Employer paying me less than 80% for furlough weeks

poppy12345

spydaz said:

AS you know the Furlouh was forced on the population and we was not given actual chioces to NOT take the furlough and Force our respective companies to UPHOLD thier contracts or GO into recieverships or get running costs loans which is not the buisness of the employee; We was not TOLD it was AN AMMENDMENT to Our EXISTING CONTRACTS (NON DISPUTABLE); it does not seem legal to be forced to accept an ammendment to a contract without fair review and full discussion and the resigning by BOTH Partys to the AMENDED Agreement? this has happened to the whiole country ; employers seem to be given free reign to underpay by paying nothing ? And the goverment pay the wages of us all? this seems UNFAIR and ILLEGAL? how are our working Rights being protected?

I'm assuming from this you would have prefered to stay at home and not receive anything?

jjames1985

spydaz said:

AS you know the Furlouh was forced on the population and we was not given actual chioces to NOT take the furlough and Force our respective companies to UPHOLD thier contracts or GO into recieverships or get running costs loans which is not the buisness of the employee; We was not TOLD it was AN AMMENDMENT to Our EXISTING CONTRACTS (NON DISPUTABLE); it does not seem legal to be forced to accept an ammendment to a contract without fair review and full discussion and the resigning by BOTH Partys to the AMENDED Agreement? this has happened to the whiole country ; employers seem to be given free reign to underpay by paying nothing ? And the goverment pay the wages of us all? this seems UNFAIR and ILLEGAL? how are our working Rights being protected?

Furlough wasn't forced on you. You had the right to refuse it if you wanted.

yellow1231231

spydaz said:

unholyangel said:

spydaz said:

I am  Kinda Confused ;

IF you have a Contract with your company for an annual salary ie 24k ;  with the furlow scheme they are paying 80 percent of the wage at the moment.

Are they not legaly required to fulfil the contact at the end of the year with the unpaid salary 20percent for the missing wages.

Yes; the gov has given them a grant for the wages but are they not legally bound to provide the salary regardless of actual hrs worked?

It seems as though they are not fulfilling thier contract. does this now invalidate all work contracts?

This is why you need to agree to be furloughed - because you are agreeing to vary the normal terms of your contract. If they hadn't furloughed you, they'd be due to pay your contracted minimum. Which is why the job retention scheme was put in place - because most employers would start terminating contracts rather than pay the contracted minimum for an undetermined length of time where there is no work for them to do. 

SO ; Basically everybody who has been furloughed has WAIVED THIER RIGHTS? As this is not stated in the Furlough statements Provided by the employer or has not been said anything about this on the news?... SO : Contracts have all been violated?

yes correct everyone had to agree most decided it was better than being made redundant

[Deleted User]

@spydaz
Typing things in capitals and adding phrases like "NON DISPUTABLE", "UPHOLD" and "TOLD" does not change anything. Furlough is totally legal, if you agreed to furlough then you agreed to an amendment of the contract. You might have not understood what you were agreeing to, but that seems to be your issue. Your working rights are protected under law, just as they were before this, just as they are now and just as they are during furlough. You had the choice with furlough, accept or refuse, those who refused would probably be made redundant, again, that is a contractual right. 

The issue seems that you do not understand, there has been no tearing up of employment law, there has been no mass conspiracy to remove your "working rights", you do just not understand what has happened. 

Thrugelmir

spydaz said:

how are our working Rights being protected?

With a degree of good fortune you'll still find yourself in paid employment as the fog lifts. The carnage otherwise would have been unimaginable. 

spydaz

You claim that fulouh is totally legal is actually false as the fine print as one would suggest is that some of us did not need to accept furlough and still had the right to demand full pay from our companies and by accepting furlough that one would be accepting an ammendment in law to a already signed and agreed contract; such ammendments and aggreements are not clearly stated and now as the defences being given is that of free choice in fact is missleading as in general this was imposed and not clear choices given. with full disclosre to the ammendment to the contract.

In General all contracts will need to be resigned even the ammendment and addition by both staff memeber and HR etc . The grant issued by the gov although welcomed has actually subverted and misssold / misrepresented the loss of the 20 percent wages as an actual amendment to all working contract for those of whom who have accepted to be furlowed.

The issue of understanding or berading a person when a legitimate concern which may not have been considered fully before making such a response on such a legal matter;

I understand that this is a forum for advice and the concern is genuine as some have taken a drastic cut in wages despite the £2500 limit on the furlow. Whereas Some companies may have been saved which is comendable people have born the brunt of the crisis finacially and now for accepting the furlouh the contractual rights have been waived by the missriepresentation , as to dismiss a person for not accepting may have been the alterunative route and then subsequetially suing the afformentioned company for breach of contractural rights . az well as unfair dismissal for not accepting unrteasonable demands for jpoining the furlow scheme. It seem strange that some of the posts return after my comments may not have considered such factors and thought maybe only of nationalist factors when in actulality a serious matter of contractual breach is being posed.

