NHS Bank Staff Furlough

Comms69

General_Grant said:

nicechap said:

garrynorris said:

Zero hours staff in the private sector are being paid under the furlough scheme. It is only NHS zero hours staff that are being refused help. Remember the outrage when Wetherspoons tried to send it’s Zero hours staff home with no pay? That was very quickly reversed.  I accept that Zero hours is no guarantee but where the government clearly understands that sudden termination of your employment due to the pandemic needs protection in the private sector then why should the NHS be any different? 

No, only those who won't work the shifts available. Bank staff typically are paid more per hour as it includes elements for annual leave and sick leave and compulsory training.  

UC is also available. If money is truly stretched maybe post your income & outgoings on the debt free wannabe boards, loads of help there.

Not my understanding.  They are paid AfC rates and the allowance for paid leave is shown separately (whereas substantive posts simply get their regular pay when they take leave).

Yes generally it is seperate. 

There is some debate whether the annual leave rate should be at AfC rate too (IE 35 days) or Stat.

Andy_L

Comms69 said:

General_Grant said:

nicechap said:

garrynorris said:

Zero hours staff in the private sector are being paid under the furlough scheme. It is only NHS zero hours staff that are being refused help. Remember the outrage when Wetherspoons tried to send it’s Zero hours staff home with no pay? That was very quickly reversed.  I accept that Zero hours is no guarantee but where the government clearly understands that sudden termination of your employment due to the pandemic needs protection in the private sector then why should the NHS be any different? 

No, only those who won't work the shifts available. Bank staff typically are paid more per hour as it includes elements for annual leave and sick leave and compulsory training.  

UC is also available. If money is truly stretched maybe post your income & outgoings on the debt free wannabe boards, loads of help there.

Not my understanding.  They are paid AfC rates and the allowance for paid leave is shown separately (whereas substantive posts simply get their regular pay when they take leave).

Yes generally it is seperate. 

There is some debate whether the annual leave rate should be at AfC rate too (IE 35 days) or Stat.

If it was at statutory wouldn't that fall foul of the unfavourable treatment of part time workers legislation?

Comms69

Andy_L said:

Comms69 said:

General_Grant said:

nicechap said:

garrynorris said:

Zero hours staff in the private sector are being paid under the furlough scheme. It is only NHS zero hours staff that are being refused help. Remember the outrage when Wetherspoons tried to send it’s Zero hours staff home with no pay? That was very quickly reversed.  I accept that Zero hours is no guarantee but where the government clearly understands that sudden termination of your employment due to the pandemic needs protection in the private sector then why should the NHS be any different? 

No, only those who won't work the shifts available. Bank staff typically are paid more per hour as it includes elements for annual leave and sick leave and compulsory training.  

UC is also available. If money is truly stretched maybe post your income & outgoings on the debt free wannabe boards, loads of help there.

Not my understanding.  They are paid AfC rates and the allowance for paid leave is shown separately (whereas substantive posts simply get their regular pay when they take leave).

Yes generally it is seperate. 

There is some debate whether the annual leave rate should be at AfC rate too (IE 35 days) or Stat.

If it was at statutory wouldn't that fall foul of the unfavourable treatment of part time workers legislation?

Indeed it would - atleast in my opinion. It's a claim ill be making when i move on.

Difference is quite substantial, it's another 4% of gross. 

General_Grant

Andy_L said:

Comms69 said:

General_Grant said:

nicechap said:

garrynorris said:

Zero hours staff in the private sector are being paid under the furlough scheme. It is only NHS zero hours staff that are being refused help. Remember the outrage when Wetherspoons tried to send it’s Zero hours staff home with no pay? That was very quickly reversed.  I accept that Zero hours is no guarantee but where the government clearly understands that sudden termination of your employment due to the pandemic needs protection in the private sector then why should the NHS be any different? 

No, only those who won't work the shifts available. Bank staff typically are paid more per hour as it includes elements for annual leave and sick leave and compulsory training.  

UC is also available. If money is truly stretched maybe post your income & outgoings on the debt free wannabe boards, loads of help there.

Not my understanding.  They are paid AfC rates and the allowance for paid leave is shown separately (whereas substantive posts simply get their regular pay when they take leave).

Yes generally it is seperate. 

There is some debate whether the annual leave rate should be at AfC rate too (IE 35 days) or Stat.

If it was at statutory wouldn't that fall foul of the unfavourable treatment of part time workers legislation?

