• Replies 66 replies
  • Subscribers 3 subscribers
  • Views 4278 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related

COVID-19: Let us know what you think of the Government's unprecedented support for workers...

Steve Bridger

Good evening Everyone.

In response to the Chancellor’s unprecedented package of financial measures to support workers, Peter Cheese has made the following statement:

CIPD welcomes unprecedented support for workers and urges employers to hold their nerve while funds arrive

As Peter says...

“The challenge now is the speed with which employers can access these funds to avoid redundancies being made, given it could be the end of April before they become available.

“Employers need to hold their nerve in this challenging time and make every effort where they can to retain their staff while waiting for the job retention funding to come through. Concerns over immediate cashflow and payroll challenges should be met by the business loans announced by government, which should be available in a matter of days."


I've lost count of the number of times I've uttered the word "unprecedented" in recent days. My head is spinning.

Please do let us know what you think of the latest Government announcement... and share your thoughts and concerns below.

Finally, I just wanted to say that all of us at CIPD would like you to know we stand with you at this time.

Parents
  • Like a number of others on this thread, simple and clear CIPD guidance around managing the furlough process would be urgently appreciated ie. how do we go about this? how does it differ to lay off and short-time working? presumably all benefits and holiday accrual continue? Template documents would also be useful to prevent us all from 'reinventing the wheel' when we're currently up against it time-wise. Thank you
  • in reply to Carly

    As this seems to be a time for clarity; let's get some of the "political fluff" out of the way.

    According to the OED the word "Furlough" means: "Leave of absence, especially that granted to a member of the services or a missionary." It's origin is the German "Verlaub" = permission e.g "mit verlaub" = with permission.

    So its use is a euphemism for "authorised absence"; "layoff"; "short time working" "voluntary redundancy" or any of the other terms coined during the 1970's, meaning "Sending people home with (or without) pay".

    .....It is, in short, what each business can, or chooses to, make it using a collective term to make it sound more Politically acceptable and (possibly) dynamic, not a new initiative, not a unique state created by the subsidy of some (but we do not yet know what) absences in some (again we do not yet know which) sectors of business.

    Regardless of the vacuity of the term, the reality is that there are going to be subsidies: That is a positive which will, hopefully, permit some of us to advise planning for the worst, while the details of the subsidies emerge, but without acting hastily to put those measures into action until our own business's and peoples' eligibility for support becomes apparent.

    Holding, perhaps, not so much our collective nerve, but at least our precipitate actions before clarity emerges.... Or no alternative remains.

    Don't scatter good people to the wind if you don't have to; we will need them, and their loyalties and trust, to rebuild when this is over. Use information as a lubricant to understanding why we must, if we must, let them go; be that temporarily or permanently, or to a limited income for an indeterminate time; by whatever name.

    P

  • in reply to Peter
    HI Peter, I always value your balanced perspective on such delicate matters.
    Here is one for you: we will put employees on furlough from tomorrow because there is no work, except for some key roles that will be able to periodically need to check in on production, because as China is showing signs of recovery, we have some customer demand. In reality this means 'someone just needs to get to the office every other week, or once a month' - provided the lock down is London is periodically relaxed - so that our Company can keep going and come out the other side of the CONVID crisis.
    Now, have you heard of, or do you think we may see some provision for putting employees 'on and off' on furlough in this unpredictable time? Because that is what our business reality is?
    If I get agreements for 0 hour contracts - as a lot of staff has been put at risk of redundancy one week ago - perhaps we are better off doing this, and wait for Government to include on furlough options there?
    Any key areas I need to be prudent when communicating with the staff - as I have the rest of the day to draft the 72 letters and get them out and call staff- agreement is kind of 'assumed ' at this stage with a couple of exceptions where I will address best option with the team member.

    And finally, if I may, for myself as standalone HR Generalist: my boss wants to furlough me in about 2 weeks when this job has been done - clearly I do not agree that HR just 'abandons' the workforce on furlough by being on furlough themselves....as are all other key managers and communicators and only Head of Finance, who will be snowed under, will receive the request that would usually go to me.
    I hope you are keeping well and thank you in advance for your time!

    Best wishes,

    Nora Moller
  • in reply to Nora

    Hi Nora

    My immediate thoughts on this would be that the Gov't is paying for 80% of people's time so as it can be spent away from the workplace, which leaves 20% of the time still (potentially) paid for (and thus technically available to) the employer. The objective is to keep people away from the workplace and (thus) safe, so to have them report "as normal" at all would be accepting the 80% in bad faith (and probably there will thus be some preventative sanction should it be done), BUT, if people (including you) were expected (and paid) to do a little WFH in that 20% of their time not accounted for by the "furlough" payment, without going to the workplace, so able to talk to customers and (in your case) monitor the position of the team as you wish (and I would agree, is essential), then it isn't breaking any objective boundaries, and isn't costing the employer any more than it would anyway, is it? 

    Could that be a framework to weave some answers into?

    P

Reply
  • in reply to Nora

    Hi Nora

    My immediate thoughts on this would be that the Gov't is paying for 80% of people's time so as it can be spent away from the workplace, which leaves 20% of the time still (potentially) paid for (and thus technically available to) the employer. The objective is to keep people away from the workplace and (thus) safe, so to have them report "as normal" at all would be accepting the 80% in bad faith (and probably there will thus be some preventative sanction should it be done), BUT, if people (including you) were expected (and paid) to do a little WFH in that 20% of their time not accounted for by the "furlough" payment, without going to the workplace, so able to talk to customers and (in your case) monitor the position of the team as you wish (and I would agree, is essential), then it isn't breaking any objective boundaries, and isn't costing the employer any more than it would anyway, is it? 

    Could that be a framework to weave some answers into?