Is it such that these websites and forums are regarded as other forms of properganda outlets in which agin your rights are being waived without consideration for your actual post or truth beign exposed as the misrepresentation as described in my post which was inteneded to gain undersatnding of the loss experienced from a contractual position between a company and employee . although the govenrment had propped up the wages by 80 percent what actually gave the company the right not to top up the 20 percent from existing funds as some companies could and some compaines could not . why was all compaines qualified to recieve this period of wages rest . where as some companies could aford the break and grow and others fall. how was there not distinction between such compainies and shortfalls given .... this automatic and blanket waiveing and misrepresentation of fulow has left some of us baffeled of how our worker right were so easly dismissed, by a natinalist action which has no bearing on the sign contract.

I do write this in all seriousness and no predudist and i am proud that we are weathering the storm . but still .. the question and answer si not as clear cut a you describe as the misrespresentation of such a criticle issue makes the furlow amendment invalid leaving the 20 percent unpaid and some compaines in profit takeing money from the scheme when it was possible to pay full pay

diggingdude

spydaz said:

You claim that fulouh is totally legal is actually false as the fine print as one would suggest is that some of us did not need to accept furlough and still had the right to demand full pay from our companies and by accepting furlough that one would be accepting an ammendment in law to a already signed and agreed contract; such ammendments and aggreements are not clearly stated and now as the defences being given is that of free choice in fact is missleading as in general this was imposed and not clear choices given. with full disclosre to the ammendment to the contract.

In General all contracts will need to be resigned even the ammendment and addition by both staff memeber and HR etc . The grant issued by the gov although welcomed has actually subverted and misssold / misrepresented the loss of the 20 percent wages as an actual amendment to all working contract for those of whom who have accepted to be furlowed.

The issue of understanding or berading a person when a legitimate concern which may not have been considered fully before making such a response on such a legal matter;

I understand that this is a forum for advice and the concern is genuine as some have taken a drastic cut in wages despite the £2500 limit on the furlow. Whereas Some companies may have been saved which is comendable people have born the brunt of the crisis finacially and now for accepting the furlouh the contractual rights have been waived by the missriepresentation , as to dismiss a person for not accepting may have been the alterunative route and then subsequetially suing the afformentioned company for breach of contractural rights . az well as unfair dismissal for not accepting unrteasonable demands for jpoining the furlow scheme. It seem strange that some of the posts return after my comments may not have considered such factors and thought maybe only of nationalist factors when in actulality a serious matter of contractual breach is being posed.

Is it such that these websites and forums are regarded as other forms of properganda outlets in which agin your rights are being waived without consideration for your actual post or truth beign exposed as the misrepresentation as described in my post which was inteneded to gain undersatnding of the loss experienced from a contractual position between a company and employee . although the govenrment had propped up the wages by 80 percent what actually gave the company the right not to top up the 20 percent from existing funds as some companies could and some compaines could not . why was all compaines qualified to recieve this period of wages rest . where as some companies could aford the break and grow and others fall. how was there not distinction between such compainies and shortfalls given .... this automatic and blanket waiveing and misrepresentation of fulow has left some of us baffeled of how our worker right were so easly dismissed, by a natinalist action which has no bearing on the sign contract.

I do write this in all seriousness and no predudist and i am proud that we are weathering the storm . but still .. the question and answer si not as clear cut a you describe as the misrespresentation of such a criticle issue makes the furlow amendment invalid leaving the 20 percent unpaid and some compaines in profit takeing money from the scheme when it was possible to pay full pay

From how this is written, you may have a claim that you couldn't read the furlough paperwork you were given and should have been given help.  Furlough has saved many many jobs.  People could have refused staying at home on 80% pay for nothing, but they would have been out of a job pretty soon and claiming universal credit instead.  I am thinking you are a wind up merchant

jjames1985

spydaz said:

You claim that fulouh is totally legal is actually false as the fine print as one would suggest is that some of us did not need to accept furlough and still had the right to demand full pay from our companies

Nobody is denying you had a right to demand to be paid in full. In fact, everyone seems to agree with you on this. The part where opinions seem to diverge from yours is that you seem to think that the alternative to furlough was you being sat at home on 100% of your pay instead.  You're almost certainly wrong about this.

phillw

spydaz said:

You claim that fulouh is totally legal is actually false as the fine print as one would suggest is that some of us did not need to accept furlough and still had the right to demand full pay from our companies and by accepting furlough that one would be accepting an ammendment in law to a already signed and agreed contract;

You could have refused furlough, but it's unlikely your employer would have happily paid you for three months if you aren't working. If they didn't have enough work for the people who refused furlough then they most likely would have made you redundant, which you may feel would be unfair and take them to tribunal but you can't (or couldn't) due to covid 19.
For people who earn less than £2500 a month then receiving 80% of their wages without having to pay travel costs & buying lunch out is pretty reasonable. If you earn more than £2500 and were confused about furlough then you should inform your employer, so they can take that into account during the next pay review.