Furloughing Staff
Discussion
I can't get through to HRMC but as I understand it, we nominate our staff members that need to be furloughed and from what date, pay them as per normal but we get reimbursed 80%?
Effectively we just paying 20% of their costs for 8 weeks. Thereafter we need to make a decision going forward?
We plan to do this in stages as business dries up?
This applies to any UK business?
Candellara said:
I can't get through to HRMC but as I understand it, we nominate our staff members that need to be furloughed and from what date, pay them as per normal but we get reimbursed 80%?
Effectively we just paying 20% of their costs for 8 weeks. Thereafter we need to make a decision going forward?
We plan to do this in stages as business dries up?
This applies to any UK business?
That is pretty much my understanding too, along with the knowledge that HMRC curently have no method of re-imbursing money through PAYE and are therefore talking about setting up a new online portal for claims - Lord only knows how well that will work...Effectively we just paying 20% of their costs for 8 weeks. Thereafter we need to make a decision going forward?
We plan to do this in stages as business dries up?
This applies to any UK business?
As soon as the government has tried to put out 1 fire they have to rush off and dampen down another. NOTHING they promised last week exists yet. Please can we replace the flaxen-haired buffoon with a proper grown up. Nothing personal - I couldn't handle it - but he really needs to hand the toys over to a professional NOW. What's wrong with biting the bullet, setting an example and having a military planning committee in charge. HIs cosy fireside 17.00 chats were amusing. Now they are deeply worrying and upsetting everyone.
Candellara said:
I can't get through to HRMC but as I understand it, we nominate our staff members that need to be furloughed and from what date, pay them as per normal but we get reimbursed 80%?
Effectively we just paying 20% of their costs for 8 weeks. Thereafter we need to make a decision going forward?
We plan to do this in stages as business dries up?
This applies to any UK business?
You don’t have to pay the 20% if you don’t want to. This is an alternative to lay-offs. Long-standing staff (redundancy) and contracts might require staff to agree (I’m not an HR / employment lawyer) to the reduction.Effectively we just paying 20% of their costs for 8 weeks. Thereafter we need to make a decision going forward?
We plan to do this in stages as business dries up?
This applies to any UK business?
Got a real issue here. Given the drop off in business over the last few weeks we have a couple of members of staff who aren't really doing anything so this would be useful.
However, my worry is that we do still have money in the bank (at the moment) so perhaps not the target audience for this, however it would help us be able to pay everyone for as long as possible.
Just worried about a retrospective policing.... "well you had money in the bank so pay us back with interest..."
However, my worry is that we do still have money in the bank (at the moment) so perhaps not the target audience for this, however it would help us be able to pay everyone for as long as possible.
Just worried about a retrospective policing.... "well you had money in the bank so pay us back with interest..."
mx stu said:
Got a real issue here. Given the drop off in business over the last few weeks we have a couple of members of staff who aren't really doing anything so this would be useful.
However, my worry is that we do still have money in the bank (at the moment) so perhaps not the target audience for this, however it would help us be able to pay everyone for as long as possible.
Just worried about a retrospective policing.... "well you had money in the bank so pay us back with interest..."
I would think that this is irrespective of your cash position and is there uniformly to protect these jobs. If without this help, would you lay the staff off? If yes, furlough the staff and you get 80% of their salary reimbursed, so you pay then as normal and you're only paying them 20% for the next 8 weeks.However, my worry is that we do still have money in the bank (at the moment) so perhaps not the target audience for this, however it would help us be able to pay everyone for as long as possible.
Just worried about a retrospective policing.... "well you had money in the bank so pay us back with interest..."
Thereafter, you need to make a decision to keep them on as hopefully business has picked up or lay them off
This is my current understanding
Candellara said:
mx stu said:
Got a real issue here. Given the drop off in business over the last few weeks we have a couple of members of staff who aren't really doing anything so this would be useful.
However, my worry is that we do still have money in the bank (at the moment) so perhaps not the target audience for this, however it would help us be able to pay everyone for as long as possible.
