Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst
1
2
3
4
5
LastLast
  1. #41
    Scarab Lord Poopymonster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Neverland Ranch Survivor
    Posts
    4,258
    Quote Originally Posted by Pann View Post
    Apparently it was all an admin error.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotla...lands-51972372
    It's amazing the number of companies that when called out on social media for being utter bell ends suddenly have "admin errors"...
    Quote Originally Posted by Crissi View Post
    Quit using other posters as levels of crazy. That is not ok

  2. #42
    Man, I'm lucky I work as a writer, I don't have to worry about losing my job. My brother's even luckier, he's in data science/software engineering for medical research.

    I feel so bad for working class people in the US, the system is about to screw them royally.

    BOHICA indeed.
    No ideology has been more murderous or detrimental to human dignity than Communism
    Quote Originally Posted by kidkilla View Post
    The Ottomans brought civilization to Greece.
    Oh my...

  3. #43
    I mean companies are going to do what they can to survive right now. It's bullshit but it's the reality of the situation right now.
    There is blood on the path I walk.

  4. #44

  5. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by the game View Post
    I mean companies are going to do what they can to survive right now. It's bullshit but it's the reality of the situation right now.
    True, but they did jump the gun a bit here, if they had held out, they could apply to the government for aid, paying up to 80% of peoples wages, and therefore keeping people employed.
    Quote Originally Posted by FurryFoxWolf View Post
    crazy people gonna have there dog put down for rape after they hump there leg
    Quote Originally Posted by FurryFoxWolf View Post
    feminists they always look like a hippo thats rolled in dogshit and then hit with a nuclear weapon and lived

  6. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by tehealadin View Post
    True, but they did jump the gun a bit here, if they had held out, they could apply to the government for aid, paying up to 80% of peoples wages, and therefore keeping people employed.
    goverment paying 80% means employer still has to pay 20% .

    by firing them they have to pay 0

    and then they can just easily rehire because with much lower wages on their contracts.

    with the incoming depression people will accept any kind of job even paying peanuts.

    the world you know ended around a month ago - you just dont realise it .

    i advice to read some books on 1929 and think hard which skills to start learning already atm to be able to survive .

  7. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by kamuimac View Post
    goverment paying 80% means employer still has to pay 20% .

    by firing them they have to pay 0

    and then they can just easily rehire because with much lower wages on their contracts.

    with the incoming depression people will accept any kind of job even paying peanuts.

    the world you know ended around a month ago - you just dont realise it .

    i advice to read some books on 1929 and think hard which skills to start learning already atm to be able to survive .
    No, it doesn't. The Government has guaranteed to pay up to a maximum of £2,500 or 80% of an employee's wages but there is no obligation for the employer to pay the remaining balance - some businesses will choose to pay the remainder whilst others simply won't be able to.

  8. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by Pann View Post
    No, it doesn't. The Government has guaranteed to pay up to a maximum of £2,500 or 80% of an employee's wages but there is no obligation for the employer to pay the remaining balance - some businesses will choose to pay the remainder whilst others simply won't be able to.
    So two comments on the bold points.

    1) It is £2,500 or 80%, whichever is lesser. So anyone making over £37,500 a year will have £2,500 a month covered. So at a minimum, employers are still covering 20, but could also be much higher depending on position.

    2) Employers are still under obligation to pay the remaining balance. Nowhere does the legislation absolve the employer from this.

    This is meant to cover some, but not all of the employee costs so the employer has incentive to retain the staff during the period of reduced revenue. However, employee salary is only part of employee costs (granted, the largest), and employee costs are only one part of the costs of running a business. There are still going to be businesses where closing down for a while makes more financial sense than staying open.

  9. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by Krastyn View Post
    So two comments on the bold points.

    1) It is £2,500 or 80%, whichever is lesser. So anyone making over £37,500 a year will have £2,500 a month covered. So at a minimum, employers are still covering 20, but could also be much higher depending on position.

    2) Employers are still under obligation to pay the remaining balance. Nowhere does the legislation absolve the employer from this.

    This is meant to cover some, but not all of the employee costs so the employer has incentive to retain the staff during the period of reduced revenue. However, employee salary is only part of employee costs (granted, the largest), and employee costs are only one part of the costs of running a business. There are still going to be businesses where closing down for a while makes more financial sense than staying open.
    As I said it is a maximum of £2,500 or 80% employee wages - if the employee earns less than £2,500 per month then the maximum the employer can claim under this scheme is 80% of their wages.

    They are not:

    Furloughed workers

    If your employer cannot cover staff costs due to COVID-19, they may be able to access support to continue paying part of your wage, to avoid redundancies.

    If your employer intends to access the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme, they will discuss with you becoming classified as a furloughed worker. This would mean that you are kept on your employer’s payroll, rather than being laid off.

    To qualify for this scheme, you should not undertake work for them while you are furloughed. This will allow your employer to claim a grant of up to 80% of your wage for all employment costs, up to a cap of £2,500 per month.

    You will remain employed while furloughed. Your employer could choose to fund the differences between this payment and your salary, but does not have to.

    If your salary is reduced as a result of these changes, you may be eligible for support through the welfare system, including Universal Credit.

    We intend for the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme to run for at least 3 months from 1 March 2020, but will extend if necessary.

    https://www.gov.uk/government/public...-for-employees

  10. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by Pann View Post
    As I said it is a maximum of £2,500 or 80% employee wages - if the employee earns less than £2,500 per month then the maximum the employer can claim under this scheme is 80% of their wages.

    They are not:

    Furloughed workers

    If your employer cannot cover staff costs due to COVID-19, they may be able to access support to continue paying part of your wage, to avoid redundancies.

    If your employer intends to access the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme, they will discuss with you becoming classified as a furloughed worker. This would mean that you are kept on your employer’s payroll, rather than being laid off.

    To qualify for this scheme, you should not undertake work for them while you are furloughed. This will allow your employer to claim a grant of up to 80% of your wage for all employment costs, up to a cap of £2,500 per month.

    You will remain employed while furloughed. Your employer could choose to fund the differences between this payment and your salary, but does not have to.

    If your salary is reduced as a result of these changes, you may be eligible for support through the welfare system, including Universal Credit.

    We intend for the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme to run for at least 3 months from 1 March 2020, but will extend if necessary.

    https://www.gov.uk/government/public...-for-employees
    So to furlough a worker:
    - They need to get consent from every single worker to do so
    - They still may need to cover additional costs of the worker (National Insurance, for example)
    - The worker can't work

    So from an employer's perspective, the only positives for them is that The worker might be there when the furlough ends, and the goodwill they may get from doing this. Weighted against the negatives, I can see why some businesses will just decide to lay everyone off.

  11. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by Krastyn View Post
    So to furlough a worker:
    - They need to get consent from every single worker to do so
    - They still may need to cover additional costs of the worker (National Insurance, for example)
    - The worker can't work

    So from an employer's perspective, the only positives for them is that The worker might be there when the furlough ends, and the goodwill they may get from doing this. Weighted against the negatives, I can see why some businesses will just decide to lay everyone off.
    I'm really confused by your reply - you incorrectly stated that the employer must pay the difference between the employee's wages and the payments received through the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (CJRS) so I pointed you the Gov. website which stated that this is not the case and now you're going on about something else entirely.

    Recruiting and training staff are not free and a lack of experienced staff may have a negative impact on the business's ability to generate income upon reopening so it must weigh up whether the costs of retaining staff through the CJRS are greater than costs of letting staff go and then recruiting once the business is able to open again.

  12. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by Pann View Post
    I'm really confused by your reply - you incorrectly stated that the employer must pay the difference between the employee's wages and the payments received through the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (CJRS) so I pointed you the Gov. website which stated that this is not the case and now you're going on about something else entirely.

    Recruiting and training staff are not free and a lack of experienced staff may have a negative impact on the business's ability to generate income upon reopening so it must weigh up whether the costs of retaining staff through the CJRS are greater than costs of letting staff go and then recruiting once the business is able to open again.
    You're right, they don't have to top it up. But you're also ignoring that wages aren't the only cost to keeping an employee, even on furlough. Or the cost of the process.

    In this case, the company decided those costs exceeded the benefit of the furlough. I'd bet a lot of other companies are going to choose to do the same.

  13. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by Pann View Post
    I'm really confused by your reply - you incorrectly stated that the employer must pay the difference between the employee's wages and the payments received through the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (CJRS) so I pointed you the Gov. website which stated that this is not the case and now you're going on about something else entirely.