    P

Children
  • in reply to Peter
    Thank Peter, I too had wondered if the top up to 20% could be used for people to work for that percentage only. As it may be that they are only needed twice a month for fire alarm testing or maintenance. As an example.
  • in reply to Peter
    HI Peter,

    thank you so much for your swift reply.
    So, just to be sure: I am going on the assumption that once the employee is put on furlough, it requires a further communication from the employer to effect a change (ie there is work, we need you to complete this as you are the best skilled etc.
    How often could this be done? If at all - since putting on furlough is rare, and perhaps a concept of 'once done that is it- come off again when the crisis is over' or - move to redundancy etc
    I had the 20% down as: the employer is of course able to top up the 80% to a full salary (essentially adding again to their wage bill which they would be struggling with, because of reduced cashflow, which in turn means the Government brought in the quick access loans), however the employee is not receiving the wage for any work - because there is none.
    For me,the main objective of the furlough principle is to provide a quick tool of stabilising a crisis where work has come to a sudden halt (as opposed to redundancy etc , where you really see it coming - hopefully).
    If on furlough is lined up with the 'no work' principle, then please confirm if this on this occasions does mean that actually an employee on furlough who receives 80% of their wages from the Government can AT THE SAME TIME receive 20% for paid work?
    Finally a payroll question: we assume we just pay all staff as per normal what they have worked (already on Short time working with us) for March, so do not deduct for anyone who actually has gone technically on furlough last week as the shops closed (back pay expected until 1st March). The deductions and reimbursements will be done once the scheme is up and running - so the risk is that staff in April will not get anything from us or the Government...any thoughts?

    Thank you,

    Nora
  • in reply to Peter
    I am not sure I agree that this is what the 20% is for or can be used for (but until / unless we see the details we don't know) and of course its unlikely many people will be checking

    I dont think this should be seen as a 4 day a week lay off and 1 day opportunity personally
  • in reply to Keith
    That wasn't the suggestion Keith : -)

    The purpose we can be fairly clear on as twofold (unless told different): To prevent job-losses and to keep people at home. 80% of the cost of them being at home is met by the subsidy; "up to" 20% by the employer. The employer doesn't have to pay it (we are told) but if they do then the time they are paying for still remains employment, as is the rest of the week. (That's the whole point of it being a furlough, rather then a four-day layoff), so the employer is still meeting the terms of the subsidy if they utilise some of the time they are paying for AT HOME for work (unless it becomes clear this can/must not be done.
    The employee is still employed for the whole week; they are just away from the workplace "with permission" and MUST stay away "with permission". Which they still will be. The Gov't is "buying" the employee's permitted absence from the workplace for the week (and the need to get to and fro), not their working time.

    That said, I agree entirely that until we know what the exact rules are, we/I can only suggest what might be possible.
  • in reply to Peter
    Not sure I still agree with your interpretation but we will have to wait and see what rules they eventually decide
  • in reply to Nora
    Not quite. As I understand it. The subsidy is 80% of the employee's wages. The Employer can "choose" to top up the remaining 20%. The Gov't isn't "pay wages" for the week, but "buying" the employee's absence from the workplace. What they do with that permitted time being up to them as long as NOT working "at work" If the employer adds the 20% and the employee accepts this, it is therefore extra to the 80% and can be consider "pay" for the proportionate time, but is NOT breaking the terms of the 80% being paid (unless we are told otherwise) as it is NOT "in the workplace", but WFH (and could just as well be spent watching TV for the added 20%)

    I can see no reason why not. There is no instruction (yet) that prevents the employee doing whatever they like with the time OTHER THAN attending a workplace in breach of the isolation policy the 80% IS paying for.
  • in reply to Keith

    As just above: It's a "Can't see why not" situation, rather then a: "...this permits it" one.

    Memories of ET Chairpersons looking quizzically over the half-rim spec's they all seem to be issued with muttering a quiet: "Hmmmm......". at some debatable point I've been seeking to get away with :-)

    (....But often did) :-)

  • in reply to Sara-Jane
    I think it would have to be work at home, rather then in the actual workplace Sara-Jane; the 80% is paying for the "permitted absence" for the whole week from the workplace on furlough, even if the employee accepts 20% extra from the employer to work "from home" (in the intended isolation being paid for by the subsidy)
  • in reply to Peter
    Dear Both,
    many thanks - I like the 'buying the employee's absence from the workplace' - it does capture it well - and agree that 20% wage for watching TV will be on the cards for strong employers who want to retain top talent and who otherwise would have a significant shortfall with the £ 2500 limit -
    I suppose I will wait and see and in the meantime draft letters that leave some room to manoeuvre in unprecedented times...
    I do hope that - like in Germany - we will have some flexibility applying on furlough, such as flexing the % staff has work and when it is available and the Govt topping up the balance or similar, it could be a win win in the long run...?
  • in reply to Nora
    Using a "purposive" approach: What (so far as they have told us) are the Government seeking for their subsidy? To stop people working? No. They are seeking to stop their attendance AT the workplace, and their travel to and from it.

    Are they seeking to minimise people's earnings? No again, because although allowing the employer NOT to pay the remaining 20% they allow it to be paid without deduction from the subsidy, (unlike any payment made to someone on benefits or pensions), so "earning" the 20% at home (without attending the workplace or some other) is not inherently excluded (as far as we know to date) and does not conflict with the purposes of the subsidy.

    Are they seeking to prevent the employer trading (for the duration of the crisis)? No a third time, because if the employer can continue trading they will be stronger and fitter to recover when the crisis is over: Their markets will have been retained, as will their taxable potential and exporting potential (Remember we have a wonderful deal of trade with the US to make, and a Brexit to put behind us when all this is over; somebody has to be producing something we can sell.... Other than what will be left of the NHS).

    Let's not go there.....

    P