China Coronavirus

Started by lurganblue, January 23, 2020, 09:52:32 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

HiMucker

Quote from: imtommygunn on May 08, 2020, 11:41:02 AM
Another wee tip. Maybe some people don't want to go back as they don't feel it's safe yet. If they're not deemed key workers then they are well within their rights. If an employer isn't taking them back into employment because they've not returned early from their furlough then there's a chance they are a shitty employer. There's a bit more to this than purely money.
Tommy I don't doubt that's the case in some instances. I have heard some horror stories about some.companies not treating it seriously enough. Likewise I have seen some companies unfairly criticised. The company my wife works for is a big employer in the town, a mortgage provider, 200/300 jobs. They were extremely proactive implementing various procedures to limit interaction way before the government done anything. Didn't stop a lot of the staff calling the company out saying they were a disgrace for not furloughing staff because they weren't a key business. They are classed as such. They had nearly everyone working from home within a week. Like I said before I think government was responsible for a lot of the confusion at the start and pitted employers against employees. That was a mistake. On your other point, is that correct, do you have the right to remain furloughed if you are too scared to come back to work? That's not my understanding of it? Obviously there will be some people living with vunerable people that I can understand the concern, and a bit of discretion by employers is required. But what about some young fella genuinely concerned for their own safety, not wanting to get the virus? I understand that concern also, but does that limited risk outweigh the need to get back to work, for themselves and the company and economy? Ultimately it will be up to the individual, but I think there has to be certain level of risk accepted by the less susceptible members of the population, ie the younger and healthier, with caveat that they are not living with someone who would be considered in the vunerable category, ie older, underlying health conditions etc. I'd be interested to hear the cut off people would think that should be? 

David McKeown

Quote from: SHEEDY on May 08, 2020, 11:42:31 AM
Quote from: David McKeown on May 08, 2020, 11:26:37 AM
What's the alternative?  The 80% isn't only for protecting people here and now. It's for protecting people and the economy in the long term. The economy can't yet get back to normal. The furlough scheme isn't perfect but it's necessary. Set it too low and employees will try to return to work too early undermining what's been done. In addition if it's not there for employers to effectively use then the number of job losses would be far more catastrophic to the economy than the temporary suspension we have at the minute.  The issue I have on it is no upper limit on it when there is an outdated limit on the self employed.

None of that takes away from the fact that key workers are being shafted but the answer is to treat them better not to treat the furloughed worker worse. It all though does make a nonsense of the lie that we are all in it together.
if a company has a certain percentage of employees on furlough and others back in work, how does it work then in the event of pay offs? Are all employees treated the same and a redundancy procedure takes place or are furloughed workers in a position were company could say we don't need you back?

Technically you make the position redundant and not the person so the procedure would have to be followed and it shouldn't make a difference if you were furloughed or not. That's the theory anyway but there are humans involved so whether that theory holds in practice might be a different t thing. 
2022 Allianz League Prediction Competition Winner

Maroon Manc

Quote from: David McKeown on May 08, 2020, 11:26:37 AM
What's the alternative?  The 80% isn't only for protecting people here and now. It's for protecting people and the economy in the long term. The economy can't yet get back to normal. The furlough scheme isn't perfect but it's necessary. Set it too low and employees will try to return to work too early undermining what's been done. In addition if it's not there for employers to effectively use then the number of job losses would be far more catastrophic to the economy than the temporary suspension we have at the minute.  The issue I have on it is no upper limit on it when there is an outdated limit on the self employed.

None of that takes away from the fact that key workers are being shafted but the answer is to treat them better not to treat the furloughed worker worse. It all though does make a nonsense of the lie that we are all in it together.

Millions of self employed have been absolutely shafted too, anyone I know who is self employed does so through a LTD company. My wife a tax player in the UK for the last 14 years decided to go out on her own last October and is entitled to absolutely nothing, she's not able to go and get another job as the kids need to be looked after.

RedKinght

If a company returns to work and has all the relevant social distancing and safety precautions in place an employee is compelled to return to work unless they have been issued with a shielding letter from their GP which says they must stay off work for 12 weeks. If an employee has work and refuses to go then they will be removed from the furlough scheme and the company may proceed down the route of disciplinary action for refusing to work.

