• 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

  • 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.
Reply Children
  • 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)