Just worried about a retrospective policing.... "well you had money in the bank so pay us back with interest..."
I would think that this is irrespective of your cash position and is there uniformly to protect these jobs. If without this help, would you lay the staff off? If yes, furlough the staff and you get 80% of their salary reimbursed, so you pay then as normal and you're only paying them 20% for the next 8 weeks.However, my worry is that we do still have money in the bank (at the moment) so perhaps not the target audience for this, however it would help us be able to pay everyone for as long as possible.
Just worried about a retrospective policing.... "well you had money in the bank so pay us back with interest..."
Thereafter, you need to make a decision to keep them on as hopefully business has picked up or lay them off
This is my current understanding
mx stu said:
Just worried about a retrospective policing.... "well you had money in the bank so pay us back with interest..."
I don't believe that's the intent - this is a measure to allow you to delay making redundancies - ie to enable you to relatively cheaply maintain a workforce for a period of time which is, hopefully, sufficient to get us to the other end of all this.A real example of this is a client I am working with - they have cash in the bank. If everything is wound down with an enforced 'stay at home' then without the assistance they'd have sufficient cash to last maybe a month to 6 weeks, even after stopping all payments other than wages and minimal insurance. With the support they should have 3 months - hopefully enough to get to a point where they have to worry about how to restart their business, frankly by then this is a worry I'd be grateful to have.
I've not heard anything about a 'test' - in fact I believe this is the broadest application of support provided to date.
I have no doubt they are scrabbling around trying to figure out a way to make this work - we are in a period where outlining an idea and subsequently figuring out the application is the right thing to do in order to try to install some confidence and avoid companies making mass redundancy decisions. I hope they do allow an application of allowing a reduction in time / week rather than an all or nothing - it does make sense but do bear in mind they've had to piggyback of existing lay-off legislation rather than having time to re-write the whole rule book.
I gather there's also talk about redefining the point at which Directors are obliged to seek insolvency - but I am not sure how far that's progressed or what it will look like.
CBI call just mentioned this; it is a grant so does not need to be repaid and does not have qualification criteria related to existing funds at hand. They're setting up a portal for processing in the next few days. Will be a pay and reclaim thing it seems.
There will seemingly be little policing; this policy is simply ensuring enough money flows in to keep people employed and the wheels of the economy moving. There is talk of guidelines on furlough requirements but not much else.
I think a Labour government would have just gone straight to a Universal Income so think of it as a Conservative approach to that.
There was also recognition of the self employed and a comment that something is being worked up, but led by Chambers not CBI.
There will seemingly be little policing; this policy is simply ensuring enough money flows in to keep people employed and the wheels of the economy moving. There is talk of guidelines on furlough requirements but not much else.
I think a Labour government would have just gone straight to a Universal Income so think of it as a Conservative approach to that.
There was also recognition of the self employed and a comment that something is being worked up, but led by Chambers not CBI.
Where do you stand on restricting hours? I.E I have a workshop of 6 guys working 5 days & half are in every other sat for half a day.
Can I split the shift on a 3 in for 3 day basis (Mon-Wed & Thur-Sat) and then the govt pay 80% for the two days a week they won't be at work? Or will they only get 80% if I lay 2/3 off for 12 weeks?
Can I split the shift on a 3 in for 3 day basis (Mon-Wed & Thur-Sat) and then the govt pay 80% for the two days a week they won't be at work? Or will they only get 80% if I lay 2/3 off for 12 weeks?
I have had a few queries regarding salaries payable to directors of owner managed companies. The legislation only talks about employees - and directors are legally not employees.
An employment law barrister on LBC this morning seems to think that directors ARE included in the legislation but I'm not so sure.
As ever, grand announcements have been made but the actual operation of this legislation will be pretty difficult.
An employment law barrister on LBC this morning seems to think that directors ARE included in the legislation but I'm not so sure.
As ever, grand announcements have been made but the actual operation of this legislation will be pretty difficult.
Gassing Station | Business | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff