Furlough for agency workers

karlyfox212

My husband has been working for an agency since January 2020, last Wednesday the company he was working at told all workers the business was going to close until further notice so all workers to stay home, the agency have said he wont get furloughed as they cant afford to pay all staff on their books and cant guarantee that the company will have him back after all this is over.  They have suggested go down the universal credit route.  Would this be correct please?

Galloglass

What type of contract did he have with the Agency? Was it zero hours?

A number of Agencies are being hit by the cash-flow effects of furloughing in that they have to pay first and reclaim every 3 weeks. On top of that, some companies have not been paying the Agencies the amounts owed within terms. 

Going UC (if not in receipt of tax credits) is the way forward until this sorts itself.

GazNicki

Yes, this would be correct.

Furlough is optional, not mandatory. With the way agencies work, the people who are registered with them are very expendable.

Your husband would be best placed signing on the UC and then looking for work in a Key Worker sector for now.

Vox_AC30

GazNicki said:

Yes, this would be correct.

Furlough is optional, not mandatory. With the way agencies work, the people who are registered with them are very expendable.

Your husband would be best placed signing on the UC and then looking for work in a Key Worker sector for now.

I think this is bonkers to be honest. It should be made mandatory - if agencies have cash flow problems there should be an option to pay staff via the scheme in arrears. The scheme will be up and running by the end of April, and companies can then apply. It seems daft that there isn't more flexibility over this.

sharpe106

The government do not really want to pay it all, they can not afford it. Boris said a good sound bite to the cameras without really thinking about it. The treasury and policy makers are trying to implement it without it bankrupting the entire country.  

Vox_AC30

Implementing a scheme whereby they don't really want too may people to apply/too many hoops etc. will backfire pretty spectacularly pretty quickly and be exposed as the sham it is in that case. If the government don't provide real support to people then they will be annihilated at the next election. This is pretty much a war time scenario and general economics don't really apply here, you have to do whatever it takes.

sharpe106

General economics does apply as if they ruin the economy, they will be far more deaths in the long run. Look at India they have done a complete lock down and people are starving to death. So, you can't just say ignore the economy. 

Vox_AC30

India/developing countries are a different scenario, and I agree they are stuck between a rock and a hard place in that case, however, for a developed country such as ours - a war time footing, gold commanders and all, is the only moral response. You think about the rest later.

sharpe106

If they do not think about the rest as you say they may find when we come out of it we well no longer be a developed country. If we have spent everything, we don't really make much to replace it. 

Vox_AC30

A government that didn't protect it's citizens - going down the herd immunity route, resulting in min 100,000 dead - wouldn't be a government for long. Every other developed country in the world is making radical interventions, because they know they have to.

GazNicki

I think they should have paid every PAYE employee and every Self Employed with up-to-date Self Assessments an instant £2500 per month. Then people will have stayed at home if they didn't need to go to work, and Key Workers would get a bonus.

Just because I think that, doesn't mean it is either logical or economically viable.

The reality is, only major corporations with a good supply of money can withstand to furlough their employees for 3 months before claiming back the money.