The furlough scheme means the employer pays the 80% and this is claimed back through the government. If the company is open as usual then they are not entitled to claim furlough for anyone who does not have a shielded letter, if they are open but limited staffing then the company has options. If an employee is working even on a part time basis then they are not eligible for the furlough scheme.

HiMucker

#4774
Quote from: RedKinght on May 08, 2020, 12:23:32 PM
If a company returns to work and has all the relevant social distancing and safety precautions in place an employee is compelled to return to work unless they have been issued with a shielding letter from their GP which says they must stay off work for 12 weeks. If an employee has work and refuses to go then they will be removed from the furlough scheme and the company may proceed down the route of disciplinary action for refusing to work.

The furlough scheme means the employer pays the 80% and this is claimed back through the government. If the company is open as usual then they are not entitled to claim furlough for anyone who does not have a shielded letter, if they are open but limited staffing then the company has options. If an employee is working even on a part time basis then they are not eligible for the furlough scheme.
Thanks RK, that's what I thought. Seems a lot of confusion round this in the general public even judging by the different posts on here.

RedKinght

I forgot to mention, if an employee has not got a shielding letter and refuses to go to work the company can take that as a resignation thereby nullifying any chance of redundancy payment if the company does need to lay-off employees due to a reduction in work. (Statutory redundancy is 1 weeks pay for each year of service and you are only eligible if you have been working for a company more than 1 year)

A company can not compel you to come back to work on reduced hours if furloughed as this would be a reduction in wages.

imtommygunn

Interesting rk. Thanks.

Milltown Row2

I or my work colleagues globally wouldn't be able to work, mainly due to the nature of the work. Generously Furloughed but still a lot of guys potentially losing out, though all chomping at the bit to get back to work, I don't know of one employee not looking back.

As we've been looked after very well, it will be shoulder to the wheel to get us back on track. Anyone not looking back if measures are in place aren't worth taking back, though where a person requires a crèche or childminder then they are also ok for the 80% if they can't get one.

None of us are getting out of here alive, so please stop treating yourself like an after thought. Ea

GiveItToTheShooters

Trailer talking nonsense again. Says the virus isn't going away but we should somehow be all going back to work.
As ITG rightly says, workers are not obliged to go back to work, and should work from home if they're not an essential worker as per the government instructions. Cashflow problems of the business are not the fault of the employee, and if they get sacked from work because their selfish boss wants to disobey government instructions and bring them back to work, the employees would be well within their rights to take them to court.

HiMucker

Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on May 08, 2020, 03:25:34 PM
Trailer talking nonsense again. Says the virus isn't going away but we should somehow be all going back to work.
As ITG rightly says, workers are not obliged to go back to work, and should work from home if they're not an essential worker as per the government instructions. Cashflow problems of the business are not the fault of the employee, and if they get sacked from work because their selfish boss wants to disobey government instructions and bring them back to work, the employees would be well within their rights to take them to court.
If you can work from home that's fine. A lot of other businesses like manufacturing etc, that's not the case and as RK has pointed out there is no legal right for continuation of furlough if your work as made appropriate work place provisions and  you are required back in. That's not bosses being selfish now. A lot of people think employers are trying to prevent furlough, in reality most are trying to prevent redundancies.

RedKinght

Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on May 08, 2020, 03:25:34 PM
Trailer talking nonsense again. Says the virus isn't going away but we should somehow be all going back to work.
As ITG rightly says, workers are not obliged to go back to work, and should work from home if they're not an essential worker as per the government instructions. Cashflow problems of the business are not the fault of the employee, and if they get sacked from work because their selfish boss wants to disobey government instructions and bring them back to work, the employees would be well within their rights to take them to court.

This is unfortunately not accurate. With the extensive list of what is an essential worker, many businesses can make a case for qualifying if they want/need to get back to work. If it is possible to work from home the government says that you should however if this is not possible and on site location is safe an employee can not simply refuse to go to work because they don't want to. If there is work (or suitable alternative on another reasonable location for example a cleaner in a school being asked to clean a bank or supermarket instead) the employee can only stay away from work with a shielding letter without breach of contract.

