Advice re 80% Government job retention scheme

[Confuddledtown]

So my husband's work have just advised him that as of tomorrow there won't be enough work for him and they'll have to let him go. They won't be closing completely as other aspects of the business are still working. They have told him that when business picks up again in a few months that they will take him back on again.

They have told him they are not entering into the government's 80% pay for job retention scheme - even though they will give him his job back again in a few months.

Over the last week, they have been dropping in wee comments to him such as "we understand if you want to stop coming to work to be at home with your family - we wont be able to pay you though" and "oh that 80% pay isn't worth the paper its written on" as if to get him to quit before they actually lay him off, wether thats to ease their conscience a bit I don't know, but we can't afford for him to not go to work and not get paid - sick pay won't cover a weeks groceries for us, never mind mortgage and bills. We currently don't claim universal credit, so to start a new claim will take at least 5 weeks (more probably given what is going on)

When he was told today that they were temporarily letting him go, he asked if they would be signing him up to this scheme - they told him no, they've been speaking to "somebody high up" and because the company was still running, they didn't qualify. This is rubbish, there are many businesses around here that have had to furlough different percentages of their workforce, and those furloughed are receiving the 80% while other workers are still running the business.

When challenged on this , the boss came back and said that his wife (the woman who does the books) has advised that they don't qualify for this payment unless they go into administration?? Absolute nonsense, as the whole point is retaining jobs, which is impossible if the company has gone bust. McDs, Nandos etc most definitely have not gone into administration and their staff are getting paid this 80%.

Is there something I am missing here? I know signing up to the scheme is at the employers discretion, but I honestly can see no reason why they wouldn't? Particularly as they are looking him back in a couple of months time? How can they morally expect him to do this, with no pay, knowing that we live paycheque to paycheque, and they have the option to pay him 80% wages at no cost to themselves in the meantime?

Everything that I can find says that all businesses are eligible, and the government will cover the 80% and the employer is under no obligation to top up the other 20% - fair enough, we can survive on 80% - no cost to the company.

To add, it is a small family run business, the majority of staff are family. My husband is the only one being let go. They keep just repeating "we are under no obligation to sign up for HRMC job retention scheme." Now they're giving no reason as to why, after my husband called them out on their bullshit reasons before.

Can anyone advise where we stand on this? I don't think we have any legal recourse at all, but it would be helpful to at least know the reasons behind it?

They are wrong in their assertion that a company has to go into administration to qualify - just the opposite, the scheme aims to keep workers in employment and companies afloat. They are under no obligation to sign up for it however.

How long has your husband worked there? What is his contract of employment like? What redundancy payment will he be eligible for?

He started in september past, working for them on a Saturday in addition to his other Mon-Fri job. He only began working for them full time (after leaving his other job) mid February. He's been told he isn't entitled to any redundancy pay but is owed a few days of holiday pay.

What would the reasons be for not wanting to sign up for it? Particularly as they are looking him back again when things pick back up again - it seems to be the exact set of circumstances the scheme was designed for.

I’d be curious to know if this scheme can be abused by employers - can they claim the 80% and not pass it in for example? It makes no sense why they want to keep him but not furlough him, given it’s no skin of their nose to do so?

Sorry you are going through this

The reason some employers won't do it is because the grant is not available yet, meaning they will have to pay employees out of their own pocket and then claim it back from the government at a later date.

My workplace has shut and my employer will have to pay 150 staff out of his own pocket until the grant comes through. He has said he will do it, how I don't know, possibly with a loan.

I have read on another thread that the bridging loan schemes offered to businesses via banks to pay wages until HMRC reimburse them aren't live yet. Another poster has read somewhere that these loans may need to be secured by the business owner so if companies physically can't pay wages then there may be reluctance to sign up to the scheme.

I work in HR and the whole HR community is aghast that there is so very little information on the 80% pay furlough scheme. My colleague just went on an ACAS webinar and all ACAS said was that HR needed to refer to HMRC for more info as they didn't know.

It's beginning to look like pie in the sky or at the very least companies will have to guess now whether to furlough and pay wages in the hopes that they will get the money back later down the line. Or worst case, place staff on unpaid leave to back pay them later.

I know it's no one's fault this has happened so suddenly but HMRC seem overwhelmed in terms of bottoming out any details of how this would work and who'd be eligible

I could be completely wrong but I was also under the impression it was when the company can't afford the ongoing wage bill. So eg McDonalds can use it for their staff, but Dps employer wouldn't be able to use it to avoid paying the tiny handful of staff that can't work from home, eg office cleaners and receptionists when they have the income and reserves to pay it themselves.

My company is doing it but we’re not getting the full 80% which seems contrary to everything I’ve read. But they’re taking out costs to do with pensions etc before we get the rest.

I don’t know if it’s dodgy as there’s no one to ask. And the information out there is a bit too vague.

I can't see how HMRC are going to pay 3 months wages for companies that have plenty of cash in the bank. I think IF it's a stipulation that businesses that can afford their wage bill can't access the grants, that's when businesses have to make the decision whether to pay or whether they will need the money to keep the business running after all this at the expense of their employees. The lack of information is why a lot of businesses are reluctant to say they will be covering 80% of wages until the details are confirmed.

That's wrong he should be getting it , i believe they won't get the money till April but that's completely wrong what they are doing . The whole point is so companies don't get rid of staff .
I'm not sure what you can do about it though but all I'll say is people will remember the companies that have be have behaved well and those that have behaved badly during this .

I don't think they can only allow companies who can't afford their wage bill to do it (a sort of corporate means testing). It's any role that would otherwise have been made redundant. Doesn't even have to be all roles or none in a company. I work for a complex multi site organisation some roles are essential key roles, some will be lost as we lose income, so it's going to be complex to say the least to agree who will be furloughed.

We’ve just been furloughed. It’s a tiny company and all of our clients have put projects on hold so there’s going to be no money coming in and there’s no cash reserves for the company to draw from. Once this is all over our clients will unfreeze the projects (all very large multinational companies - very unlikely to go under) so there will then be the work for us to do.

Hi all. Thank you to everyone who replied, you've given me a lot to think about and angles I hadn't considered.

My husband has since spoken to his boss again, who has said because he has only been working full time for them for a short while he isnt entitled to redundancy pay. The only benefit of furloughing staff for them is to avoid paying redundancy pay, but since my husband doesnt qualify for this, it's not worth the time and effort for them (seemingly theres a lot of paper work involved).

Nice to know how valued he is. What an appalling way to treat someone who works for you. Theyve admitted they could apply for the scheme but cant be bothered as theres no benefit for them.

Husband currently looking for new jobs. All jobs going at the minute are less money and higher risk (which considering I'm pregnant, diabetic and asthmatic and we have an asthmatic 5 year old is something we wanted to avoid) but we should be able to get by. Needless to say, he is saying he will not be returning to work for them after how hes been treated unless he absolutely has to, but it has definitely lessened his opinion of them.