[Crystal-clear]

Its up to the employer to furlough, not the employee.

If the employee is in an at risk group, then the employer should make amendments or furlough (but doesn't have to).

If the employee is refusing to work, then the employer is well within his rights to not pay them, and place them onto non-paid holiday.

If the business is able to continue, and the employee cannot work from home, then the employee does not have a leg to stand on.

Yeah this was what I thought.
It could get messy though who knows.

[Soupy]

It's always a good idea to go to The Daily Record first.

What's your next move, Soupy?

Don't know. I'm going to phone every employee on Friday, see what they say and take it from there. I've bought masks and sanitiser and got all the vehicles prepared and ready to roll but I doubt we'll be out on Monday.

It'll be interesting to see what 'gov' come out with next.
I can't see what else you can do, really.
Good luck with it.

This is most unhelpful:



If not Monday then when?

[NWH]

If they are anything like what I’ve employed in the past they will think you should still pay them there wages and when the grant comes through you should give them that as a gesture as well,some will laugh at that but that’s how delusional some people are.

[Missing Link]

It is very difficult for employers.  I don't think there are a lot of you who are self employed who have grasped what is going on if you are employer or an employee.  To furlough staff at 80% the employer must make up the other 20% or the employer only receives 80% of the so called 80%. 

No, this isn't right.

To furlough staff the employer won't end up out of pocket - if they don't want to.  The employer pays the 80% up front and then claims it back from the government (gov is just getting it's admin together).

There is no LEGAL requirement to top the wages up to the 100%, but government has asked (asked, not forced) employers to do so and there is no legal requirement for employers to do so either.

So the employer is not out of pocket.

Wor Little Un has been furloughed and her employer is topping it up to the 100%.  But he doesn't have to.

[Missing Link]

If not Monday then when?

Gawd knows.  I expect peak deaths around Monday.  Part of me thinks that when we get peak deaths it would be difficult for the government to relax the lock down even if it was safe to do so.

People - in general - aren't the smartest and won't understand why the government is relaxing the lock down during a peak death period.

You can just imagine the wibbling and hysteria.

Two weeks after that I'd guess, so towards the end of April, when the death rates have really dropped.

[DrewHastings]

Its up to the employer to furlough, not the employee.

If the employee is in an at risk group, then the employer should make amendments or furlough (but doesn't have to).

If the employee is refusing to work, then the employer is well within his rights to not pay them, and place them onto non-paid holiday.

If the business is able to continue, and the employee cannot work from home, then the employee does not have a leg to stand on.

Good luck with that.

Why good luck? It's the law, and its how things are, regardless of the virus.

A lot of laws and rules have been relaxed, but it's not a national paid holiday for everyone. If someone is refusing to go to work 'just because', then they don't get paid. No arguments, no luck required, and they won't have leg to stand on in any tribunal.

[G Griffin]

It's always a good idea to go to The Daily Record first.

What's your next move, Soupy?

Don't know. I'm going to phone every employee on Friday, see what they say and take it from there. I've bought masks and sanitiser and got all the vehicles prepared and ready to roll but I doubt we'll be out on Monday.

It'll be interesting to see what 'gov' come out with next.
I can't see what else you can do, really.
Good luck with it.

This is most unhelpful:



If not Monday then when?

Why can't Raab C Nesbitt do it?
Oh, I've just realised- there are claims of a power vacuum at the heart of government.

[Dry Clean]

Its up to the employer to furlough, not the employee.

If the employee is in an at risk group, then the employer should make amendments or furlough (but doesn't have to).

If the employee is refusing to work, then the employer is well within his rights to not pay them, and place them onto non-paid holiday.

If the business is able to continue, and the employee cannot work from home, then the employee does not have a leg to stand on.

Good luck with that.

If a factory near to me with 1000 plus employees can do it then I don't think he will have a problem with it, Drew is spot on in what he has said and there are plenty of factory workers and so forth very angry because of it.

[Kev Martin]

If the employee only recieves 80% of the 80% so be it. Thats life. Its tough for everyone.

Show me someone who is dis-satisfied with that in the current climate.

He's wrong. The government is covering the total cost of furlough. Including employer's NI and pensions.

If the employer only got 80% of the 80% nobody would do it. Sad but true.

In my opinion I am not wrong and my accountant whom I have used and trusted for 25 Years agrees with me.  Where does it say that the government are going to cover the employers Tax, NI & Pension contributions?  They will only cover what they pay the employer covers the rest.
My issue is if I furlough any employees they cannot work for ME during that period.

[Missing Link]

In my opinion I am not wrong and my accountant whom I have used and trusted for 25 Years agrees with me.  Where does it say that the government are going to cover the employers Tax, NI & Pension contributions?  They will only cover what they pay the employer covers the rest.
My issue is if I furlough any employees they cannot work for ME during that period.

You need to get a better accountant, Kev.  It's right on the first page of the regs.



https://www.gov.uk/guidance/claim-for-wage-costs-through-the-coronavirus-job-retention-scheme

That'll be a fiver, mate.

[Missing Link]

My issue is if I furlough any employees they cannot work for ME during that period.

Spot on.  No-one's saying you should furlough them.

[deeege]

Its up to the employer to furlough, not the employee.

If the employee is in an at risk group, then the employer should make amendments or furlough (but doesn't have to).

If the employee is refusing to work, then the employer is well within his rights to not pay them, and place them onto non-paid holiday.

If the business is able to continue, and the employee cannot work from home, then the employee does not have a leg to stand on.

Good luck with that.

Why good luck? It's the law, and its how things are, regardless of the virus.