And many of the Bank workers are full-time.  At least that was my experience when I worked in the NHS some years ago.
But, many of those employed direct by a trust but not through the bank system, are part-time.  Those part-timers, of course, do get appropriate pro rata holiday entitlement.

od017

Thanks for all the replies. Looks like there's some disagreement on the topic. In total I've worked for the NHS in various roles for over 11 years, all on the bank or agency, all zero hours. Yes being zero-hours has benefits both to my employer and to me. But if I had a permanent contract that would also have benefits to my employer and me. From an employee perspective, it's bizarre to me why public sector staff should be subject to a different set of furlough rules to the private sector. We all have the same issues of rent, mortgage, bills, etc., so why should we be treated differently? 

Comms69

od017 said:

Thanks for all the replies. Looks like there's some disagreement on the topic. In total I've worked for the NHS in various roles for over 11 years, all on the bank or agency, all zero hours. Yes being zero-hours has benefits both to my employer and to me. But if I had a permanent contract that would also have benefits to my employer and me. From an employee perspective, it's bizarre to me why public sector staff should be subject to a different set of furlough rules to the private sector. We all have the same issues of rent, mortgage, bills, etc., so why should we be treated differently? 

Because the government already pays your wages in effect. It is/was relying on employers to keep people on. 

Furlough is NOT for employees, it to keep businesses going.

od017

Comms69 said:

od017 said:

Thanks for all the replies. Looks like there's some disagreement on the topic. In total I've worked for the NHS in various roles for over 11 years, all on the bank or agency, all zero hours. Yes being zero-hours has benefits both to my employer and to me. But if I had a permanent contract that would also have benefits to my employer and me. From an employee perspective, it's bizarre to me why public sector staff should be subject to a different set of furlough rules to the private sector. We all have the same issues of rent, mortgage, bills, etc., so why should we be treated differently? 

Because the government already pays your wages in effect. It is/was relying on employers to keep people on. 

Furlough is NOT for employees, it to keep businesses going.

You could make the argument it's for both. Businesses need employees of other businesses to get paid too.

Comms69

od017 said:

Comms69 said:

od017 said:

Thanks for all the replies. Looks like there's some disagreement on the topic. In total I've worked for the NHS in various roles for over 11 years, all on the bank or agency, all zero hours. Yes being zero-hours has benefits both to my employer and to me. But if I had a permanent contract that would also have benefits to my employer and me. From an employee perspective, it's bizarre to me why public sector staff should be subject to a different set of furlough rules to the private sector. We all have the same issues of rent, mortgage, bills, etc., so why should we be treated differently? 

Because the government already pays your wages in effect. It is/was relying on employers to keep people on. 

Furlough is NOT for employees, it to keep businesses going.

You could make the argument it's for both. Businesses need employees of other businesses to get paid too.

It's just for companies. To stop them folding. 

I accept the point you're making, but if it was for employees, HMRC would just pay them directly.

sharpe106

Originally it was just for business, now it is not so clear what the point behind the scheme is or why they have changed the rules so that some benefit and left it so that others do not.

SharpShooter

od017 said:

I've a part time job working admin at the weekends in the NHS on their admin bank, which I've had for five years. Due to coronavirus the department is not offering any weekend hours. There are disagreements within my trust as to whether or not I can be furloughed. Is anyone here able to advise? Many thanks

garrynorris said:

Bank workers are a sizeable part of the NHS workforce. The bank was primarily set up to save the NHS money by building a "bank" of staff that meant they weren't reliant on much more expensive outside agency staff. 

It might be true that the NHS is still working but that doesn't help the individuals, that through no fault of their own, have been told to go home with no pay.

My wife is a bank worker what has been on the payroll with the NHS for 30 years and moved over to bank work when she reached 60 so she could do 4 days a week. She's done this for 5 years. She was told to go home instantly because they were closing her audit office due to Covid 19 despite having a bank contract for a further 3 months and sent home without any pay whatsoever.

It is disgraceful that the NHS / government should allow this when all the other NHS non essential personnel that have been told to go home are on full pay (Not the 80% the rest of us are on by the way).

What on earth are these people supposed to do? what do you think they feel like when they see all their colleagues in both the public and private sector in the same situation being protected. Even supply teachers which are an equivalent to NHS bank workers are being paid furlough. I think this is just mean and penny-pinching at best at worst it's discrimination against a section of the workforce who have just been abandoned.

Most NHS Trusts have now outsourced their bank service to private companies and therefore your wife may well be employed in the private sector. Therefore, it is not for the NHS Trust to take on the responsibility of furloughing the worker - it wouldn't make sense, it would require the NHS trust to put the worker on their payroll, and then put in a request for the job retention payments. Once this is over, they would need to be handed back to company which is providing the bank service.

In short, the responsibility (if it exists) sits with the bank agency.