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!

If you look at Rishi Sunak’s q and a he has said that companies can do this regardless of the reason someone left. Don’t know how to link it on twitter

@YappityYapYap

I think you’re absolutely correct about it, there should be guidelines around the dates mentioned and those should be in use rather than the current ones.

I think the reason for my post was more along the lines of ML was saying these things, and putting it onto the employer to make the decision about taking them back - and if they didn’t they were auto-assumed to be the bad guy.
There are so many reasons as to why an employer couldn’t feasibly take someone back, and it would have to show a large amount of goodwill to offer it in the first place. If the CJRS was an immediate payment to companies for the 80% wages, I could see companies agreeing to this a lot more than what is currently happening. Regardless of what us in HR/Accounts think, paperwork isn’t the issue, it’s more of a company has the cashflow to pay that furloughed employee and claim it back. Most of the time they don’t, and ML putting this back on the companies I think is what’s making it difficult and making people think companies aren’t complying with ‘what Martin Lewis said’ when it isn’t actually the case.

I agree. He's demonising employers by ommission.

He's caused a lot of confusion and anxiety re furloughing directors too - he was flip-flopping about what "work" small one man company directors could do if they put themselves on furlough. He's dangerous making up his own interpretations and publishing them as fact without any reference.

You can't stand up in a tribunal or tax enquiry in a few months time and say "Martin Lewis" told me it was OK!

Some company’s aren’t paying furloughed workers till the scheme is up and running. So companies can still furlough workers now and wait for gov payment before passing onto employee. Some are also rumoured to claim 12 mths previous average pay but only pay employees basic contracted hrs.

then what happens at the end of furlough. Does the person just leave?

You rehire on a fixed term contract.

You are coming at this issue from your own POV and are missing the wider idea of what is 'in the spirit of' this furlough policy.

It's essentially a way for government benefits to reach the out of work, to ease pressure on the universal credit system. Same money (ie from the government), different way to get it to people.

Your POV is that of a SME where cash flow might be an issue. But consider the POV of an employee who, in March, left multi national employer A to join multi national employer B, but was unable to start due to coronavirus.

Both companies have cash flow. Company B cannot furlough because no payroll history previous to March. Company A could furlough and has the cash flow avaliable.

So employee cannot work for now. But has a contract if employment for new employer. So will be employeed when this shitshow is over. But for now, isn't being paid.

How does that employee get money for the next 3-6 months while the world is shut down? Answer: from the government. Two ways to receive that money:
(a) Universal Credit
(b) Furlough from previous employer

It's still money from the government, just the chancellor trying to ease pressure on benefits system and make the return to work quicker after this ends.

So Company A could give ex-employee a fixed term contract* for 3 months, with option to extend on monthly basis depending on national isolation guidelines. Then furlough on 80% salary. No obligation to pay extra and for large companies it is extra paperwork but the government are basically just asking businesses to help.

• worth noting I've seen nothing to say ex-employees couldn't be offered a different salary when rehired. So companies could, if they wanted to, offer a 40K pa employee a 3 month fixed term contract on minimum wage (18k pa?), then furlough at 80%.

Martin Lewis is trying to point out that businesses who can help out the government in this way, should be doing it. It's the right thing to do.

Not all companies can help because of cash flow. But in the British spirit of coming together, if they can then they should.

In this respect Martin Lewis is definitely right.

@FATEdestiny

I absolutely understand that, and I understand that is a perfectly tangible reason for using the furlough process for an employee/previous employee.

Where it became a mess was when he was telling people who had left companies for no other reason than that they didn’t like it, or had been made redundant for a reason different to coronavirus, that they too could go back and ask for their position back and to be furloughed.

How would it also work for an employee to be rehired on a fixed term contract, in regards to holiday accrual? They still have to accrue during furlough and it hasn’t actually been explained yet what will happen in that regard. It could end up costing the company to rehire - I remember the stats in terms of a new employee either returning or starting afresh on payroll in terms of man hours and costs and it was in the hundreds of pounds region, not to mention paying out holidays they’ve accrued once furlough is over.

The point I’m trying to get across is that as much as it would be absolutely lovely to be able to do this in every scenario, ML really needs to point out that companies are under no obligation to provide this to an ex-employee. It is putting a lot of pressure on HR Departments and firms with what he’s saying. He’s scapegoating companies that are most likely already struggling unless they are like you say, a huge multi-national.

No way I would take an ex employee back in these circumstances no matter how sympathetic O was to them personally
Once you have left you have left
I need to do the right thing to protect my staff and myself

I am an employer and The government website clearly states that companies can furlough employees that are shielding or need to take care of children