£ 1000 employer compensation

unholyangel

Jeremy535897 said:

Is he? It's not like he was recruited through fair & open competition with a demonstrable experience of being successful in a similar role. You would hope that someone being paid a job knows how to do that job well, but experience has taught me it's foolish to assume that is the case. Negligence is rife in any profession. But unlike other professions, politicians usually escape the accountability for theirs. 

Fulbright scholar and self made millionaire via investment banking, married into a billionaire family, Chancellor before 40, don't think he can be dumb.

I didn't say dumb not being a genius doesn't make you dumb. But not being dumb doesn't make you a genius. Just that we don't elect people based on their smarts - that's why we also pay for advisors to tell them what they should/shouldn't do. Making money doesn't mean you know how to run an economy. A business/investment priority is wealth/profit - a niche of the economy. While when dealing with the economy, they need to deal with it warts and all. Not just the profitable parts. 

unholyangel

Grumpy_chap said:

unholyangel said:

Grumpy_chap said:

unholyangel said:

Jaco70 said:

Rishi is cleverer than me

Is he? It's not like he was recruited through fair & open competition with a demonstrable experience of being successful in a similar role. You would hope that someone being paid a job knows how to do that job well, but experience has taught me it's foolish to assume that is the case. Negligence is rife in any profession. But unlike other professions, politicians usually escape the accountability for theirs. 

I think we got lucky this time.  The way Government usually works is that the Minister (Chancellor) is the figure head and they have a really clever No. 2 who does all the stuff and working out behind the scenes.  In this occasion Sajid walked just before covid and we got the super-brains No. 2 jumped into top spot, probably just as an interim measure as there was a budget to present.  Then covid happened and Rishi is cemented into our hearts

You've been drinking the kool-aid, haven't you?  (meant as a joke, not to offend)

ETA: Let me put it this way. He became chancellor on appointment (not promotion) by Boris. He became Chief Sec on appointment, by Boris. The general consensus is that he was appointed as he's a BJ loyalist, not because he's the best man for the job. He was able to be appointed to those positions because his constituency voted Tory. Whether they voted for him or because he was tory/wasn't labour...who knows, but we can safely say that the UK electorate do not vote based on who is the most intelligent/who has the highest IQ. He was able to be elected by his constituency because the tory party vetted & selected him to stand in that constituency in strategic placement. 

That is quite a stark difference from "the best person for the job" or open & fair competition. Less deserved and more lucky charm. 

Yeah, I know all this boring stuff and was only joking with the Rishi comments.

Now, get yourself down the pub and fulfill your public duty.😎

Does it come with a glass of covid? 

epm-84

gary83 said:

epm-84 said:

Jaco70 said:

jimkelly said:

gettingtheresometime said:

As a side issue if HMRC are waiting bunting February 2020 to accept claims because the January 2020 RTI will then have been submitted, what's to stop an employer giving notice of redundancy at the beginning of January or even in December so the employee is included in that return but made redundant as soon as the qualifying date is hit?

Nothing, but the question is why would they bother?

Either there is work available for the employee moving forward, or there isn't.

It would cost them more to keep the employee on, in order to received a £1000 (which is then taxable) bonus, than it would to just make them redundant in the first place.

Yes I totally agree. I don’t think it’s an incentive to keep people on who you haven’t really got employment for. It’s just a taxpayer funded bonus for some people, like me, who’ve legitimately furloughed workers during the full lockdown but have now taken them back because work has returned to near normality. I’m not convinced it’s taxpayer money well spent, but Rishi is cleverer than me, so I’ll take it.

I think one thing worth remembering (which hasn't been mentioned yet) is lots of employers will have difficulty finding money for pay rises (even if it's just c.2%) or funding staff socials like a Christmas party over the coming year.  For the companies who have furloughed staff but are now able to stand on their own two feet I would hope they don't take the government money and then claim they can't afford £50 per head for a work Christmas party or can't afford to give everyone a small pay rise.  Likewise if there's a overstretched workforce and the company furloughed 20 people for 3 weeks but don't need the bonus then they can't really use the excuse that they can't afford any extra person (even an admin person on minimum wage) to help make the workload more manageable for employees. Companies who don't need the bonus to survive can still use it to keep staff morale high, which will likely prevent resignations and recruitment costs for finding replacement employees.  

Personally I think most companies won’t be looking for a carrot to prevent resignations, the incentive that most employees will use not to resign will be the big stick in the shape of the unemployment statistics and the competitiveness of the job market over the next year or two.

I think there could be variation between sectors.  Some sectors have seen increased demand due to COVID-19 e.g. online retailers so if you work in e-commerce you might be able to get a better paid job elsewhere, even though for sectors like hospitality you're lucky if you retain your role for the same number of weekly hours.