A lot of laws and rules have been relaxed, but it's not a national paid holiday for everyone. If someone is refusing to go to work 'just because', then they don't get paid. No arguments, no luck required, and they won't have leg to stand on in any tribunal.

What kind of productivity do you think you will get from that employee who is genuinely scared to catch the virus or pass it onto his family who are high risk? 50%? 80%? 100%?

Not to mention it would be a PR disaster for your business should he decide to go down that channel.

It’s the law though so sod ‘em.

Again, good luck with it.

[Dry Clean]

Its up to the employer to furlough, not the employee.

If the employee is in an at risk group, then the employer should make amendments or furlough (but doesn't have to).

If the employee is refusing to work, then the employer is well within his rights to not pay them, and place them onto non-paid holiday.

If the business is able to continue, and the employee cannot work from home, then the employee does not have a leg to stand on.

Good luck with that.

Why good luck? It's the law, and its how things are, regardless of the virus.

A lot of laws and rules have been relaxed, but it's not a national paid holiday for everyone. If someone is refusing to go to work 'just because', then they don't get paid. No arguments, no luck required, and they won't have leg to stand on in any tribunal.

Exactly the only difference is under normal circumstances you could be sacked.

[Dry Clean]

Its up to the employer to furlough, not the employee.

If the employee is in an at risk group, then the employer should make amendments or furlough (but doesn't have to).

If the employee is refusing to work, then the employer is well within his rights to not pay them, and place them onto non-paid holiday.

If the business is able to continue, and the employee cannot work from home, then the employee does not have a leg to stand on.

Good luck with that.

Why good luck? It's the law, and its how things are, regardless of the virus.

A lot of laws and rules have been relaxed, but it's not a national paid holiday for everyone. If someone is refusing to go to work 'just because', then they don't get paid. No arguments, no luck required, and they won't have leg to stand on in any tribunal.

What kind of productivity do you think you will get from that employee who is genuinely scared to catch the virus or pass it onto his family who are high risk? 50%? 80%? 100%?

Not to mention it would be a PR disaster for your business should he decide to go down that channel.

It’s the law though so sod ‘em.

Again, good luck with it.

If somebody in your family is at high risk and you live with them then you can stay at home with statutory sick pay, a friend/neighbour of mine who works in a non essential factory and has a high risk family member is doing this as we speak.
Its a bloody disgrace and one of many for people still working in non essential businesses that are still open.

[CleanClear]

Question.
Not my situation but I'm purely curious.
As everyone is aware some business owners close some business owners carry on as normal in our industry.

So Example you're choosing to carry on as normal
Staff member is blatantly honest and says he doesn't want to put himself and others at risk
And is delusional that you should pay him 80% for nothing as the government going to pay it.


It wouldn't put it past me if someone on this forum had a similar scenario let us know if so.
How do you think one could realistically handle this?

Because handing off a P45 for being scared of covid 19 could potentially be risky likewise if you have a low balance sheet you generally won't be able to pay in which case it could be a messy conundrum.

I thought this was easy. With a good employer / employee relationship the employer would pay him to be off and then get recompensed by the gov. If no cash flow exists to pay the employee now, then explain they have to wait for the money like everyone else. With a bad employer / employee relationship then just make them redundant.

[Dry Clean]

Question.
Not my situation but I'm purely curious.
As everyone is aware some business owners close some business owners carry on as normal in our industry.

So Example you're choosing to carry on as normal
Staff member is blatantly honest and says he doesn't want to put himself and others at risk
And is delusional that you should pay him 80% for nothing as the government going to pay it.


It wouldn't put it past me if someone on this forum had a similar scenario let us know if so.
How do you think one could realistically handle this?

Because handing off a P45 for being scared of covid 19 could potentially be risky likewise if you have a low balance sheet you generally won't be able to pay in which case it could be a messy conundrum.

I thought this was easy. With a good employer / employee relationship the employer would pay him to be off and then get recompensed by the gov. If no cash flow exists to pay the employee now, then explain they have to wait for the money like everyone else. With a bad employer / employee relationship then just make them redundant.

Why would an employer who has decided to stay open then make it easy for their employees to stay at home ? have you ever worked for anybody Clean ? to most employers especially the larger ones you're nothing more than a number.

[AuRavelling79]

This very subject is up on Radio 2 with Jeremy Vine this lunchtime.
About 1.00 / 1.30 is when this subject starts I think.

[CleanClear]

Why would an employer who has decided to stay open then make it easy for their employees to stay at home ?

Because us and the rest of the World are in the midst of a pandemic ?

[Slacky]

Jeepers....

[Soupy]

If the employee only recieves 80% of the 80% so be it. Thats life. Its tough for everyone.

Show me someone who is dis-satisfied with that in the current climate.

He's wrong. The government is covering the total cost of furlough. Including employer's NI and pensions.

If the employer only got 80% of the 80% nobody would do it. Sad but true.

In my opinion I am not wrong and my accountant whom I have used and trusted for 25 Years agrees with me.  Where does it say that the government are going to cover the employers Tax, NI & Pension contributions?  They will only cover what they pay the employer covers the rest.
My issue is if I furlough any employees they cannot work for ME during that period.

As Tosh said. Sack your accountant asap.

The government has even said companies can re-hire employees who they've make redundant and furlough them. Who in their right mind would do that if it's going to cost them money?





It's pretty clear. Let's say one of my employees earns £40k, 80% of that is over the £2500 p/m limit. It says in black and white that you MUST PAY the employee ALL OF THE GRANT, which would be..... drum roll.... you guessed it £2500.