Refusal of furlough.

bradders1983

Jemima2204 said:

bradders1983 said:

Jemima2204 said:

I am aware it is not a right and never implied that it was, what I asked was is it correct. If you cannot answer the question, I suggest you go and troll another thread.

Someone posting an answer you dont like is not "trolling". They can make anything up, the upshot is there isnt much you can do about it.

It wasn't the answer I disliked, it was the implication as I read it that I think it is a right. If this was not implied then I retract my reply.

For the last 7 months people have posted threads on here thinking they have a divine right to it, even after leaving the job weeks ago.

flipper_72

There are certain employers who are not allowed to furlough staff, schools cannot (from what I can work out this applies to academies as well as local maintained), so it is quite possible that if the government is funding the care home they fall into this category.

Mrsn

bradders1983 said:

Jemima2204 said:

bradders1983 said:

Jemima2204 said:

I am aware it is not a right and never implied that it was, what I asked was is it correct. If you cannot answer the question, I suggest you go and troll another thread.

Someone posting an answer you dont like is not "trolling". They can make anything up, the upshot is there isnt much you can do about it.

It wasn't the answer I disliked, it was the implication as I read it that I think it is a right. If this was not implied then I retract my reply.

even after leaving the job weeks ago.

I have to say this situation is probably the one that frustrates me the most. Moving jobs in the midst of a pandemic is risky, ex employers seem to be copping the flack for a lot currently.

Jemima2204

gary83 said:

Jemima2204 said:

MarkN88 said:

Regardless if what there saying is right or wrong. It’s going to get you nowhere. There only reason to not furloughing you can simply be as blunt as they don’t want to and there’s nothing you can do. 

I had noticed that all information that I have found carries the same message "at the employers discretion" I just didn't know if there were or are any other legalities regarding my particular case.

there are absolutely no legalities or loopholes to force an employer into paying someone furlough if they don’t want to do it. furlough was originally designed to stop mass redundancies but it has since morphed into being viewed as a quasi benefits scheme which is privately administered and part privately financed, however if anybody can’t or doesn’t want to attend work through vulnerabilities of themselves or others, childcare problems or just sheer laziness then unfortunately for them the employer holds all the cards.

your clutching at a furlough straw that doesn’t exist if your employer won’t change their mind & can’t be reasoned with then you’d be better off looking at SSP & universal credit 

Thank you. I haven't spoken to my employer about it, I just accepted it for what it was. I was just interested to see if there were any legalities as everything set by the government during the course of this pandemic do far seems to be very much, if when why what where.

Jemima2204

bradders1983 said:

Jemima2204 said:

bradders1983 said:

Jemima2204 said:

I am aware it is not a right and never implied that it was, what I asked was is it correct. If you cannot answer the question, I suggest you go and troll another thread.

Someone posting an answer you dont like is not "trolling". They can make anything up, the upshot is there isnt much you can do about it.

It wasn't the answer I disliked, it was the implication as I read it that I think it is a right. If this was not implied then I retract my reply.

For the last 7 months people have posted threads on here thinking they have a divine right to it, even after leaving the job weeks ago.

Trust me, my biggest bug bear is people using the phrase it is my right when talking about benefits

bradders1983

Mrsn said:

bradders1983 said:

Jemima2204 said:

bradders1983 said:

Jemima2204 said:

I am aware it is not a right and never implied that it was, what I asked was is it correct. If you cannot answer the question, I suggest you go and troll another thread.

Someone posting an answer you dont like is not "trolling". They can make anything up, the upshot is there isnt much you can do about it.

It wasn't the answer I disliked, it was the implication as I read it that I think it is a right. If this was not implied then I retract my reply.

even after leaving the job weeks ago.

I have to say this situation is probably the one that frustrates me the most. Moving jobs in the midst of a pandemic is risky, ex employers seem to be copping the flack for a lot currently.

Did you see the thread from someone who started their new clothes shop in September and was moaning no help was available? 🙄

bradders1983

Mrsn said:

bradders1983 said:

Jemima2204 said:

bradders1983 said:

Jemima2204 said:

I am aware it is not a right and never implied that it was, what I asked was is it correct. If you cannot answer the question, I suggest you go and troll another thread.

Someone posting an answer you dont like is not "trolling". They can make anything up, the upshot is there isnt much you can do about it.

It wasn't the answer I disliked, it was the implication as I read it that I think it is a right. If this was not implied then I retract my reply.

even after leaving the job weeks ago.

I have to say this situation is probably the one that frustrates me the most. Moving jobs in the midst of a pandemic is risky, ex employers seem to be copping the flack for a lot currently.

Did you see the thread from someone who started their new clothes shop in September and was moaning no help was available? 🙄

68ComebackSpecial

Jemima2204 said:

68ComebackSpecial said:

Jemima2204 said:

No. I received the letter from the government saying that I had to shield but unfortunately, those who were considered vulnerable didn't receive furlough they only got SSP.

If they only paid SSP for those shielding March to July, when furlough would have cost nothing, then they are highly unlikely to change their stance now when it comes with additional costs to the employer.

It was the government who wouldn't allow furlough to be paid during March to July to 2.2 million who were told (or advised) to shield. During that time, the employers had to pay 20% of the wages and the government paid the other 60%. This time around the employer only has to pay tax and NI as the government is paying the whole 80% so there is actually less cost to the employer.
This is one of the reasons that I asked the question as there is little cost involved.

Completely untrue. Staff who were shielding could be furloughed. Furlough wasn't 20% employer/ 60% State - it was 0% employer/ 80% State. Now there are costs to the employer. That's why employers might be reticent about furloughing staff now.

Jeremy535897

"The government expects that publicly funded organisations will not use the scheme, as has already been the case for CJRS, but partially publicly funded organisations may be eligible where their private revenues have been disrupted. All other previous CJRS eligibility requirements also apply to these employers."

From https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/extension-to-the-coronavirus-job-retention-scheme/extension-of-the-coronavirus-job-retention-scheme

Jemima2204

68ComebackSpecial said:

Jemima2204 said:

68ComebackSpecial said:

Jemima2204 said:

No. I received the letter from the government saying that I had to shield but unfortunately, those who were considered vulnerable didn't receive furlough they only got SSP.

If they only paid SSP for those shielding March to July, when furlough would have cost nothing, then they are highly unlikely to change their stance now when it comes with additional costs to the employer.

It was the government who wouldn't allow furlough to be paid during March to July to 2.2 million who were told (or advised) to shield. During that time, the employers had to pay 20% of the wages and the government paid the other 60%. This time around the employer only has to pay tax and NI as the government is paying the whole 80% so there is actually less cost to the employer.
This is one of the reasons that I asked the question as there is little cost involved.

Completely untrue. Staff who were shielding could be furloughed. Furlough wasn't 20% employer/ 60% State - it was 0% employer/ 80% State. Now there are costs to the employer. That's why employers might be reticent about furloughing staff now.

What does furlough now mean for employers?

While employees won't notice any difference in their pay packet, the scheme has become more generous for employers, who will pay less towards it.

In recent months, firms have had to top up furloughed wages by 20%, with the government paying 60%. Now, the state will put in the full 80%, with the employer only covering pension and National Insurance contributions.