You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
I know of a couple of places near me, where all staff are furloughed. However they are getting some of those staff to come in and do some work. Cleaning, maintenance etc.. I suspect the staff themselves are not to blame, I doubt they understand the concept of furloughing fully. What gets my moral compass is if HMRC / all of us are paying 80% of their wages then isn't this wrong?
Is there a dob in line as the (charity) themselves I suspect are wronging us all?
Ask mike.
https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/sports-direct-alleged-to-have-pressured-furloughed-staff-to-work/
Not sure on how you dob in, but I did read an interesting article on furlough recently.
It basically said why don't the government demand the furloughed works work? It costs the government and the companies the same but means that you have more people working.
I bet it is going to be pretty widely abused - especially as it is difficult for many employers to operate without any staff (apart from obvious sectors like bars and restaurants) however many will have vastly reduced business, but still need key staff to perform some duties.
Not sure on how you dob in, but I did read an interesting article on furlough recently.
It basically said why don’t the government demand the furloughed works work? It costs the government and the companies the same but means that you have more people working.
Someone may have missed the point of the whole exercise.
Really depends on circumstances. One of my neighbors is furloughed but has been into work a few times. It's his decision, don't think there has been any pressure from the small company he works for. He's not coming into contact with anyone else and it means there will less of a build up of jobs when he goes back. The current situation wouldn't be economical for his employer to pay him to work full time.
He's not adhering to the letter of furlough but I don't think he's doing anything morally wrong. If he worked for a bigger company or was being pressured into doing it, it would different.
Many if not most of the furloughed workers can’t work. They work for airlines which are grounded, pubs/cafes/restaurants which are closed or suppliers to big businesses which’re reducing costs due to reduced demand. If companies are asking staff to work, they shouldn’t have been furloughed in the first place as there is work to do.
Having said all that, large companies don’t do particularly well at implementing things on a case by case basis. As such, they may have furloughed everyone in a particular department/cost centre (dept y)as that’s what they’ve done elsewhere to other departments (depts a-x). Not realising that Bob in dept y is actually required to provide inputs to z which allows the company to plan its furlough exit.
This is apparently exactly what has happened at EasyJet.
Not sure on how you dob in, but I did read an interesting article on furlough recently.
It basically said why don’t the government demand the furloughed works work? It costs the government and the companies the same but means that you have more people working.
Because the point is to pay workers who's jobs no longer exist in the short term. If your job still exists then it's not furloughed. It's for staff, not the companies to get free government funded labor.
The exception is training IIRC, so they can ask you to use that time off to do courses online etc.
I think the laws are pretty simple if you been furloughed then you shouldn't be working. But i assume the majority of people are pretty fearful they may lose their job so are going into to appear willing and keep said job.
The current situation wouldn’t be economical for his employer to pay him to work full time.
He’s not adhering to the letter of furlough but I don’t think he’s doing anything morally wrong. If he worked for a bigger company or was being pressured into doing it, it would different.
It's pretty binary in the guidance though - furloughed workers cannot work and should not be working. In this example, is it not morally similar to claiming benefits and having a paying job at the same time? Don't see why company size would be especially relevant. If he was being pressured to do it, that's clearly fraudulent behaviour on the part of the business.
I don’t think he’s doing anything morally wrong.
He is, you can’t undertake any work for your employer whilst on furlough. I can’t even chair conference calls with my furloughed staff as it’s seen as undertaking work duties.
Having said all that, large companies don’t do particularly well at implementing things on a case by case basis. As such, they may have furloughed everyone in a particular department/cost centre (dept y)as that’s what they’ve done elsewhere to other departments (depts a-x). Not realising that Bob in dept y is actually required to provide inputs to z which allows the company to plan its furlough exit.
This is apparently exactly what has happened at EasyJet.
But then it's pretty simple: at the point it's realised you need Bob, you should be informing HMRC that furlough was not required. I think that's acceptable and up to HMRC if they want to recover the amount claimed to that point.
Furlough scheme is pretty binary - either work or not work. Could do with some flexibility to allow reduced hours working.
But it was set up in a hurry and that would add to its complexity.
They really should have just done UBI - then all this rules/exceptions/some people miss out/creating complex systems that can be abused and/or take lots of time to administer wouldn't be an issue.
I've furloughed myself fr 3 weeks and although I'm keeping an eye my emails etc Ive not replied to any or rung anyone.
We have a weekly Zoom call which is presenting information to all the staff (which I led before going off) and we have encouraged those on furlough that they can log on and watch that way. I'm in my 3rd week and can see just how isolating being furloughed could be for people. I've not joined the Zoom meeting as I would struggle not to comment and take an active part in the meeting!
You can undertake voluntary work and others I believe but must be available to be recalled if needed.
If companies are asking staff to work, they shouldn’t have been furloughed in the first place as there is work to do.
But if there is only, say, 20% of the work to be done but it would be more detrimental to the business to tell their client they can't have anything because all the staff are furloughed....
Furlough scheme is pretty binary – either work or not work. Could do with some flexibility to allow reduced hours working.
Yep - I could easily make that scenario work as we aren't as busy in some parts of our work, however I can't lay anyone off completely as there is always going to be something for everyone to do at some point although none of us are working at full capacity.
Interesting, I've been told by my company (and had to email confirmation) that under no circumstances am I to do anything associated with fee earning work for the company.
I can do some online training, but I can't answer work related emails, call clients or anything else.
All fine by me as I'm getting loads done around the house.
I’ve had my remote access revoked for the period of furlough so I couldn’t access my email even if I wanted to.
But if there is only, say, 20% of the work to be done but it would be more detrimental to the business to tell their client they can’t have anything because all the staff are furloughed….
Blocks are for 3 week periods, so one way around it would be to compress work into those periods.
Pretty detrimental to the business to be prosecuted for fraud. Pretty detrimental to the country to have loads of businesses abusing the system. The scheme was put in place and is needed to protect the livelihoods of people who cannot work. The more abuse there is, the more pressure there will be to end it earlier, thus really ****ing over those businesses who definitively do need it.
Blocks are for 3 week periods, so one way around it would be to compress work into those periods.
This appears to be happening to my wife.
I’ve been told by my company (and had to email confirmation) that under no circumstances am I to do anything associated with fee earning work for the company.
I can do some online training, but I can’t answer work related emails, call clients or anything else.
She's been told to attend daily team meetings which are not furlough related. Thats work to me, I don't think she should be doing it.
jam bo
SubscriberI’ve had my remote access revoked for the period of furlough so I couldn’t access my email even if I wanted to.
My work has done that too. They're kind of dicks a lot of the time but sometimes, they're pretty sound
She’s been told to attend daily team meetings which are not furlough related. Thats work to me, I don’t think she should be doing it.
In writing? IIRC you were concerned that your wife was being prepared for redundancy? I see some pretty big leverage there!
In writing? IIRC you were concerned that your wife was being prepared for redundancy? I see some pretty big leverage there!
No verbally - she’s waiting for he formal letter tomorrow/Wednesday as she goes Thursday for 3 weeks so let’s see what that says. She did challenge it verbally and the answer was “well that’s the company’s understanding...”.
Perhaps I exaggerated to expect redundancy - she works part time office based dealing with on site infrastructure maintenance plans post completion, and as there aren’t many/any being done on site, Furlough it is. In theory when when start to roll out of this and on site work picks up, she should get work again. I realised it’ll cost them 12 years of redundancy to get rid of her so I imagine they will keep her on furlough for as long as it takes to build up 3 weeks worth of work, then furlough again all the time they can. who knows eh?
HMRC will be carrying out compliance checks on furlough down the line I expect that the first person/company caught will be made and example of.
HMRC will be carrying out compliance checks on furlough down the line I expect that the first person/company caught will be made and example of.
^ This. A mate works for a large construction company and they have furloghed quite a lot of staff, when I spoke to him about it he said under no circumstances were staff on furlough allowed to do any work. He said HMRC would be checking up and issuing huge fines to any companies breaking the rules.
Seems fair enough really as its basically committing fraud.
I work in the aviation industry and I am currently furloughed. On being placed on furlough my company said that we are not to attend the airport for any form of business what so ever! the only contact we are to have with work is via HR, we are not able to send any emails and we only receive emails from the Executive team... I think it's fair to say that my company is taking furlough seriously.
My brother in law was furloughed by the owners/managers of his employer (they are worth hundreds of millions on a personal level). He was then expected to carry on as normal. But I think this was more cock up than conspiracy as they have now unfurloughed him now they realise the place can't function without him.
Mind you, at the start of the outbreak they did sack two staff for going to the pub after work having been told 'not to' by work. Going to the pub was not banned at that point. Now you can debate the sense or lack of it in going to a pub in a town just outside London as a pandemic is taking hold and lockdown is likely, but my response to being sacked for it would be along the lines of "Err no. If you want rid of me you will have to do much better than that m'ducks".
FWIW my company has disabled emails of people who are furloughed and put a blanket out of office on them. They are determined to be whiter than white.
I do wonder what is really going to happen when the full claims go in.
Will the government machine be up to checking whether people really were not working? Will it ****. But they might choose to make an example of a few in the hope it scares some others I guess.
Blocks are for 3 week periods, so one way around it would be to compress work into those periods.
But that won’t always work - some employees do some tasks that can’t wait three weeks. It’s really not straight forward for employers (FWIW I employ eight people and none have been furloughed).
But that won’t always work – some employees do some tasks that can’t wait three weeks
Given the scheme is intended to prevent mass redundancies, that seems sensible - you wouldn't make someone redundant if you business can't function without them for 3 weeks. The scheme was intended to bridge us across the unknown. If all businesses were able to furlough staff and still allocate work, then most would do this and the scheme would be forced to end earlier, reducing the chances of survival for those hardest hit.
Hmmm. Mrs K's letter arrived and the vocabulary has changed to
a) Annual leave is "use it or lose it" pro rata'd to July e.g. you are only returning to 50% of your entitlement whether you took the first 50% before / during furlough or not - no good for her as she loads hers toward the August holidays to cover the kids being off school - I'm sure this is not right
b) She's been told that any contact e.g. requests to return to work will be done through her work email and it explicitly encourages here to check it regularly.....
I'm on furlough and have been asked to keep an eye on my email. An existing client got in touch requesting I do some work and was most put out when I replied that I was on furlough. My employers contacted an external HR advisor who suggested I did the work for the client on a 'voluntary' basis which I have now been persuaded to do...........
Kryton, a) I don't believe they can do this b) that seems pretty acceptable to me, just no replies!
natrix, if you do work for them on a voluntary buisness, will the employer voluntarily pay you an equivalent 'bonus' equating the time taken to do the work, when you return off furlough? If the answer is no, then they can jog on...
I’m on furlough and have been asked to keep an eye on my email. An existing client got in touch requesting I do some work and was most put out when I replied that I was on furlough. My employers contacted an external HR advisor who suggested I did the work for the client on a ‘voluntary’ basis which I have now been persuaded to do……….
So your employer is committing fraud. If they need you to work then they should be paying you, not the taxpayer.
My wife is furloughed and they are having to take holiday on a pro-rata basis to the end of June, effectively loosing any they had saved for later in the year.
then they can jog on…
trouble is, I'd rather like to go back to a job than redudancy...
trouble is, I’d rather like to go back to a job than redudancy…
While I get it, as had been said, if you're 'working' its fraud. If they start to take the piss, how much farther will they take it?
My wife is furloughed and they are having to take holiday on a pro-rata basis to the end of June, effectively loosing any they had saved for later in the year.
Exactly the same as my wife. Gov.uk says Annual leave continues to accrue as per normal employment. They are removing annual leave entitlement - breach of employment contract?
From the CIPD...
If furloughed workers do not book any holiday time their statutory minimum holiday entitlement of 5.6 weeks per year will accrue while they are furloughed. The exact amount will vary depending on how much leave the employee has already taken. Employers can ask for employees to agree to any contractual (as opposed to statutory) holiday not to accrue during furlough.
Special provisions govern the current situation which mean that workers can carry-over up to four weeks’ holiday into the next two holiday years. The interrelationship between leave and furlough is legally complex and has not been fully addressed in official guidance as yet, although the most recent employee's guidance confirmed that employers have to top up pay to 100% for any employees who take annual leave during furlough. It is thought that employers can alternatively insist employees take holiday during the furlough, provided the appropriate notice is given but this is yet to be confirmed in guidance. In this situation employers would then have to pay the holiday pay in full and could claim for the 80% grant towards this.
Further info
What happens to workers who have been unable to take their statutory annual leave entitlement due to the coronavirus lockdown or because they have been needed to work?
Workers who have not taken all of their statutory annual leave entitlement by the end of 2020 due to COVID-19 have a new legal right be able to carry it over into the next two leave years. Employers’ leave years will vary; in some cases this period aligns with the calendar year, in other cases the financial year, the academic year, or the anniversary of when the employee started employment.UK workers are usually entitled to 28 days holiday per year including bank holidays. This entitlement cannot normally be carried forward into the next leave year unless the employee:
- agrees this with the employer; or
- is on long-term sickness absence; or
- is on maternity leave and unable to take all of her entitlement as a result.
Payments in lieu of holiday are usually disallowed unless the worker is leaving the employer. However, this has been changed under amendments to the Working Time Regulations.
New provisions
To prevent workers losing their holiday and to enable key workers to keep working, the normal rules on carrying over annual leave have been modified. This will support provision of staff in key sectors (such as food and healthcare) during the pandemic without them losing out on holiday entitlement.
Employers can now allow up to four weeks (not the full 28 days) of unused leave to be carried into the next two leave years. The rules say that it must be ‘not reasonably practicable’ for the worker to take some, or all, of the holiday to which they are entitled due to the coronavirus. If so, they can carry four weeks forward for two years. The remaining 1.6 weeks of holiday can be carried forward by one year by agreement.
These amendments to the Working Time Regulations 1998 apply to all employees. Workers who do not have employee status such as agency workers, and some casual and zero-hours contract workers are also included (see Working Time (Coronavirus) (Amendment) Regulations 2020). The only exceptions are those covered by regulations other than the Working Time Regulations 1998 including some merchant seamen, fishermen, and civil aviation staff, some armed forces staff and doctors in training to whom special rules apply.
The normal obligations on employers to ensure workers take their statutory entitlement in one year or incur a financial penalty are also lifted.