A question about furloughing at any other time

[tectonicplates]

Like many people, I'd never heard the word furlough until a couple of months ago, and had no idea that employers could make staff temporarily redundant.

The government are paying for 80% of it at the moment, but they wouldn't usually. So my question is, in the future, now that a lot more people know it's an option, are we going to see an increase in employers doing this to save money for a few months, leaving their staff with no money? Or is that now how it works? Genuine question as I'd never ever heard of it until very recently.

It’s only available via special emergency legislation to tackle the current pandemic, or at least the government funding is.

Normally the British expression is “gardening leave”. “Furlough” is the American term.

Okay but isn't gardening leave usually on full pay? And I've only ever heard that phrase used for people going through disciplinary investigations.

The company I work for have always have unpaid lay off and short term working clauses built into our contracts - we’re only entitled to Guarantee Pay at £29 per day for 5 days

Technically, they could have put us all on Lay Off unpaid, the government funding means we get 80%

The company I work for have always have unpaid lay off and short term working clauses built into our contracts

I have never had this ever and never heard of it! I'm worried that now that HR people know it can be done, it'll be used a lot more in the future but without the staff getting paid. That's what I'm asking.

It's not garden or gardening leave - that's when someone is leaving, either of their own volition or when their face no longer fits, but they are being paid during their notice period without being required to work.

Being laid off would be the British term for not being needed - can be temporary or permanent - but unpaid.

Furloughing is entirely different in the UK - there's no work temporarily, but it's likely to pick up when normal business resumes. It's to help employers with work and cash flow issues.

Okay but isn't gardening leave usually on full pay? And I've only ever heard that phrase used for people going through disciplinary investigations

Yes, that’s the more usual context.

Sabbaticals are the closest thing to furlough that is normally available by agreement between employer and employee, I would think.

The current arrangements are specific to this pandemic crisis.

£29? What's the hourly rate and how is that justified, assuming the hours have been set out by letter or in a contract?

Lay Off - www.gov.uk/lay-offs-short-timeworking

I think it’s pretty normal practice. Our contracts and handbooks were written by an HR company and the lay off bit is specifically mentioned in both

Sabbaticals usually involve keeping the job open while allowing the employee to take unpaid leave for a specific purpose.

Lay offs are usually used in an industrial context, like factory work or similar.

I think we are all understanding your question differently OP.

Are you asking about “furlough” as a general concept/word? Or the 80% funded/£2500 pcm capped scheme running now?

The £29 is Guarantee Pay and is set by the government.

Lay Off and Short Time Working should be set out in your contract and staff handbooks

Lay Off does keep your job open and doesn’t mean you are made redundant. Like furlough, but unpaid

Lay offs are usually used in an industrial context, like factory work or similar

Any business who has included it in their contracts and handbooks can use it. The company I work for isn’t industrial or a factory, but we have it in our contracts and handbooks

I think companies may bring it in as a standard clause in the future to avoid making redundancies and having to pay redundancy payments and thereby keep technical and skilled staff tied to them which would otherwise be difficult to find/hire during busy times

Are you asking about “furlough” as a general concept/word? Or the 80% funded/£2500 pcm capped scheme running now?

Neither! Sorry I'm really not putting my point across very well. I will try and rephrase my question, give me a minute...

I said “usually” @Springersrock

Not many professionals are in contracts with lay off clauses. It is something that disproportionately applies to lower paid work. (Which seems archaic and unfair.)

I know there are always exceptions to everything.

I think furloughing has to be specific to the govt effectively paying the bulk of someone's wages. The point with furloughing is that you get paid, keep your job, aren't required to work, but cannot go and work elsewhere for a wage.

Neither! Sorry I'm really not putting my point across very well. I will try and rephrase my question, give me a minute...

Don’t worry, between us we are doing quite a comprehensive job of pointing out all the flaws in employment law, which is interesting!

If it happens more in future in won’t be because HR know it can be done, it will be because businesses are in a worse place financially and need to do it.

HR always knew it could be done. Like other professionals, they know their job. Same as redundancy, it won’t be because HR feels like making people redundant, it will be because the business can’t afford to pay them.

The HR company we use includes the Lay Off/Short Time Working clauses into every contract and handbook they write so I think they’re becoming more widespread

The HR company we use includes the Lay Off/Short Time Working clauses into every contract and handbook they write so I think they’re becoming more widespread

Is that because they’re a consultancy mainly catering to SMEs?

Or something else?

Right, I'll try again

The whole concept of making staff temporarily redundant is a new concept for many of us. Even if it's technically in people's contracts (I've never seen one in any of mine), it seems like the sort of thing that's used as a standard clause but which they don't really think about too much, because they don't expect to ever really use it. So even if HR people have heard of it, it's probably a theoretical, technical thing that didn't usually get put into practice very much, up until very recently.

But now that a lot of employers know it's actually a real option, and it's actually been done (although this time it's with the government paying 80% of people's wages), are employers going to become more blasé about it? Usually when a company needs to save money for a few months, they might say "We'll ask all our suppliers for a discount" or "We'll stop ordering in food for meetings" etc. You only consider making redundancies when things are really seriously bad. But now, are we going to get an increase in people saying "Well nobody really likes Jane anyway and she never does anything, so let's just lay her off unpaid for a few months without having to pay her redundancy pay"? Is it going to be seen as a much easier thing to do, now that it's been shown it can actually be done in real life and not just in theory?

@ivfgottostaypositive has mentioned above that it could help employers to hold on to skilled staff. But I'm more worried about the treatment of lower-paid, lower-skilled staff who are a lot more disposable, and are much more likely to be in financial trouble if they have to go without pay for a few months.

Is that because they’re a consultancy mainly catering to SMEs?

Nope, they’re a large consultancy and cater to all sorts of different companies.

The company I work for didn’t ask for the clauses, they were just included. None of us knew anything about lay off before. They said they were standard contract clauses

so let's just lay her off unpaid for a few months without having to pay her redundancy pay

After 4 weeks in a row, or 6 weeks in a 13 week period of lay off you can apply for redundancy and would be entitled to redundancy pay. You are still employed by the company, you still retain your employment rights so it’s not (or not meant to be) a back door to unfair redundancies

Okay, got you.

are employers going to become more blasé about it?

No idea.

I would really like to think that once this all over, we will (collectively) look back at the wreckage of job losses, collapsed businesses, redundancies, repossessions and rent arrears and learn lots of lessons about how important job security and a decent welfare state are.

Hopefully, zero hour contracts and various other employment practices (like Tesco’s habit of offering “mini jobs” of 8-14 hours a week to avoid employers’ NI contributions) will be actively discouraged or made illegal and we will swing back towards stronger employment rights.

I have similar hopes about the NHS being more appreciated, better funded and strengthened.

I don’t know whether I’m actually optimistic, though. It could go the other way. It’s an interesting question.

Thanks @Springersrock I’m surprised by that. Maybe it’s a growing trend, as you say.