Company isn't furloughing anyone
Discussion
I started a new job in February for a multinational company with thousands of employees, with about 500 of them being in the UK.
I'm absolutely smitten with them but obviously I have some worries in the back of my mind due to COVID, job security etc.
Whats surprised me, is that although 90% of our work has dried up, nobody has been put on furlough. Instead, everyone is just working from home, doing R&D, self-teaching etc., on normal 100% pay. We even had a new starter last week, and one before that as well.
Obviously I'm extremely grateful to still be working and on full pay, but how common is it for employers to not put people on furlough during this time? We've not been given any reassurance or direction by senior management, although I did have an informal chat with one of our directors who casually passed comment how "we've got loads of money and isn't a problem for us".
Even if this is true, surely they are saying no to free money from the government by not putting people on furlough?
I'm absolutely smitten with them but obviously I have some worries in the back of my mind due to COVID, job security etc.
Whats surprised me, is that although 90% of our work has dried up, nobody has been put on furlough. Instead, everyone is just working from home, doing R&D, self-teaching etc., on normal 100% pay. We even had a new starter last week, and one before that as well.
Obviously I'm extremely grateful to still be working and on full pay, but how common is it for employers to not put people on furlough during this time? We've not been given any reassurance or direction by senior management, although I did have an informal chat with one of our directors who casually passed comment how "we've got loads of money and isn't a problem for us".
Even if this is true, surely they are saying no to free money from the government by not putting people on furlough?
The scheme is meant to be an alternative to companies laying off workers, not an opportunity for all companies to have the government cover their payroll expenses for a while.
In industries like retail and air travel, where demand has fallen of a cliff and their imminent survival is at threat, job losses are a real possibility. Other industries which have seen demand affected but not catastrophically so, particularly where ongoing work like product development, research, etc. can be done, the case is less clear cut.
Many employees wouldn't welcome being on 80% of their income capped at £2,500 just because the company can. Shutting down is also very disruptive, particularly in multinationals if some parts partially/completely shut down. There are also reputational issues and possible consequences down the line of turning to the taxpayer.
In industries like retail and air travel, where demand has fallen of a cliff and their imminent survival is at threat, job losses are a real possibility. Other industries which have seen demand affected but not catastrophically so, particularly where ongoing work like product development, research, etc. can be done, the case is less clear cut.
Many employees wouldn't welcome being on 80% of their income capped at £2,500 just because the company can. Shutting down is also very disruptive, particularly in multinationals if some parts partially/completely shut down. There are also reputational issues and possible consequences down the line of turning to the taxpayer.
You wouldn't be eligible for furlough anyway, you need to have been at a place for at least 1 year.
This may seem unfair, but it's to stop heaps of "technically" (as in currently doing cash in hand work) unemployed people suddenly getting jobs working for their cousins cousin and then getting a wage from the govt for doing nothing.
I think a few of our lot were hoping for furlough. I wouldn't have minded myself. We've been asked to keep working from home full time at 75% pay instead. With the furlough cap I'd be about 200 per month worse off than 75% pay but I could make it up working two days a week stacking shelves at Tesco or in a warehouse.
Still, there's folks that are really feeling the pinch and some poor folks that are dead, so trying to stay positive.
Still, there's folks that are really feeling the pinch and some poor folks that are dead, so trying to stay positive.
lyonspride said:
You wouldn't be eligible for furlough anyway, you need to have been at a place for at least 1 year.
This may seem unfair, but it's to stop heaps of "technically" (as in currently doing cash in hand work) unemployed people suddenly getting jobs working for their cousins cousin and then getting a wage from the govt for doing nothing.
That is not correct. This may seem unfair, but it's to stop heaps of "technically" (as in currently doing cash in hand work) unemployed people suddenly getting jobs working for their cousins cousin and then getting a wage from the govt for doing nothing.
Greenie said:
Incorrect. You qualify if you started before 1st March 2020.
