The "I've been furloughed" Thread
Discussion
journeymanpro said:
The claw back clause is a, copy and paste, I had one exactly the same that my useless employed copied from gov. UK. I refused to sign it so they removed it.
Thanks I have emailed my manager asking what their reasoning for putting it in there is. I'd already found where they seem to have copied it from.
It just seems like such a ludicrously open clause with potential to completely screw me and my finances over!
Durzel said:
Is there seriously a suggestion that the Govt could or would attempt to claw back the money from companies in the future? That seems like it would be huge news if it were the case. Where is this clause being copied from, if not GOV.UK?
I think it's just the poster's company doing a big arse covering. What they're covering for, and why they are asking them to sign it I have no idea.The furlough is between the company and the government, furlough money is nothing to do with the employee.
Do not sign it!
Kiribati268 said:
I think it's just the poster's company doing a big arse covering. What they're covering for, and why they are asking them to sign it I have no idea.
The furlough is between the company and the government, furlough money is nothing to do with the employee.
Do not sign it!
Furlough pay is everything to do with the employee. After all, it is the employee that receives it. The Company pays the employee up front and reclaims later. If you want a real separation then copy the Spanish system where the company only pays you for the work done. The balance of the unworked contractual hours is paid directly by the state and sometimes up to 3 months late. The furlough is between the company and the government, furlough money is nothing to do with the employee.
Do not sign it!
Kiribati268 said:
Durzel said:
Is there seriously a suggestion that the Govt could or would attempt to claw back the money from companies in the future? That seems like it would be huge news if it were the case. Where is this clause being copied from, if not GOV.UK?
I think it's just the poster's company doing a big arse covering. What they're covering for, and why they are asking them to sign it I have no idea.The furlough is between the company and the government, furlough money is nothing to do with the employee.
Do not sign it!
And yes it's clearly a big arse covering exercise with no thought gone into it but it does have potential to totally screw me over should the worse case scenario happen. If the company was found to have illegally claimed, and in no way my fault, and the Gov chose to reclaim it all then they could nick or back off me and I'd very out of pocket.
It seems like a ridiculous clause to me, so I've had a moan and not signed.
Japveesix said:
As far as I can tell it's copied and pasted directly from an example letter in the Britishchambers website.
And yes it's clearly a big arse covering exercise with no thought gone into it but it does have potential to totally screw me over should the worse case scenario happen. If the company was found to have illegally claimed, and in no way my fault, and the Gov chose to reclaim it all then they could nick or back off me and I'd very out of pocket.
It seems like a ridiculous clause to me, so I've had a moan and not signed.
Exactly why I didn't sign. Why should I be held responsible if my employer lies or screws the claim up. And yes it's clearly a big arse covering exercise with no thought gone into it but it does have potential to totally screw me over should the worse case scenario happen. If the company was found to have illegally claimed, and in no way my fault, and the Gov chose to reclaim it all then they could nick or back off me and I'd very out of pocket.
It seems like a ridiculous clause to me, so I've had a moan and not signed.
hyphen said:
Is it fair to say the job losses haven’t been as catastrophic as predicted back in 2020? The scheme seems to have worked in ‘retaining’ lots of jobs. Maybe lots of people changed careers though.Too soon to tell I think.
How many of the million still on furlough by the end of last month were genuinely on furlough? By which I mean once you remove those who had already got another job (sensible thing to do I would say, once you were past a year on furlough you'd have to expect to have nothing to go back to!) and any dodgy firms double-dipping, is it likely that there were really a million people who had been sitting at home for a year and a half doing absolutely nothing, and are now suddenly shocked into action?
Of those who really are only just now being made redundancy, they would hopefully have saved something during their furlough period and may well be receiving several months of redundancy and pay in lieu of notice. Which could well stretch out any re-entry into the job market well into next year.
How many of the million still on furlough by the end of last month were genuinely on furlough? By which I mean once you remove those who had already got another job (sensible thing to do I would say, once you were past a year on furlough you'd have to expect to have nothing to go back to!) and any dodgy firms double-dipping, is it likely that there were really a million people who had been sitting at home for a year and a half doing absolutely nothing, and are now suddenly shocked into action?
Of those who really are only just now being made redundancy, they would hopefully have saved something during their furlough period and may well be receiving several months of redundancy and pay in lieu of notice. Which could well stretch out any re-entry into the job market well into next year.
Flooble said:
Too soon to tell I think.
How many of the million still on furlough by the end of last month were genuinely on furlough? By which I mean once you remove those who had already got another job (sensible thing to do I would say, once you were past a year on furlough you'd have to expect to have nothing to go back to!) and any dodgy firms double-dipping, is it likely that there were really a million people who had been sitting at home for a year and a half doing absolutely nothing, and are now suddenly shocked into action?
Of those who really are only just now being made redundancy, they would hopefully have saved something during their furlough period and may well be receiving several months of redundancy and pay in lieu of notice. Which could well stretch out any re-entry into the job market well into next year.
You understand that many of those on the scheme were on flexible furlough?How many of the million still on furlough by the end of last month were genuinely on furlough? By which I mean once you remove those who had already got another job (sensible thing to do I would say, once you were past a year on furlough you'd have to expect to have nothing to go back to!) and any dodgy firms double-dipping, is it likely that there were really a million people who had been sitting at home for a year and a half doing absolutely nothing, and are now suddenly shocked into action?
Of those who really are only just now being made redundancy, they would hopefully have saved something during their furlough period and may well be receiving several months of redundancy and pay in lieu of notice. Which could well stretch out any re-entry into the job market well into next year.
skwdenyer said:
Flooble said:
Too soon to tell I think.
How many of the million still on furlough by the end of last month were genuinely on furlough? By which I mean once you remove those who had already got another job (sensible thing to do I would say, once you were past a year on furlough you'd have to expect to have nothing to go back to!) and any dodgy firms double-dipping, is it likely that there were really a million people who had been sitting at home for a year and a half doing absolutely nothing, and are now suddenly shocked into action?
Of those who really are only just now being made redundancy, they would hopefully have saved something during their furlough period and may well be receiving several months of redundancy and pay in lieu of notice. Which could well stretch out any re-entry into the job market well into next year.
You understand that many of those on the scheme were on flexible furlough?How many of the million still on furlough by the end of last month were genuinely on furlough? By which I mean once you remove those who had already got another job (sensible thing to do I would say, once you were past a year on furlough you'd have to expect to have nothing to go back to!) and any dodgy firms double-dipping, is it likely that there were really a million people who had been sitting at home for a year and a half doing absolutely nothing, and are now suddenly shocked into action?
Of those who really are only just now being made redundancy, they would hopefully have saved something during their furlough period and may well be receiving several months of redundancy and pay in lieu of notice. Which could well stretch out any re-entry into the job market well into next year.
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff