MPDTT

I'd also like to add on the retention scheme - that I genuinely don't believe that the majority of employers that are getting this wrong a deliberately trying to short change people (yes, some will), but overall its a fluid situation and employers are rolling with the punches - there are lots of areas in the scheme that are not yet clearly defined - indeed the portal to even register folks doesn't exist yet and it may well not until May. I don't think companies will start receiving money for furlough until mid May either. HMRC will be issuing more guidance on how employers should calculate their claims for employees before the scheme goes live and I've spoken to employment lawyers who openly tell me they are debating numerous points with colleagues - such as how pensions, holiday accrual and benefits should be treated. There is also risk to employers around selection criteria employed if some work remaining requires that no all workers in a team are furloughed - how do we fairly select which we furlough and which we don't? Could we open ourselves up to claims related to fairness or discrimination? We chose not to employ selection criteria, but to employ a 3 week on, 3 week off cycle and split teams into 2 groups where we could to mitigate this risk - although I believe this risk to merely be a 'technical' risk because I expect employment tribunals to look very favourably on employers making decisions in this current crisis.

I've been offering my services to answer questions on the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme in the jobs thread as I've had to become the resident expert on this in my role as an HR Director. Under the scheme, employers will receive a grant from HMRC to cover the lower of (i) 80% of an employee’s regular wage; or (ii) £2,500 per month, plus the associated employer National Insurance Contributions (NICs) and minimum automatic enrolment employer pension contributions on that subsidised wage. Fees, commission and bonuses will not be covered. The guidance makes it clear that employers will be able to top up employees’ wages to 100%, but are not obliged to do so. At my employer, we decided to do so, but are not letting furloughed employees accrue holidays. For full-time and part-time employees, their actual salary before tax, as at 28 February 2020, should be used for the purposes of the 80% calculation. For those employees whose pay varies, it is the higher of either the same month’s earnings from the previous year or their average monthly earnings from the 2019/20 tax year, assuming they have been working for at least 12 months. For those who have worked for less than 12 months, employers should take into account their average monthly earnings since they started work. I'm more than happy to answer any UKFF'ers questions on this topic - either in this thread, the Jobs thread or via DM. Stay safe.

Hmmm suspicious. Someone is misleading you or your daughter here....be careful. The HMRC have not have not even opened a portal for companies to apply for this yet. Proof here.... https://www.gov.uk/guidance/claim-for-wage-costs-through-the-coronavirus-job-retention-scheme Also the govt WILL NOT pay her for her missing wages, it's the company who applies for and receives the grant, hopefully by end of April payments to companies will start.....but employers must keep their employees on payroll and pay them through payroll. I'm in the midst of furloughing employees in my company. I have a letter template from my external legal council to use and have elected to top up the difference between the 80% and full pay to ensure no employee is out of pocket, but no company is obligated to do that. When the portal opens online, I will then register each employee with HMRC and the company receives a grant back from the state - like a rebate.

The Government isn't paying 80% of the wage. Their employer pays through payroll and it is the company that applies for a grant and receives a money. I know there is an issue for some with the 28th Feb cut off date for employment (introduced to prevent fraud), meaning a small number of folks who changed job in early March are without support, but broadly these scheme can help almost all employees retain their job at this time

The 'fucking with the average Joe' comes later, once this crisis passes and then everybody has to pay for it through more austerity and higher taxes.

I'm sorry, but Bright House provided a service that allowed a proportion of society the ability to buy household goods that they otherwise wouldn't have access to. The high end TV example by @simonworden is a good one. I'm not going to pass judgement on whether the customer should be allowed to buy something on credit that they don't need when a second hand item would suffice- they just gave their customers a choice. And their interest rates reflected the fact that there was significant risk in these loans as customers could stop payment and return second hand goods at any point in the process prior to paying off the loan. I'm not going to argue that payday lenders weren't bad - there were loads of reasons why they rightly no longer exist. But I genuinely believe Bright House provided a decent service to the underbanked who can't find access to credit elsewhere or people who wanted the security of a get out clause if they could no longer make payment. This is a company that has been struggling far before the FCA regulation on the sector - it's not like BH were ever making obscene profits like the payday lenders were. Anyone remember Radio Rentals too? Provident? Hire Purchase (HP) has always been about. Bright House are no different......whats worrying is people will try for high interest credit cards now. There's a need for access to items like this.

Decent company, I turned down a job with them in 2016 in favour of a counter offer from the payday lender I worked for at the time.....240 stores, 2400 lost jobs and the one thing you can be sure of is they will sell on the debt - so nobody will get their goods for free. Although I was always uncomfortable in payday lending, the 'rent to own' space wasn't as murky - folks could get household items with no down payment and pay for them in weekly installments - providing access to items for millions of households that would otherwise not be able to afford them. If they wanted out of the debt, they return the items (so no debt collectors, ever). Of course, they were paying a premium - but that's because they want brand new items, such consumers are high risk & offer no collateral. Bright House's demise will leave a gaping hole for their customer base

There will not be much checking - resources spread too thin. Furloughing expressly states that they are being 'stood down' and there is no work to do. The rules do allow employers to cycle employees on furlough every 3 weeks - i.e furlough a group of people for 3 weeks, then bring them back and furlough another 3 for next 3 weeks and so forth -precisely to cover work that still needs doing. So she should not work at all when furloughed. However, if he company is topping up the furlough to ensure everyone is fully paid (i.e. difference between 80% / £2500 per month and full pay) then I can understand why some employers might think its a reasonable ask to to ask an employee to still complete some tasks - but strictly speaking, no they shouldn't.

I hope everyone's been ok on the jobs front with the amount of redundancies and furloughing going on. As a reminder, I work in HR and am happy to help with any questions that come up, particularly relating to the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme.

This should be essential viewing for UKFFrs who have never got into NJPW. I think I'll go back and rewatch Will Ospreay vs Hiromu Takahashi today.

Found it... https://www.fite.tv/join/ Note AEW Plus says 7 day trial....

Fite are offering a free trial of AEW Plus....just announced - that should give some people some fun content to watch over the weekend and take minds off the horrible, horrible news.

that sounds horrific!

Mandatory home working kicked in for my employer today & offices shut. How's everyone else fairing?