Martin Lewis and Furloughing

[TheTruthAboutLove]

I’m starting to get irrationally angry at this man!

Apparently the government have already told him to stop telling people things that aren’t true, but still it continues.

Basically, he’s telling people that have left their role for a new one after Feb 29th to go back to their old employer and ask to be reemployed and then furloughed. There are so many things wrong with this statement.

-Furloughing is for ‘employees who otherwise would have been made redundant due to the effects of coronavirus’. That’s not people who have voluntarily left their job.

• Re-employing them requires their previous employer to put them back on payroll, and then have the cash flow to pay them and claim it back from the government.

-The employer may have already replaced this person and therefore they’d be paying two people before help kicked in. -When asked for official documents to back his claims up, he goes silent and never provides them.

Lewis is basically going round telling people who are isolating/shielding/don’t want to work due to coronavirus to go into work and ask to be furloughed. And if there’s work there for them this shouldn’t be happening.

I’ve no idea how he’s getting away with spreading such rumours, but none of it is true! I work as a Recruitment Manager within a People Team function and I myself have been furloughed - and it’s not the fun and games everyone seems to think it is. It’s bloody horrible.

Please take separate advice before going off anything Martin Lewis says!

It's really frustrating because he's very good at personal finance and people put a lot of faith in what he says. In the past, he's been clear on areas he's not an 'expert' in, such as investments and business finance. Why he's decided to promote this so heavily I don't know.

I saw a tweet he did where the treasury apparently confirmed some details - but, as you said, nothing to back it up.

Our hr team have said that we could re hire people who were made redundant after February though if the reason was due to covid 19 (not performance or a redundancy that was going to happen anyway) I agree the whole thing is a payroll nightmare but even if it helps a handful of good employees retain their jobs by making them aware hes helping right?

TiptopJ - that’s exactly what furloughing can be used for. These guys were made redundant because there wasn’t an alternative with furloughing at the point they were released, and it was due to coronavirus.

What Lewis is basically saying is that anyone can be reemployed, so if you left the company because you had another job, or because you didn’t like it there or because you’re shielding or in isolation - you can ask to be furloughed regardless of if there’s work there for you or not. That is actually incorrect information he’s giving.

Your HR are perfectly right and valid to use the reasons you’ve detailed, the ones he’s spouting are going to put unnecessary pressure on companies to rehire people who’ve left not because of the virus but for another reason.

Where is your evidence the government have told him he is wrong? He claims to have contact with those making the decisions and says this is ok with them.

Yes he is incredibly annoying and creating work for HR departments and disappointing people who think they have the automatic right to a job back that they left of their own accord.

Your ex employer is under no obligation to re employ you to furlough you, especially if they are still operating.

Employees have nothing to lose by asking, do they?

I would have thought it was obvious from the context what the furlough arrangements were for. Loads of people were made redundant before the scheme came in. It would be good for both businesses and employees if they could be rehired and furloughed.

Why would someone lose their job because they were self isolating or shielding?

I agree with you op. He made the claim but still waiting for someone from treasury to put it in writing. Like we can trust that. Meanwhile disgruntled ex-employees (some of whom burnt their bridges or left in a huff) got their hopes up/say they are entitled and are hassling their ex-employers.

@CovidConcerned

I was informed in a work briefing about the government and Martin Lewis, so it may not be true. I guess I took the directors of the company I work for at face value!

If he does have contact with those making the decisions, why isn’t there any official guidance on his claim? Every time he is asked for an official document to hand to a previous employer there is nothing forthcoming. Mainly because it doesn’t exist.

The Coronavirus job retention scheme was created to stop people becoming unemployed through redundancy because of Coronavirus.
It’s evident that leaving a job for a new one and then asking to go back and be furloughed is not within that category at all. What happens when furlough is over? Does the employee then leave as planned?!

What he is saying makes no sense at all. And unless he can back up these claims he needs to stop publicly stating them.

Why would someone lose their job because they were self isolating or shielding? confused

Absolutely nobody should lose their job by self isolating or shielding. But the best example I have is in a warehouse.
Person A decides he doesn’t want to come in as he’s nervous about coronavirus and chooses to self isolate. No symptoms himself but worries about catching it. This person working for most companies would be put on unpaid leave (or SSP if they have symptoms). There’s enough work there in the warehouse to keep them going, but this person has chosen to stay off for their own health, which is entirely within their right.

What Martin Lewis is telling people in this position is to go to their employer and ask to be furloughed. Despite their job not being made redundant, which is a prerequisite to furloughing - getting people’s hopes up that despite there being work for them there that they can instead have 80% pay and be temporarily laid off. It just doesn’t work like that, and he’s increasing the workload of HR departments everywhere with claims that just aren’t true.

Have you got a link to what he actually said?

He's omitting the point about a company needing cash flow to lay out before they receive the grant. He needs to make it clear not all businesses will be able to and may not be in a position to get a loan either.

Ah fair point sorry I hadn't actually seen the full extent of what he was saying. In that case your absolutely right hes promoting BS and giving false hope

He has just confirmed it on Twitter

twitter.com/MartinSLewis/status/1245790136186568705

Thank God for that!

At least it’s stopped most of the questions my company were seeing. Everything he says in his update makes absolutely perfect sense.

He’s even stressed on there that it’s up to the company - you have to be so lucky to have one willing to do that considering the implications for them in paying the wage and having to claim it back.

I do think some non-essential businesses should have a proper hard think about whether they should still be trying to run as normal given the health risks to their workforce and the wider population.

Nobody should have to work in an environment where social distancing is not possible unless their role is absolutely essential. Loads of employees will have underlying health conditions which don't place them in the shielding group but which nonetheless place them at higher risk of an adverse outcome. Many will live with someone who is supposed to be shielding. Many will live with actual frontline workers who are at very high risk of passing the virus on to them and thus to the rest of your workforce.

McDonalds have shut down.

Pizza Hut were on the radio this morning trying to justify their decision to stay open for delivery even though social distancing is not possible in their kitchens. 'Essential' service apparently

As individuals we are only legally allowed out of our homes for a strictly limited set of reasons and we have to follow strict rules whenever we go out. The police now have powers to send us home, fine us or prosecute us if we disobey. Around a million of the most vulnerable people in the country have been told to just get in the cupboard for 12 weeks and how those people will be fed and cared for has been an afterthought.

Meanwhile the government have said they will 'point out' to businesses that they should be complying with the social distancing rules!

Shit stinks.

This is before even considering the additional risk for actual essential workers who are having to share public transport with a fuckton of non-essential workers who can't afford not to still travel in to work.

If you are an employer who is still insisting your non-essential employees still turn up at the workplace, when you could instead use the extra help available, then I hope you have not just been out and clapped. I hope you're not virtue signalling about PPE or testing.

Furlough will be extra work and will cause cashflow problems. Do it anyway if you possibly can.

@LangClegsInSpace

It’s a very interesting point you make, and a one a lot of our workforce has made prior when asking if furloughing can happen or unpaid leave.

The fact is, where I work is an e-commerce fashion business (not one of the big ones like ASOS or PLT), and in the warehouse everyone is adhering to health & safety and social distancing guidelines, it’s been made possible to do so. Anyone found not to be following policy is to be sent home that day from work.

If the company wasn’t still open and trading, how long do you think they could do this for before going bankrupt? If things aren’t going out of the door, and you don’t have the huge cash reserves of the big guys, you can’t sustain a closed business over time. I’m glad we’re still operational because when all of this is over, there’s a bigger chance my job will be there to go back to.

If you want someone to blame about these companies being open, that lands firmly at the governments door. They want to keep the businesses open to keep the economy going, and if everyone is adhering to strict guidelines around social distancing and wearing PPE, I don’t see a problem with that.

I absolutely do blame the government for their litany of half-arsed measures designed to protect business profits over people's lives. It's outrageous that they have so extremely curtailed individual freedoms and human rights while at the same time employing the lightest of touch to business rules.

Fashion is not an essential service.

Most of us will have a mild illness and we will survive. We will remember, people are documenting everything and there will be an inquiry.

I have a growing shitlist of businesses I am never giving custom to again.

@TheTruthAboutLove

That made me go as well.

As if the woman's former employer will rehire her so she can claim the 80%! They have no obligation to do this at ALL.

I feel for the woman, finishing one job and just about to start the new one, but it's just bad luck really.

