• Replies 66 replies
  • Subscribers 3 subscribers
  • Views 4291 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 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
  • in reply to Peter

    N.B. to my submissions above. Just to be clear: I am NOT suggesting that employees be placed on furlough "on paper" while in fact working normally, but from home. (That would clearly be dishonest access to the payment intended to relieve their loss of earnings for being offered no work by the employer). What I am suggesting is that as far as we know at this moment (unless I have missed something) there is nothing stopping, or making conditional, the employer still paying for any casual work done at home during the furlough, using (if paid for) up to 20% of what would have been the normal working week; in the same way that the employee would be free to accept any other paid work from a different employer, in what has become their free (and unsubsidised) time SO LONG AS it did not breach the conditions of the furlough and the Gov't's granting of the subsidy (that they remain at home and not attend a workplace, or travel to or from one), or of course their terms and conditions of employment (e.g. by working for a competitor, or if barred from working for "any" other employer).

    P

  • in reply to Peter
    Peter, I understood what you were saying. We are all trying to work our new terminology in our professional sphere's. We all want to reduce job loss and ensure our organisations come out of this crisis able to function. Keep posting you relevant thoughts and insights!
  • in reply to Sara-Jane

    Thank you Sara-Jane. It is the difficulty of trying to nail down political ambivalence into something that will both really work and be justifiable in law, without anything other than the apparent intentions and comparable law/past practice as guidance.

    In a similar way to the difference between an HR professional and a lawyer being that the lawyer seeks to "win" the argument, whereas the HR professional seeks to "resolve" it, so it seems the Politician wants to "qualify" their objectives (then being able to alter or deny them if they feel the expedient need), whereas HR want to "quantify" them into something precise that will work to everyone's advantage!

    ....and unfortunately my crystal ball seems to have become a little cloudy in the current climate of daily rule-changes and disinformation!

    Maybe I should retire :-)

    P

  • in reply to Peter
    Nooooo don't do that your posts are extremely helpful.
    Gillian
  • in reply to Keith

    IMPORTANT!

    Further to this discussion: The latest directions on how the 80% subsidy is to be applied clearly EXCLUDE any work being done for the employer (paid or unpaid) during furlough.

    I quote:

    "To be eligible for the subsidy, when on furlough, an employee can not undertake work for or on behalf of the organisation. This includes providing services or generating revenue. While on furlough, the employee’s wage will be subject to usual income tax and other deductions."

    So all my careful logic above regarding the use of the 20% of time "unsubsidised" should be entirely ignored. Keith's insight and interpretation of the Government's intention being the correct one. Therefore:

    "The furloughed employee is hereby sentenced to three months of getting under their partner's feet, and watching Daytime television, without parole, for receipt of Government Subsidy, with or without Employee Contribution."

    ....And may the Lord have mercy on their soul!

    Some you win...... :-)

    P

Reply
  • in reply to Keith

    IMPORTANT!

    Further to this discussion: The latest directions on how the 80% subsidy is to be applied clearly EXCLUDE any work being done for the employer (paid or unpaid) during furlough.

    I quote:

    "To be eligible for the subsidy, when on furlough, an employee can not undertake work for or on behalf of the organisation. This includes providing services or generating revenue. While on furlough, the employee’s wage will be subject to usual income tax and other deductions."

    So all my careful logic above regarding the use of the 20% of time "unsubsidised" should be entirely ignored. Keith's insight and interpretation of the Government's intention being the correct one. Therefore:

    "The furloughed employee is hereby sentenced to three months of getting under their partner's feet, and watching Daytime television, without parole, for receipt of Government Subsidy, with or without Employee Contribution."

    ....And may the Lord have mercy on their soul!

    Some you win...... :-)

    P

Children