Coronavirus- can nanny still work?

[ChloeR81]

Hi, hope I’m not duplicating a thread but I couldn’t find one.

I have a lovely nanny who comes 2 days a week. Where do we stand regarding isolation etc? Can she refuse to come to work when we’re all well? At what point would she be able to not come to work, e.g. what level of official lockdown etc.

Want to be totally fair to her and follow the rules, but equally if I don’t have childcare I can’t work and earn money to pay her. Thanks, it’s so difficult to navigate

@sociallydistained, personally I think the risk is minimal for most. Far higher risk going shopping actually.

Are you applying the same logic to anyone that is being ‘made’ to work? (In that their employer is ‘selfish’?)

The risks are actually quite low if everyone is taking appropriate precautions.
Unfortunately, our nanny expects to he furloughed indefinitely but my employer has only agreed to give me (unpaid) time out for another 2 weeks.
I will therefore need to lay my nanny off and find someone new - I have already found 2 good candidates.
I would have preferred to continue with our old nanny but after 4 weeks of paying her full wages while my pay is cut, I have decided I need to do the right thing for my family and get the help we need to keep our own jobs and income.
Unfortunately, like many other nannies out there, our nanny seems to thinK that being furloughed is costless to her employer. She is replaceable and unfortunately not everyone can be paid to do nothing indefinitely.

@Pidgythe2nd Yes and all of us will be going shopping ourselves for essentials so then the risk rises. Going into somebody else's household and mixing households is not acceptable. It's also not possible to have a 2m distancing rule as with the workplaces which are having to remain open.

@Pidgythe2nd I was prepared to go to work. I had raised my concerns about it and I felt it was not morally right to do so but I was fully prepared to go in because the guidelines are not clear. However, after voicing my concerns my employers agreed and decided to furlough me and stated it was their duty as an employer. I for one am extremely thankful for them and will return to my job knowing they genuinely care.

@Wobblywombat totally with you.

@sociallydistained rtft... 2m is ‘where possible’. And please stop insinuating that people who cannot furlough their nanny indefinitely, do not care. It’s beginning to grate. Did Martin Lewis tell you that?

Wobbly I would have to do what you have had to do. It’s just not fair on my children that they are not properly looked after whilst I try to work. If the risk was even low rather than remote (family and nanny all under 40 with no underlying conditions) then I would reach a different conclusion.

The bill is higher than HMRC thought it would be for furlough. It wouldn’t surprise me if they started checking people’s tax returns and when they see the the employers pay wasn’t cut (it was just the nanny not wanting to work) they will not pay it.

@bringinspring my thoughts exactly. No way HMRC/Gov give free money to people like us. For a start, they’re taxing it. For a second, they may decide were not eligible later on. Can’t see nanny paying it back in those circumstances, can you?

@Pidgythe2nd yes exactly - @sociallydistained are you saying that where nannies are working that their employers do not "genuinely care"?

Perhaps some of us have nannies that want to work, perhaps for their own mental health and for the benefit of their own children that they bring with them to work. That understand that in some cases the ongoing risk is minimal (not the case in all situations but it can be in many). That appreciate that furlough only applies in certain circumstances.

And that nanny employers are not bottomless pits of cash - it's a gamble furloughing not knowing what's reclaimable!!

My employers are topping up the 20% too. Are you pissed off at that also?

Sociallydistined, that’s great they are in a position to be able to and also to manage without a nanny. Sadly that is not the case for the everyone.

Sunshine-yes I agree, the guidelines make a distinction between sick pay and furlough. There is no way HMRC are just going to reimburse an individual who has been on full pay. So all individuals who have let their nanny stay at home expecting to be refunded whilst having their full salary paid to them should plan to not receive the funds.

It is totally different if the employer has been furloughed/their business has stopped. Then they can get reimbursement.
M

It’s a huge financial risk for nanny employers. Particularly as in most cases the work is still there. Just because parents are at home, they are usually working!
In normal circumstances when working from home we still need a nanny or some form of childcare - this is no different, despite the protests from various Nanny groups that they shouldn’t be working as parents are at home.

@Bringonspring I’m also genuinely worried about my children big this hoes on for much longer it’s not only not fair on them, but dangerous for my toddler. He’s already had a cut lip and numerous bumps and bruises as we cannot supervise him at the level he needs.

too much wine!! Ignore the typos!!

My employers have been advised by Nannypaye that they are fully eligible but I do understand there is a risk. Looks like payments are going to start rolling out soon so I'll let you know. I've been furloughed for 4 weeks I'm sure I'll be straight back in after that.

Wow how offensive @sociallydistained. Really you have no idea.

I think anyone making their nanny work through this is selfish and simply risking somebodies life (as well as your own families)

That does not include keyworkers by the way. Not rude at all. Just fact.

What about key workers nanny not wanting to come in?

@sociallydistained can you reference where you’re getting this info from about key workers? I’ve not seen any guidance from official sources (eg gov.co.uk.....Martin Lewis, videos of This Morning, the Nanny Association websites and chat groups don’t count I’m afraid).

I’m genuinely interested and happy to be corrected but I can’t see it makes any difference to actually needing a nanny whether someone is a key worker or not. The job is still there in many cases. You can’t just choose not to come in. In any case, key worker children can go to school can’t they?

Just reading some of the latest posts and wondering why there is a fear that HMRC will backtrack? Where has this been said?

@reddot it’s not so much “back track” as “check eligibility” as HMRC put it. If they later consider the employer/employee scenario does not come within the scheme they’ll ask the employer for the money back (with interest). A clear furlough scenario is (eg) both parents themselves furloughed so no need for childcare. However if both parents WFH (or keyworkers and working) they still need childcare. In the last scenario the nanny can work and is needed to work so it’s not a furlough scenario. It’s designed to preserve jobs under threat of redundancy. HMRC have already said its widely open to fraud/false claims and have been clear they’ll be scrutinising claims after the event.

Personal opinion is not “fact” I’m afraid

Do you really think HMRC is going to be chasing after working parents/individuals who are nanny employers, rather than businesses with many employees on furlough? And interrogating those same individuals about whether they had interpreted unclear guidance and mixed messages? Honestly, HMRC have better things to do and I think most parents who are furloughing their nanny are just trying to do the right thing to contain coronavirus and limit spread to their nanny, themselves and the general public, which is also what the government is trying to achieve. All the rest is just scare-mongering in my opinion.

I also think it’s complete nonsense that HMRC will charge non-businesses additional income tax on the amount of the furlough payment. They are charging businesses tax because those businesses are/will be deducting salary as an expense against their profits and thereby paying less tax on their profits. Therefore taxing the furlough payment is to make sure the business save on the tax without having had the expense.

Unfortunately nanny employers don’t get an income tax deduction for paying nanny salary (even though the expense is purely to enable us to work). Therefore there is no need to tax us on the furlough payment, which merely put us back in the position we would have been if we hadn’t paid the nanny (or 80% thereof).

I do think childcare expenses should be seen as a cost of employment and therefore parents should get full income tax deduction in relation to childcare expenses, but that is another matter!

Sadly the tax system always comes after those where it is easier to get. A simple calculation shows if my salary was cut during the period.

It’s backtrack, the scheme is designed for those that have to furlough not those that do not work for home, you of course have that right but the options are sick pay (if in a vulnerable category) or UC.

If your employers have been furloughed then you qualify.

The Government website says “ It is designed to help employers whose operations have been severely affected by coronavirus (COVID-19) to retain their employees and protect the UK economy. However, all employers are eligible to claim under the scheme and the government recognises different businesses will face different impacts from coronavirus.” I would think nanny employers at least fit into this latter category.

What have you seen that’s led you to conclude the Gov is backtracking?

@childcare if parents are still working (or keyworkers) then they still need childcare. Its not a redundancy scenario. Their “operations” are not affected or impacted