• 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.

  • 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 Jenine Cooper
    Sorry I am wondering if someone can help. I work in social care (charity) and some of our staff have been advised to self isolate for 12 weeks. Can we agree with people on self isolation that they will be furloughed?

    We do have some company sick pay but not to the extent of the 12 week period, we would absolutely love to pay all staff their full salary while self isolating, but unfortunately it is not viable and could end the business. 95% of our business is Local Authority commissioned so we fight for every penny we get to cover costs due to the lack of funding for social care the LA gets, we do not have a huge surplus and as a charity do not have shareholders.

    We need to continue with the support we provide so cannot close the business as 90% of staff are key workers. It just seems unfair and disproportionate that people who wish to continue to work but need to self isolate will end up on SSP but if a business closed staff will get 80% of wages which help is provided.

    I may be missing something so any help is gratefully appreciated

    Thank you

    Sharon
  • 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