Job Support Scheme

[red_slr]

Do I have this right?

If employee works 5 days - 40hrs a week.
Gets £500 a week. £100 a day.

Then, gets cut back to 4 days.
I pay them £400 for the 4 days.
Govt pays £50?
I pay 50?

Is that right?

Or they saying govt will pay 1/3 and I pay 1/3 and employee is down 1/3?
So they get £466? I pay 33 + govt 33?

[InitialDave]

The latter.

You cut their hours, and however much you cut them by, a third of that pay is met by you, a third by the government, and a third is what the employee loses fron their pocket

[red_slr]

So they get 400+66govt and 33 from me?

[InitialDave]

No, £400 earned, £33 from the government, £33 from you, £33 lost.

[red_slr]

Hmm, not sure thats going to go down well with employees..

[OscarIndia]

red_slr said:

Hmm, not sure thats going to go down well with employees..

It's better than them getting no support, so just the £400. Or being out of a job.

[InitialDave]

Better than the 25% straight up cut with no pay I was about to be given.

Hoping my employer can use the scheme.

[Stay in Bed Instead]

InitialDave said:

No, £400 earned, £33 from the government, £33 from you, £33 lost.

This appears correct.

[Tyre Smoke]

What if that employee only work 2 days?

I pay £200 for the days worked, then I have to pay a further £100 for the joy of keeping them employed, the Govt pays another £100 and the employee loses £100.

I'd rather save the £400 a month and lay them off or not participate. If I'm not generating the revenue to employ someone for three days, why would it benefit me to pay them for three days? I'd rather do the work myself and keep the money.

Or have I missed something glaringly obvious?

[thebraketester]

red_slr said:

Hmm, not sure thats going to go down well with employees..

They should count themselves lucky they still have a job. If the numbers above are correct then its not exactly a massive loss for them

[red_slr]

thebraketester said:

red_slr said:

Hmm, not sure thats going to go down well with employees..

They should count themselves lucky they still have a job. If the numbers above are correct then its not exactly a massive loss for them

Maybe, but my guys will treat losing £33 like me slapping them in the face with a wet fish. Honestly I think most of them will just get a job elsewhere if I do this will have to think very carefully.

[thebraketester]

red_slr said:

thebraketester said:

red_slr said:

Hmm, not sure thats going to go down well with employees..

They should count themselves lucky they still have a job. If the numbers above are correct then its not exactly a massive loss for them

Maybe, but my guys will treat losing £33 like me slapping them in the face with a wet fish. Honestly I think most of them will just get a job elsewhere if I do this will have to think very carefully.

But they are not working that 5th day and getting paid 2/3rds for it..... sounds brilliant to me.

Need any staff??

[Leithen]

Tyre Smoke said:

What if that employee only work 2 days?

I pay £200 for the days worked, then I have to pay a further £100 for the joy of keeping them employed, the Govt pays another £100 and the employee loses £100.

I'd rather save the £400 a month and lay them off or not participate. If I'm not generating the revenue to employ someone for three days, why would it benefit me to pay them for three days? I'd rather do the work myself and keep the money.

Or have I missed something glaringly obvious?

Nope, it's bonkers. At a time where we are trying to minimise costs and maximise productivity/efficiency we are effectively asking our staff to take a pay cut whilst increasing their hourly rate.

It needs to be offset against any redundancy cost and the loss of the Job Retention Bonus, but that's not going to last six months.

[classicaholic]

I thought the idea was to get people back to work that are furloughed - currently 80% pay for no hours to working 2 or 3 days a week.

The slight flaw is that if they are on furlough there isn't any work anyway so this sounds like a plan just to keep the press happy but will mean anyone on furlough with a company that has no work are stuffed.

I could have the wrong end of the stick, I reckon they must have a great pub in the houses of parliament where they dream all this up after a few pints!

[leef44]

red_slr said:

Maybe, but my guys will treat losing £33 like me slapping them in the face with a wet fish. Honestly I think most of them will just get a job elsewhere if I do this will have to think very carefully.

If they are able to get a job elsewhere then this scheme is not for them. The whole point of this is to try to support employees so that they don't have to lose their job and still get some support for reduced hours. And they are only on reduced hours because of lower demand of business from the lockdown.

If they are able to get a better job elsewhere then either they are in the wrong job in the first place or there is enough business that it is not affected by the lockdown.

[akirk]

Tyre Smoke said:

What if that employee only work 2 days?

I pay £200 for the days worked, then I have to pay a further £100 for the joy of keeping them employed, the Govt pays another £100 and the employee loses £100.

I'd rather save the £400 a month and lay them off or not participate. If I'm not generating the revenue to employ someone for three days, why would it benefit me to pay them for three days? I'd rather do the work myself and keep the money.

Or have I missed something glaringly obvious?

retention bonus in 2021?

[dazwalsh]

I think it's an alright scheme, designed to peel the plaster off furlough a wee bit slower than it simply coming to an end.

Get ready for mass unemployment in November, a few mil I reckon. We have to do it though and see where the dust settles and what hill we have to climb. Furlough was a necessity during lockdown, but now it is a very bad idea to be artificially propping up the economy by throwing blank cheques at it.

[The Ferret]

Leithen said:

Nope, it's bonkers. At a time where we are trying to minimise costs and maximise productivity/efficiency we are effectively asking our staff to take a pay cut whilst increasing their hourly rate.

Wait until a few other questions get asked.....there’s plenty.

No 1 - holidays - you can bet your arse employees will have their regular entitlement protected, despite being free to do as they please on days they don’t work.

Our situation, we have a guy who’s role simply isn’t sustainable as a full time job, and until today was probably staring at redundancy. So if we offer him 6 months on 33% of his normal time (which just about works for us) he’ll end up working about 1.6 days a week, for 77% pay. That’s not the greatest incentive for the business, but it then gets worse. His normal annual leave would be 28 days, so for this 6 month period he’ll earn 14. Add in a half a years bank holidays and call it 18.

18/1.6 = 11.25 weeks he can take off work over the next 26 weeks, so effectively only work just over half of it. Cost to us is therefore 55% of his normal wages in return for 16.5% of his normal time (or thereabouts).

No thanks, I’m all for saving jobs but this is a p...take.

Unless I’m grossly missing a point somewhere that anyone can highlight. If you can it would be hugely appreciated.

Edited by The Ferret on Thursday 24th September 19:38

[Tyre Smoke]

I cannot see any business (mine included) paying anyone for doing nothing. It's financial suicide. There is no way I can afford to anyone 33% of their non working time to stay at home. If I could, then that would be me, not my employees.

I cannot for the life of me see how this scheme will be taken up by any viable business.

[anonymous-user]

It looks bonkers to me.