There's also been businesses who have diversified due to COVID-19 e.g. gin makers finding demand was down while the pubs were closed but finding they had most of the equipment needed to produce hand santisier.  Now the pubs are reopening there could be demand for both, so they may need to recruit additional people if you want to serve both markets.

epm-84

Jeremy535897 said:

Is he? It's not like he was recruited through fair & open competition with a demonstrable experience of being successful in a similar role. You would hope that someone being paid a job knows how to do that job well, but experience has taught me it's foolish to assume that is the case. Negligence is rife in any profession. But unlike other professions, politicians usually escape the accountability for theirs. 

Fulbright scholar and self made millionaire via investment banking, married into a billionaire family, Chancellor before 40, don't think he can be dumb.

He's intelligent.  However, be aware of intelligent politicians they are generally very good at getting people to believe in what they say even if it's not in their interests.  Just look at Farage managing to convince some working class people that's he one of them and that it's the middle class elite who wanted to remain in the EU, despite people like Jacob Rees-Mogg, Iain Duncan Smith, Boris Johnson and Michael Gove being among the most prominent people supporting leaving the EU and most EU funding going to working class areas.

Jeremy535897

epm-84 said:

Jeremy535897 said:

Is he? It's not like he was recruited through fair & open competition with a demonstrable experience of being successful in a similar role. You would hope that someone being paid a job knows how to do that job well, but experience has taught me it's foolish to assume that is the case. Negligence is rife in any profession. But unlike other professions, politicians usually escape the accountability for theirs. 

Fulbright scholar and self made millionaire via investment banking, married into a billionaire family, Chancellor before 40, don't think he can be dumb.

He's intelligent.  However, be aware of intelligent politicians they are generally very good at getting people to believe in what they say even if it's not in their interests.  Just look at Farage managing to convince some working class people that's he one of them and that it's the middle class elite who wanted to remain in the EU, despite people like Jacob Rees-Mogg, Iain Duncan Smith, Boris Johnson and Michael Gove being among the most prominent people supporting leaving the EU and most EU funding going to working class areas.

If he's grasped the principles of MMT, there may be hope for us yet.

gary83

epm-84 said:

gary83 said:

epm-84 said:

Jaco70 said:

jimkelly said:

gettingtheresometime said:

As a side issue if HMRC are waiting bunting February 2020 to accept claims because the January 2020 RTI will then have been submitted, what's to stop an employer giving notice of redundancy at the beginning of January or even in December so the employee is included in that return but made redundant as soon as the qualifying date is hit?

Nothing, but the question is why would they bother?

Either there is work available for the employee moving forward, or there isn't.

It would cost them more to keep the employee on, in order to received a £1000 (which is then taxable) bonus, than it would to just make them redundant in the first place.

Yes I totally agree. I don’t think it’s an incentive to keep people on who you haven’t really got employment for. It’s just a taxpayer funded bonus for some people, like me, who’ve legitimately furloughed workers during the full lockdown but have now taken them back because work has returned to near normality. I’m not convinced it’s taxpayer money well spent, but Rishi is cleverer than me, so I’ll take it.

I think one thing worth remembering (which hasn't been mentioned yet) is lots of employers will have difficulty finding money for pay rises (even if it's just c.2%) or funding staff socials like a Christmas party over the coming year.  For the companies who have furloughed staff but are now able to stand on their own two feet I would hope they don't take the government money and then claim they can't afford £50 per head for a work Christmas party or can't afford to give everyone a small pay rise.  Likewise if there's a overstretched workforce and the company furloughed 20 people for 3 weeks but don't need the bonus then they can't really use the excuse that they can't afford any extra person (even an admin person on minimum wage) to help make the workload more manageable for employees. Companies who don't need the bonus to survive can still use it to keep staff morale high, which will likely prevent resignations and recruitment costs for finding replacement employees.  

Personally I think most companies won’t be looking for a carrot to prevent resignations, the incentive that most employees will use not to resign will be the big stick in the shape of the unemployment statistics and the competitiveness of the job market over the next year or two.

I think there could be variation between sectors.  Some sectors have seen increased demand due to COVID-19 e.g. online retailers so if you work in e-commerce you might be able to get a better paid job elsewhere, even though for sectors like hospitality you're lucky if you retain your role for the same number of weekly hours.

There's also been businesses who have diversified due to COVID-19 e.g. gin makers finding demand was down while the pubs were closed but finding they had most of the equipment needed to produce hand santisier.  Now the pubs are reopening there could be demand for both, so they may need to recruit additional people if you want to serve both markets.

I don’t think it’ll be anything like a 1 for 1 swap in jobs lost versus jobs created. you’ve obviously got a much more optimistic view of the months and years ahead than me, personally I’m still feeling a lot more pessimistic. Hopefully you’ll be proved right with your glass half full attitude. You’re right some businesses will see a boom but I think the extra jobs created in those sectors like online sales and distance customer service roles will be dwarfed by the loss of jobs in the bust sectors like hospitality, tourism & physical stores.

epm-84

gary83 said:

epm-84 said:

gary83 said:

epm-84 said:

Jaco70 said:

jimkelly said:

gettingtheresometime said:

As a side issue if HMRC are waiting bunting February 2020 to accept claims because the January 2020 RTI will then have been submitted, what's to stop an employer giving notice of redundancy at the beginning of January or even in December so the employee is included in that return but made redundant as soon as the qualifying date is hit?