I think that's changed to 19th March BUT you need to have been on a RTI payroll submission before that date.What that means is any starters between 1st March/19th March who were weekly paid (and included on their firm's Payroll submission before 19th March) are now entitled to be furloughed
smileymikey said:
sparks_190e said:
lyonspride said:
You wouldn't be eligible for furlough anyway, you need to have been at a place for at least 1 year.
It's potentially pretty damaging not to fact check something like that, as you are totally incorrect. lyonspride said:
smileymikey said:
sparks_190e said:
lyonspride said:
You wouldn't be eligible for furlough anyway, you need to have been at a place for at least 1 year.
It's potentially pretty damaging not to fact check something like that, as you are totally incorrect. You need to have been employed before 19th March. Unless you have a time machine, how can you qualify for the furlough scheme through "getting a job for your cousin's cousin"?
lyonspride said:
smileymikey said:
sparks_190e said:
lyonspride said:
You wouldn't be eligible for furlough anyway, you need to have been at a place for at least 1 year.
It's potentially pretty damaging not to fact check something like that, as you are totally incorrect. lyonspride said:
I'm going by what was reported my the media when the furlough suggestion first came to light, I haven't kept up with the latest on it, because it's of no consequence to my situation. I feel no need to check, if you're saying it's something different then so be it, the media are a bunch of lying tw@ts at the best of times. Though I still consider myself enough of an authority on the subject to advise others.
Fixed that for you 
lyonspride said:
smileymikey said:
sparks_190e said:
lyonspride said:
You wouldn't be eligible for furlough anyway, you need to have been at a place for at least 1 year.
It's potentially pretty damaging not to fact check something like that, as you are totally incorrect. By your own admission you have no idea what you are talking about - so why would you try to "help" by giving advice which is completely wrong.
The media have never said to work for 1 year before Furlough would apply. I was following the Furlough news with interest when it was announced and NEVER has anyone said it was 1 year.
lyonspride said:
You wouldn't be eligible for furlough anyway, you need to have been at a place for at least 1 year.
This may seem unfair, but it's to stop heaps of "technically" (as in currently doing cash in hand work) unemployed people suddenly getting jobs working for their cousins cousin and then getting a wage from the govt for doing nothing.
That's a top quality post, the stipulation of employed for 1 year was never a thing. This may seem unfair, but it's to stop heaps of "technically" (as in currently doing cash in hand work) unemployed people suddenly getting jobs working for their cousins cousin and then getting a wage from the govt for doing nothing.
Misinformation is very dangerous.
Greenie said:
Incorrect. You qualify if you started before 1st March 2020.
Not quite - You have to have been employed as of Friday, 28th February. Don't forget that as this was a leap year, we had Saturday 29th February, and that would not have counted.
They do keep making the goalposts a little bit wider though, so there may have been some more recent changes which update this.
There is no requirement to have been employed for at least 1 year though. That's just nonsense.
lyonspride said:
I'm going by what was reported my the media when the furlough suggestion first came to light, I haven't kept up with the latest on it, because it's of no consequence to my situation. I feel no need to check, if you're saying it's something different then so be it, the media are a bunch of lying tw@ts at the best of times. Seems to me that the govt has left itself open to people taking the piss then.
Hahaha, totally inability to say ‘oops, I was wrong!’I bet you beat your wife.
Shakermaker said:
Greenie said:
Incorrect. You qualify if you started before 1st March 2020.
Not quite - You have to have been employed as of Friday, 28th February. Don't forget that as this was a leap year, we had Saturday 29th February, and that would not have counted.
They do keep making the goalposts a little bit wider though, so there may have been some more recent changes which update this.
There is no requirement to have been employed for at least 1 year though. That's just nonsense.
"To qualify and to protect against fraudulent claims, individuals originally had to be employed on February 28 2020.
But following a review of the delivery system and to ensure the scheme helps as many people as possible, new guidance published today has confirmed the eligibility date has been extended to March 19 2020– the day before the scheme was announced."
Correct as per 15th April but subject to change of course!!
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff