Government guidance on Job Retention Scheme has been updated 4 April

Hermann

Just a quick heads up as the guidance has now changed and there are some significant changes, and possibly some more questions 

calcotti

Hermann - I assume your topic title is meant to be 4 April!

calcotti

Advice for employees
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/check-if-you-could-be-covered-by-the-coronavirus-job-retention-scheme
Advice for employers
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/claim-for-wage-costs-through-the-coronavirus-job-retention-scheme

Even if you are an employee it is helpful to read the guidance for employers also.

calcotti

Looking at advice for employees I note this (which I don't recall before):
"This scheme does not apply if you are self-employed or to any income from self-employment."
We had been assuming that someone who is both self employed and employed could be furloughed and claim under SEISS. This sentence appears to preclude this. It also raises the possibility that someone this situation cannot be furloughed but if self employment income is less than PAYE income they will not qualify for SEISS eyer.
Thoughts?

EDIT: I think this post was me overthinking it. I think it does just mean that any self employment is not part of this scheme. Brain fried!

calcotti

I think we now have an answer to the vexed question of whether people who are shielding can be furloughed by an employer who has no general need to furlough employers
"If you cannot maintain your current workforce because your operations have been severely affected by coronavirus.." This seems to prevent an employer furloughing someone just because that employee is shielding.

Hermann

calcotti said:

Hermann - I assume your topic title is meant to be 4 April!

Woops, the advantage of a community constantly reviewing everything posted!

Hermann

calcotti said:

Looking at advice for employees I note this (which I don't recall before):
"This scheme does not apply if you are self-employed or to any income from self-employment."
We had been assuming that someone who is both self employed and employed could be furloughed and claim under SEISS. This sentence appears to preclude this. It also raises the possibility that someone this situation cannot be furloughed but if self employment income is less than PAYE income they will not qualify for SEISS eyer.
Thoughts?

Not sure that is new, however it is only on the guidance for employees not employers.

I'd have expected it to be mentioned in the guidance for employers that the employee having other employment that was classed as self employed excluded them from the job retention scheme.

Potentially a problem but I'm unsure how an employer following the published employers guidelines would arrive at the conclusion that that PAYE employee was excluded form the scheme. 

Having contradictory guidance is definitely a possible source for confusion.

Jeremy535897

calcotti said:

Looking at advice for employees I note this (which I don't recall before):
"This scheme does not apply if you are self-employed or to any income from self-employment."
We had been assuming that someone who is both self employed and employed could be furloughed and claim under SEISS. This sentence appears to preclude this. It also raises the possibility that someone this situation cannot be furloughed but if self employment income is less than PAYE income they will not qualify for SEISS eyer.
Thoughts?

Calcotti, it was in the earlier version. I recall a poster asking whether this wording stopped a claim for both employment and self employment under the two grant schemes. My reply was that I thought it was just clarifying that the job retention scheme did not apply to self employment. In other words, "if you are just self employed, this is not the scheme for you. If you are employed but with self employment income, this scheme does not apply to the self employed bit of your income."
I agree that the wording could be clearer, but if your interpretation was correct, I think the words "or to any income from self employment" would be otiose.

robbiez

calcotti said:

I think we now have an answer to the vexed question of whether people who are shielding can be furloughed by an employer who has no general need to furlough employers
"If you cannot maintain your current workforce because your operations have been severely affected by coronavirus.." This seems to prevent an employer furloughing someone just because that employee is shielding.

Agreed. The updated version makes even clearer my(and many others) interpretation of the guidelines.

"If you are shielding in line with public health guidance or required to stay home due to an individual in your household shielding and are unable to work from home, then you should speak to your employer about whether they plan to place staff on furlough."

"If you are unable to work, including from home, due to caring responsibilities arising from coronarivus (COVID-19), such as caring for children who are at home as a result of school and childcare facilities closing, or caring for a vulnerable individual in your household, then you should speak to your employer about whether they plan to place staff on furlough."

Clearly, you can be furloughed to look after children or to shield, but only if the business needs to furlough staff as they have been severely affected by coronavirus. They is still absolutely no indication that you can be furloughed to look after children/to shield when the business is not affected and doesn't want to furlough any staff.

It seems Martin Lewis was given 'confirmed' information this was going to change, but it hasn't.

Martin Lewis on Twitter - "A plea to all UK employers. If people can't work for any reason - furlough em. It's not cheating the system, it's upholding it..."

"As an employer you are able to furlough an employee who requests it for this reason. That is information i have had confirmed."

Hermann

robbiez said:

calcotti said:

I think we now have an answer to the vexed question of whether people who are shielding can be furloughed by an employer who has no general need to furlough employers
"If you cannot maintain your current workforce because your operations have been severely affected by coronavirus.." This seems to prevent an employer furloughing someone just because that employee is shielding.

Agreed. The updated version makes even clearer my(and many others) interpretation of the guidelines.

"If you are shielding in line with public health guidance or required to stay home due to an individual in your household shielding and are unable to work from home, then you should speak to your employer about whether they plan to place staff on furlough."

"If you are unable to work, including from home, due to caring responsibilities arising from coronarivus (COVID-19), such as caring for children who are at home as a result of school and childcare facilities closing, or caring for a vulnerable individual in your household, then you should speak to your employer about whether they plan to place staff on furlough."

Clearly, you can be furloughed to look after children or to shield, but only if the business needs to furlough staff as they have been severely affected by coronavirus. They is still absolutely no indication that you can be furloughed to look after children/to shield when the business is not affected and doesn't want to furlough any staff.

It seems Martin Lewis was given 'confirmed' information this was going to change, but it hasn't.

Martin Lewis on Twitter - "A plea to all UK employers. If people can't work for any reason - furlough em. It's not cheating the system, it's upholding it..."

"As an employer you are able to furlough an employee who requests it for this reason. That is information i have had confirmed."

The updated guidance appears to now say all employers can apply though so does that change things?

This is a temporary scheme in place for 3 months starting from 1 March 2020, but it may be extended if necessary and employers can use this scheme anytime during this period. It is designed to help employers whose operations have been severely affected by coronavirus (COVID-19) to retain their employees and protect the UK economy. However, all employers are eligible to claim under the scheme and the government recognises different businesses will face different impacts from coronavirus.

calcotti

Jeremy535897 said:

Calcotti, it was in the earlier version. ...
I agree that the wording could be clearer, but if your interpretation was correct, I think the words "or to any income from self employment" would be otiose.

Thanks Jeremy. Slightly frustrating not being able to see exactly what has changed!