Returning to work 80% hours for 80% wage

[MahMahMahMahCorona]

Management have just announced they are writing to tell us that of the 16 employees, four of us are to return in a couple of weeks four days a week @80% pay.

Is this really what we are going to have to encounter across the country? Docked working hours and wages for the foreseeable? Some of us will be scuppered with childcare issues so will continue to be furloughed, others are vulnerable themselves, or shielding individuals at home.

I'm not sure many will be able to afford to live on 80% hours / 80% wage for very long.

Can anyone help?

[RaggieDolls]

My DH had to take a 10% pay cut in 2009 for two years. It was that or the company folded.

The execs set out a 'return to profit' plan and they stuck to it and they were able to end the pay cut in yr3 and a bonus in yr4. Sometimes we have to weather the storm if we want to keep our jobs.

DH and I have both been working throughout I can see a pay cut coming at his work again.

I'm not unsympathetic OP. It really sucks.

[eurochick]

Lots of law firms (my area so I've read the legal press) are moving to 80/80 where the workload is reducing. It's better than making 20% of the people redundant.

[Growingboys]

I've been on 80pc pay since the start. It's no fun but it's not easy for anyone.

[Boltouttheblue]

DH has had a 20% paycut and I've had a 15% paycut with no reduction in hours for either of us. DH has now been told he's going to be made redundant and as he'll have been there 1 year 11 months when he leaves he gets no redundancy pay. We can't cover all our outgoings on 85% of my salary so I'm desperately hoping it goes back up to 100% soon which still won't be enough but will make it a bit more manageable. We have savings we can use for now but they won't last forever and I can't see DH getting another job before next year

[Pixxie7]

If they are still claiming for you surely this would be illegal.

[DreamChaser23]

Does anyone else think that many people might not see their full salaries for over a year at least?

It seems like 70-80 percent is becoming the new norm. Yes it is better than being laid off but still all adds up.

And come August when the employer will probably share the cost of wages I really feel redundancies will go up. Because some companies have little/no cash flow so paying each individual staff say 40 percent of their earnings could be difficult.

There is also another thing that will problem become common. Part time work. Many who are lucky to be kept on might be forced on part time hours under 24 hours. And that would also be a huge drop in earnings which will make it more difficult IN the job market as more people will need a second job to survive increasing competition.

[MadisonAvenue]

My husband was cut to 80%/80% as soon as they began WFH just before lockdown started. He and a colleague are now the only two employees still working, along with a director, while the other 28 in the office have been furloughed. He’s actually been working full time hours though, and the director wants them all to return to the office before the end of the month but expects the current hours and pay to continue until the end of the year.

[bmachine]

Im working full time hours on 80% wage so it could be worse!

[Changeyname40]

I am a fan of 90% paycut for all. As my commute is 10% of my salary. I am still working but more than happy to give it up if it helps bring people back sooner and stop breaking my back working

[Dollywilde]

We’ve been put on either 90% or 80% (depending on salary level) for full time hours, which is pretty rubbish. I’d take 90/90 or 80/80, it’s not great but it’s better than redundancies. My place has been open about the fact that my industry is very reliant on cash flow so this is a precautionary measure to stop us going cash-bust one month in the event a few big bills are unpaid, and they plan to repay us if the reserves aren’t needed. I know it sounds naive but FWIW I trust them to do it if they can and that it won’t be permanent (they did something similar during the last crash, although I wasn’t working there then). I am pissed off about having to do full hours for it but... what can you do.

[BuffaloCauliflower]

Yep DH has been on this for a while now. I’m also furloughed so we’re effectively 40% down (though with tax etc it doesn’t look like that in the bank) we’re lucky it doesn’t hurt us to lose the money as it would many families, but we’re due DC 1 this year and really wanted to be saving as much as possible. Hopefully it won’t last too long

[AndwhenyougetthereFoffsomemore]

DH's work are all working pretty much 100% of hours for 80% pay - although they are all allowed to go home if everything that needs doing is done/stay home if they don't have anything on that day (nearly all fairly discrete roles). It's a small company and we trust the owner not to take the piss though: she'll pay them if she can, but there's no point paying them now and the company going bust in 3 months time.

[MinesaPinot]

That's happening with us. Not ideal but better than redundancies we figured.

[Tc83]

I do think this is exactly what people
Will face but many without the 80% hours. Lots of companies will be pay reductions for same hours

[OwlsFlyByNight]

I am expecting to be asked to reduce my hours when I go back as well, can anyone tell me if I can refuse and claim redundancy? I can’t pay my mortgage on half my pay, and to be honest I’d rather take the redundancy payout and retrain.

[Keepdistance]

Just be aware that redundancy pay is based on your weekly pay

[topcat2014]

I am on 80%pay for 100% hours, but I still get where you are coming from

[Concerned7777]

You could still be under the furlough scheme, the idea was to get people back part time rather than not at all and the government top up the rest at least that was my interpretation anyway

[Crazycrazylady]

I'm on a 10% reduction with full hours 🙄 . Dh is on 80/80 for the summer .: I'd way rather his to be honest but then we re not totally hand to mouth which makes it a bit easier

[chubley]

I wouldn't accept working full hours for 20% less pay, but I would, if it came to it, accept working 80% hours for 80% pay. On a widespread scale it could spread the work around, rather than leaving many people up the creek.

I've just seen this www.msn.com/en-gb/money/news/office-life-is-not-over-–-but-the-way-we-work-must-surely-change/ar-BB145lLF?ocid=spartanntp (couldn't find it in the guardian):

This week it emerged that from August, employers must start picking up some of the bill for furloughing their own people, currently met by the Treasury. The risk is that redundancies will follow, but the best hope of avoiding them is for the Treasury to allow part-time furloughing. People could be paid conventionally to work, say, three or four days a week, with the furlough scheme topping up their salaries.
An enlightened government could effectively turn furloughing into a mechanism for spreading work around in lean times, while buying time to re-imagine working hours for the longer term.
Around the world, people are already grappling with the question of how to shorten the working week. The organisation 4 Day Week Global has been experimenting for years in New Zealand with reorganising companies so that five days’ work can be done in four, giving employees a longer weekend for the same pay. (The reward for their bosses is better productivity, happier people, and lower staff turnover.) Now it’s looking at adapting that model through the current crisis.

[absolutelyknackeredcow]

Taken a 20% cut at the start of the pandemic - no reduction in hours- COVID has made me very busy so they have gone up.
Husband took a 10% pay cut in Feb - global company impacted earlier - he does get a morning off a week.
So 30% down overall

[BunsyGirl]

In the 2008 credit crunch this happened to a lot of people (including myself). Much better than redundancy.

[MahMahMahMahCorona]

Thanks again for all the reassurances - it's really helpful.

[LonnyVonnyWilsonFrickett]

Losing 20% of your income is never fun, but I've heard of businesses suggesting a pay cut without reducing hours correspondingly, so it could be worse. Depending on where you are on the various tax thresholds, you may end up a wee bit better off than you think you will. And remember you won't have commuting costs etc - in fact, that's something to negotiate on when people start to go back to the office. DH's circumstances are different now, but in his previous role his season ticket cost a fortune. Having one for four days wouldn't have made sense, but only going into the office once or twice a week would have been a real financial advantage.

[BikeRunSki]

Short hours is a very normal way of a business dealing with reduced income. DH and I have both had this in the past during recessions, and once when a major client (think Carillion type) went bust and didn’t pay their invoices. It means that staff keep their jobs, and will be available to the company when work picks up. As pp have said, the alternative is redundancy.