Employer to contribute 25% towards furlough scheme from august

Grumpy_chap

Obviously, this year's weather is perfect for a bumper yield 🙂

bradders1983

Thrugelmir said:

Grumpy_chap said:

Some employers are using CJRS (job retention scheme) to fund redundancy notice pay.  Entirely not what the scheme was set up for.

Explain how? 

What is there to explain? It is self explanatory. Employer forced to close in March, knows full well they wont be able to take back the same number of staff in August or whenever, so uses the scheme to pay people for roles they have no intention of refilling.

As soon as the requirement for employers to help comes in, these people will be made redundant.

sharpe106

Sp

Teresa had one of those. She's passed it on. 

She couldn't find it but Boris found the full forest, maybe Dominic found it for him on one of his many trips up North.

Thrugelmir

Grumpy_chap said:

So, they serve notice and make the job redundant.  You get paid the notice pay, but the employer claims 80% of this back from the Government.  So CJRS, rather than retaining jobs, accelerates the redundancy.

Redundancy pay is a seperate entitlement. 
Employers would prefer not to make people redundant. Building a good business can take years , minutes to collapse. 

sharpe106

Thrugelmir said:

Grumpy_chap said:

So, they serve notice and make the job redundant.  You get paid the notice pay, but the employer claims 80% of this back from the Government.  So CJRS, rather than retaining jobs, accelerates the redundancy.

Redundancy pay is a seperate entitlement. 
Employers would prefer not to make people redundant. Building a good business can take years , minutes to collapse. 

If a company need to make redundancies then for employees that have not been there long with the government paying most of the notice period it does not cost companies much. So a lot of companies will think why risk it costing them more when they can get rid of them pretty cheap now.  

averageguy11

ToxicWomble said:

The longer this goes on, the more I think there is a lot more that we aren’t being told.
Lockdown was always about protecting the NHS - yet according to the chart shown on today’s briefing, only 35% of ventilator beds have been used - and that was at the peak.
Death rate whilst high in numbers is small in % terms and yet they insist on following this course of action that will destroy the economy and people’s lives for years to come.
I suspect the death rate will be much higher due to people not receiving the medical care they deserve for other ailments.
Its all very fishy 

Is that you David (Icke)

calcotti

sharpe106 said: If a company need to make redundancies then for employees that have not been there long with the government paying most of the notice period it does not cost companies much. So a lot of companies will think why risk it costing them more when they can get rid of them pretty cheap now.  

The CJRS rules do not permit an employer to use CJRS to cover redundancy payments.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/claim-for-wage-costs-through-the-coronavirus-job-retention-scheme

Grants cannot be used to substitute redundancy payments. HMRC will continue to monitor businesses after the scheme has closed. HMRC will continue to monitor businesses after the scheme has closed.

Employers that seek to do this expose themselves to having to pay the grant back later (and possibly pay a penalty?). Obviously that doesn't mean that none are using it in this way.

sharpe106

I meant the notice period part not the redundancy payment. 

Grumpy_chap

Yes, but what employers are saying is that the notice payment is not redundancy payment.

Say you have been at a company for 5 years and you are aged 40.  You will get redundancy pay of 5 weeks' pay capped at £538 per week.  This is not taxed.

You will also get 5 weeks' notice.  This is taxed.  What employers are doing is using the 80% furlough to cover the bulk of the notice pay.  This seems wrong and not what the CJRS is for.

calcotti

Grumpy_chap said:

Yes, but what employers are saying is that the notice payment is not redundancy payment.

Say you have been at a company for 5 years and you are aged 40.  You will get redundancy pay of 5 weeks' pay capped at £538 per week.  This is not taxed.

You will also get 5 weeks' notice.  This is taxed.  What employers are doing is using the 80% furlough to cover the bulk of the notice pay.  This seems wrong and not what the CJRS is for.

I hadn't thought of the notice period and there doesn't appear to be anything to exclude an employer using CJRS for that.