I thought it was very bad advice that he gave.

Anyone found not to be following policy is to be sent home that day from work.

I am curious about this. How often is this happening? Are employees sent home on full pay? If you find two employees within 2 metres of each other in your warehouse are they both sent home? How do you determine which of them moved towards the other? Are you dealing with this under your normal disciplinary procedure or is there a new mechanism?

One question my company has had about furloughing that I can’t find the answer to is if someone has resigned and then wants to come back and be furloughed ML has said to ask your previous employer and they should take you back. Aside from the cash flow issue, you’re only supposed to be furloughing those who you will keep on after this is over. If they’ve resigned then that won’t be the case and if you then want them gone do you have to make them redundant and pay redundancy?! Surely they won’t resign again if they have nowhere to go.

@LangClegsInSpace

We have changed the warehouse so everyone has an allocated area they are assigned to, so rather than being able to run across the whole warehouse picking - orders are being divided into area and it’s delaying picking but it’s for the greater good!

It’s quite easy to tell who the culprit was as if they crossed over into another persons area they would be to blame, so both wouldn’t be sent home it would be the one that went into that area they weren’t supposed to.

They would be sent home on full pay, suspended under gross misconduct (a new change to our T’s and C’s) and subject to a disciplinary hearing for putting another person in danger.
Because we’ve been to stringent and to the point with the consequences, it hasn’t happened yet and there’s already a clearly defined path and way to enforce the rules.

Yeah OP, you are still working in a non essential role and picking at someone encouraging people that have no job to go and ask to be remployed to get some sort of income in all of this.

They need to have been made redundant, paid off or have left since the 28th or 29th of February. How many people do you think had that happen to them not because of coronavirus? So you're really sitting on this post high and mighty that a few people that left their jobs around the start of March could go back and ask for their job back to get furlough. Needs must but it doesn't affect you and you're still working so?

@YappityYapYap

Read the OP, I have been furloughed so I am not working at all. My place of work is still trading, but unfortunately recruitment is the first thing to fall by the wayside in times like this.

I’m not sat on any post ‘high and mighty’, I am (along with a lot of HR and Employment Lawyers on LinkedIn) expressing that Martin Lewis should not be expressing these opinions without any truth to them. At the very least he should have been adding in the caveat that it is up to the previous employer to decided.

If I left my job on Feb 28th to start a new role on March 2nd which has now been hit and I’m not able to start. My previous employer would have processed me as a leaver, so pension notified, tax office notified, my P45 issued. Not so much a problem there, you could still just reverse it all and become an employee again. However my old company I left has now replaced me and I’m asking to go back, to be immediately furloughed, for the company to have the cash flow to pay two people in the same role and claim it back from the government in a couple of months.
Not to mention the fact people on furlough accrue holidays, then what happens at the end of furlough. Does the person just leave? Would they have to pay them notice to let the person go if there’s two people for the job?

It’s quite simply not as simple as what Martin Lewis is making out, and trying to insinuate companies are bad bad people for not taking people back on and furloughing is ridiculous. There’s so much that needs to be clarified, and I hate the idea of him getting people’s hopes up - watch his money show last night and the first video call that comes on - for them to be let down again.

I do understand what you're saying but you are furloughed, you have an income. I said still working but I meant still employed. If people can go back to their old employers and be rehired in order to claim furlough, they should be able to do this because otherwise they will have no income if they aren't getting work at their new jobs or are simply unemployed.

Yes it will be a payroll nightmare, I work in accounts, I know it will be extra work but I'd rather do the extra work and ensure people have money to get by. They weren't to know at the start of March that if they left their job to go to a new one that they would be 3 weeks down the line with no work. My personal opinion on the matter is that they should include all employees that were on the payroll as of the 20th of March when the JRS was first announced and not have a loophole where people can go back to old employers.

It makes no sense that they are dating it from the 28th of February as we were totally unaware that things would get this bad so of course people moved jobs and were living as normal mostly. We knew on the 20th of March that the JRS would be introduced then we knew on the 23rd of March that we would go into a lockdown. Those are the keys dates and one of those dates should be the date at which you were employed and on the payroll to qualify for the JRS and be put on furlough. If that was the case, we wouldn't have people needing to go back to previous employers and asked for their jobs back