earlier that you could rotate employees on a 3 week cycle. A furloughed employee can do no work while furloughed but I can’t see anything to prevent someone being furloughed for 3 weeks, then returning for a period before being furloughed again.

calcotti

Hermann said: That said whats to stop the employer furloughing staff, claiming the wages then trousering all the money themselves and sailing off into the sunset without a penny going to the employees?

Given the scheme is not yet set up it seems that’s most claims will be made in arrears and the employer will already have paid the employee. Even if in advance HMRC will be paying the money to the employer and then receiving the monthly payroll information so should soon spot any discrepancies.

Hermann

calcotti said:

Hermann said:

You seem to be saying that the employer is claiming furlough for an employee, then insisting she comes in to do some work?

This is one of the few things that seems very clear, a furloughed employee can do no work for the employer that furloughs them.

I thought they were following the suggestion I made earlier that you could rotate employees on a 3 week cycle. A furloughed employee can do no work while furloughed but I can’t see anything to prevent someone being furloughed for 3 weeks, then returning for a period before being furloughed again.

On re reading it, perhaps you're right.