Refusal of furlough.

MattMattMattUK

You said for March to July, they are not recent months, March to July it was 0% employer, 80% HMRC, with pension contributions and er's NI also paid by the state. 

gary83

Jemima2204 said:

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.

That was the change between august and the end of the scheme with it costing the employer progressively more, it’s temporarily gone back to the government paying 80% with employers paying National insurance however that’s getting reviewed in January 

The government will review the policy in January to decide whether economic circumstances are improving enough to ask employers to contribute more.

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

68ComebackSpecial

Jemima2204 said:

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.

Shielding ceased at the end of July, so what I posted was accurate. August through October was different - because it was designed to cover those working part time due to reduced hours. There was no shielding during this period.

Andy_L

Jemima2204 said:

Hi.
I work for a care home as a maintenance person and have had to shield as I am very high risk and some of the residents have proved positive for Covid 19.
I have asked my employer if I will get furloughed but have been told that I won't for the following reason.
The care home is receiving government funding to cover the extra costs incurred to employ staff whilst others are away from the workplace either shielding or self isolating so therefore they cannot furlough any staff as the government would not pay for this.
Is this correct or am I being lied to.

"If you’re a public sector employee

Where organisations receive public funding for staff costs we expect employers to pay staff as usual – and correspondingly not furlough them.

Only organisations that are not fully funded by public grants should consider accessing the scheme. Your employer should contact their sponsor department or respective administration for specific queries."

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/check-if-you-could-be-covered-by-the-coronavirus-job-retention-scheme#check-if-youre-eligible

trixie73

Well the care home I work in furloughed all shielding staff in the first wave, but not sure if they are getting furlough in the second wave 🤔

ItchyCat

Hi Jemima

I too am a care worker classed as CEV.  In March I informed my company that I had received a shielding letter from the NHS and immediately I was told I couldn’t work, but because there was work available I would be on SSP as furlough was not available to me.  Fast forward to June/July, and I was reading newsletters about staff who were CEV on furlough not being allowed to return to work because the nature of the job could not guarantee social distancing. I queried with head office if that also applied to CEV on SSP. Please note, the small private company I work for was taken over by a large national company so HR is not the personal... I know you...place it was. 

The upshot of it all was that the original rules had changed in May, and shielding employees could be added to the furlough scheme. I, unfortunately, had slipped through the net, but was immediately placed on furlough and had my pay backdated. 

Fast forward again to October and I had all my risk assessments in place to return to work, including a signed letter from my GP, agreeing I would return on 5th November. Which I did....for 2 hours, before I was told I would be back on furlough from 6th Nov as my company would follow government guidelines regarding CEV.

So while it is totally possible for you to be furloughed, it is a decision made by your employers. I accepted that while SSP was not enough to pay my bills, it was the only option to keep myself safe. I was not expecting furlough, and appreciate I am very lucky, but the shielding advice this time (and probably last time too) is just that....advice.  If you do not feel comfortable going into work, then follow your gut. But you have to accept that that may not be financially viable, and your employers are under no obligation to pay you any more than SSP.