David McKeown

Quote from: RedKinght on May 08, 2020, 01:57:27 PM
I forgot to mention, if an employee has not got a shielding letter and refuses to go to work the company can take that as a resignation thereby nullifying any chance of redundancy payment if the company does need to lay-off employees due to a reduction in work. (Statutory redundancy is 1 weeks pay for each year of service and you are only eligible if you have been working for a company more than 1 year)

A company can not compel you to come back to work on reduced hours if furloughed as this would be a reduction in wages.
[/b]

Subject to caveats about short time and lay off and industry standards etc.

Yes a large amount of the self employed are pretty badly screwed over. The calculations are done based on figures that are at most recent 13 months old. They don't take account of what's happened over the last thirteen months. They don't take account of seasonal issues, they don't take account of fixed costs. They don't take account of the actual impact on the business. The support is slow to be delivered and is artificially capped when no equivalent cap applies to the employed. Most of this I don't have a personal problem with but when it's coupled with the inevitable increase in taxes that will doubtlessly follow this virus I'd be pretty confident the same distinctions won't be drawn. When that is coupled with the notion that "we are all in this together" it really sickens me.
2022 Allianz League Prediction Competition Winner

Smokin Joe

I've said this a number of times before on this thread, but it's worth repeating again.

It is wrong that only "essential" workplaces should be operational.  Manufacturing has been told that they should get back to work by the UK government, and there is guidance published which clearly states this.  This letter is as far back as the 8th April: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/878651/Letter_from_Secretary_of_State_Alok_Sharma_MP_to_those_working_in_Manufacturing.pdf

And here in NI, we have the priority sectors list: https://www.nibusinessinfo.co.uk/sites/default/files/Priority-Sectors-List_0.pdf, This list has been produced  "to support companies to continue their business operations".

Businesses have to get back to work, otherwise there is a real risk that there won't be viable jobs in these firms once this pandemic has passed us.  That's going to undoubtedly be uncomfortable for some employees who would rather stay at home for 80% of their salary, but businesses need to get revenue back through their virtual tills, and I'm afraid that it won't be employees who decide when that needs to happen.



APM

Quote from: Smokin Joe on May 08, 2020, 04:48:51 PM
I've said this a number of times before on this thread, but it's worth repeating again.

It is wrong that only "essential" workplaces should be operational.  Manufacturing has been told that they should get back to work by the UK government, and there is guidance published which clearly states this.  This letter is as far back as the 8th April: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/878651/Letter_from_Secretary_of_State_Alok_Sharma_MP_to_those_working_in_Manufacturing.pdf

And here in NI, we have the priority sectors list: https://www.nibusinessinfo.co.uk/sites/default/files/Priority-Sectors-List_0.pdf, This list has been produced  "to support companies to continue their business operations".

Businesses have to get back to work, otherwise there is a real risk that there won't be viable jobs in these firms once this pandemic has passed us.  That's going to undoubtedly be uncomfortable for some employees who would rather stay at home for 80% of their salary, but businesses need to get revenue back through their virtual tills, and I'm afraid that it won't be employees who decide when that needs to happen.




Spot on!
There is going to be a lot of emotion around this also when businesses start up again. Many people are going to have genuine concerns.  Can imagine that the staff on some of those planes aren't too enamored with the approach to distancing. I can also see a lot of grief for responsible employers from staff who don't want to be there, spurred on by unions.

GiveItToTheShooters

Quote from: RedKinght on May 08, 2020, 04:30:06 PM
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on May 08, 2020, 03:25:34 PM
Trailer talking nonsense again. Says the virus isn't going away but we should somehow be all going back to work.
As ITG rightly says, workers are not obliged to go back to work, and should work from home if they're not an essential worker as per the government instructions. Cashflow problems of the business are not the fault of the employee, and if they get sacked from work because their selfish boss wants to disobey government instructions and bring them back to work, the employees would be well within their rights to take them to court.

This is unfortunately not accurate. With the extensive list of what is an essential worker, many businesses can make a case for qualifying if they want/need to get back to work. If it is possible to work from home the government says that you should however if this is not possible and on site location is safe an employee can not simply refuse to go to work because they don't want to. If there is work (or suitable alternative on another reasonable location for example a cleaner in a school being asked to clean a bank or supermarket instead) the employee can only stay away from work with a shielding letter without breach of contract.
Not quite. I didn't say refuse to work because they don't want to. Business turning round now and saying their employees are essential workers all of a sudden isn't going to cut it. Employees who have concerns over the safety of their workplace are well within their rights not to attend.