Nothing, but the question is why would they bother?

Either there is work available for the employee moving forward, or there isn't.

It would cost them more to keep the employee on, in order to received a £1000 (which is then taxable) bonus, than it would to just make them redundant in the first place.

Yes I totally agree. I don’t think it’s an incentive to keep people on who you haven’t really got employment for. It’s just a taxpayer funded bonus for some people, like me, who’ve legitimately furloughed workers during the full lockdown but have now taken them back because work has returned to near normality. I’m not convinced it’s taxpayer money well spent, but Rishi is cleverer than me, so I’ll take it.

I think one thing worth remembering (which hasn't been mentioned yet) is lots of employers will have difficulty finding money for pay rises (even if it's just c.2%) or funding staff socials like a Christmas party over the coming year.  For the companies who have furloughed staff but are now able to stand on their own two feet I would hope they don't take the government money and then claim they can't afford £50 per head for a work Christmas party or can't afford to give everyone a small pay rise.  Likewise if there's a overstretched workforce and the company furloughed 20 people for 3 weeks but don't need the bonus then they can't really use the excuse that they can't afford any extra person (even an admin person on minimum wage) to help make the workload more manageable for employees. Companies who don't need the bonus to survive can still use it to keep staff morale high, which will likely prevent resignations and recruitment costs for finding replacement employees.  

Personally I think most companies won’t be looking for a carrot to prevent resignations, the incentive that most employees will use not to resign will be the big stick in the shape of the unemployment statistics and the competitiveness of the job market over the next year or two.

I think there could be variation between sectors.  Some sectors have seen increased demand due to COVID-19 e.g. online retailers so if you work in e-commerce you might be able to get a better paid job elsewhere, even though for sectors like hospitality you're lucky if you retain your role for the same number of weekly hours.

There's also been businesses who have diversified due to COVID-19 e.g. gin makers finding demand was down while the pubs were closed but finding they had most of the equipment needed to produce hand santisier.  Now the pubs are reopening there could be demand for both, so they may need to recruit additional people if you want to serve both markets.

I don’t think it’ll be anything like a 1 for 1 swap in jobs lost versus jobs created. you’ve obviously got a much more optimistic view of the months and years ahead than me, personally I’m still feeling a lot more pessimistic. Hopefully you’ll be proved right with your glass half full attitude. You’re right some businesses will see a boom but I think the extra jobs created in those sectors like online sales and distance customer service roles will be dwarfed by the loss of jobs in the bust sectors like hospitality, tourism & physical stores.

What I'm suggesting is that if you're an e-commerce business and one of your employees has a degree in e-commerce and a few years commercial experience then they could be attractive to another e-commerce business who may need to recruit a few extra people.  Yes some former travel agents might be able to get roles in e-commerce but they probably won't be first choice and probably would only get the admin type roles opposed to the more specialist roles.

I'm not suggesting they'll be a good jobs market, just that if certain businesses choose to use the government bonus for a shareholder's payout then it may not be a wise move and may end up with them having to spend more on training and recruitment long term.

I think people who lose their jobs in the travel industry will find it especially hard.  Some have only ever worked in travel and in some cases have only ever worked for one employer.

jmb1

Hi guys sorry to jump on this thread but can you confirm I'll be eligible for this bonus? I'm rather confused as I had thought you EITHER take them off furlough now and bring them back to work, and in so doing get the bonus. OR continue furloughing them but get no bonus. But this thread sounds like you can feasibly do both?
I am self employed sole proprietor with one PAYE staff member who have been off work furloughed since the start of the scheme, with me topping up the furlough to 100% salary (£630 take home per month in total). I am intending to continue furloughing to the end of scheme in October and then they will come back to work on full pay from November onward.

Can you clarify?

gary83

jmb1 said:

Hi guys sorry to jump on this thread but can you confirm I'll be eligible for this bonus? I'm rather confused as I had thought you EITHER take them off furlough now and bring them back to work, and in so doing get the bonus. OR continue furloughing them but get no bonus. But this thread sounds like you can feasibly do both?
I am self employed sole proprietor with one PAYE staff member who have been off work furloughed since the start of the scheme, with me topping up the furlough to 100% salary (£630 take home per month in total). I am intending to continue furloughing to the end of scheme in October and then they will come back to work on full pay from November onward.

Can you clarify?

You’ll be entitled to the bonus if the employee is still employed at the end of January and earns more than £520 a month. The £1000 isn’t meant to be an incentive to take the employee off furlough early nor is it punishment for leaving the employee furloughed until The end of October. (That’s been addressed by increasing the cost of furlough to the business) 

It’s a massive waste of money, a terribly thought out & poorly targeted scheme giving money only to companies who’s jobs would have been safe anyway. But that’s the government’s fault not yours, you’re entitled to it so it might cushion the blow of the extra cost of furlough from next month until the end of October and the 20% you’ve been paying out of your own pocket