    Recruiting and training staff are not free and a lack of experienced staff may have a negative impact on the business's ability to generate income upon reopening so it must weigh up whether the costs of retaining staff through the CJRS are greater than costs of letting staff go and then recruiting once the business is able to open again.
    in 3 months there will be so many experienced uneploeyd people that emploers who survive this crash will be able to pick and choose .

    we have seen this already - do you know why EU was flooded with cheap but very experienced workers from post soviet republicks in early 2000 ? because they couldnt find jobs in their countries but had years of experience - so markets of west were welcoming them with open arms.

    we will all see the same happening all over the world now - people with 15-20 years experience will be fighting each other for every minimum wage position . because ther simply will be no jobs aviable.

    people really have no idea what is coming. Feel genuinly sorry for those who sit in quarantine and think this is just additional vacation days

  14. #54
    Is this happening due to the corona pandemic?

  15. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by Krastyn View Post
    You're right, they don't have to top it up. But you're also ignoring that wages aren't the only cost to keeping an employee, even on furlough. Or the cost of the process.

    In this case, the company decided those costs exceeded the benefit of the furlough. I'd bet a lot of other companies are going to choose to do the same.
    Again, I am unsure what your point is in relation to my post.

    Given that the CJRS covers employer NI contributions as well minimum automatic enrolment employer pension contributions I am struggling to see what costs - aside from the minimal administrative costs registering staff on this scheme - the business would incur by furloughing an employee.

    The employee is being let go rather than being terminated they are therefore entitled to be paid for the notice period - I believe that the employee in question had been employed at the hotel for three years meaning he was entitled to one weeks notice for each complete year he had worked there - and they are also entitled to payment for any leave accrued as well as any additional contractual benefits, I fail to see how the cost setting up employees on this scheme would be more expensive than those.

    In this case the company decided that the benefit of ignoring employment law exceeded the cost of paying the member staff what they were legally entitled to.

  16. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    It's a bit shitty that he's been booted out, but that seems like his accommodations were a part of his employment. Other than that, this is pretty standard, and you are going to see millions of people losing jobs in the coming months.
    Some companies are taking advantage of the crisis and trying to just get rid of people. I work for an "essential service" in Telemedicine. We service hospitals all over the US. Instead of going the correct and moral/ethical route. My company has told a few people that had minimal concerns over the virus like ( Office cleanliness, people maintaining hygiene and practicing common hygienic things like coughing in your arm ) that they should just stay home and claim unemployment insurance and to claim that they are a non essential worker to the government so the company can basically get rid of them. It's insane.

    Many many scumfucks are rearing their heads in this crisis.
    Quote Originally Posted by Machismo View Post
    Yes, I think a company should be legally allowed to refuse to serve black people.
    Quote Originally Posted by Orbitus View Post
    I don't know what you are watching, but it isn't fucking reality.
    Hes talking about me saying Joe Biden has dementia. LOL

  17. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by Pann View Post
    Again, I am unsure what your point is in relation to my post.

    Given that the CJRS covers employer NI contributions as well minimum automatic enrolment employer pension contributions I am struggling to see what costs - aside from the minimal administrative costs registering staff on this scheme - the business would incur by furloughing an employee.

    The employee is being let go rather than being terminated they are therefore entitled to be paid for the notice period - I believe that the employee in question had been employed at the hotel for three years meaning he was entitled to one weeks notice for each complete year he had worked there - and they are also entitled to payment for any leave accrued as well as any additional contractual benefits, I fail to see how the cost setting up employees on this scheme would be more expensive than those.

    In this case the company decided that the benefit of ignoring employment law exceeded the cost of paying the member staff what they were legally entitled to.
    First off, the full details of this weren't actually published until later in the same day I made the post. While it covers "associated Employer National Insurance contributions and minimum automatic enrolment employer pension contributions on that wage", it does not cover "Fees, commission and bonuses". It doesn't cover things like, living expenses or overrides existing contracts. So in the OP's case, can the hotel still kick them out of the living quarters.

    Second, there are still costs to this. As I said, the employee still has to agree to be furloughed. You then need to file the claims. You then need your accounting group to refile the claim if the timeline expire. You then need to pay them. None of this is done without time worked by someone.

    Third, you have no idea if they are ignoring employment law, as you're assuming they didn't give proper notice. From the OP's post, the person in the letter had been working two years. per UK law, that's one week, which is what he is entitled to.

    Fourth, you fail to see that when things do start to recover, this is going to be an employers market, not an employee's market. If you furlough an employee, their original contract remains. There's going to be a flood of workers looking for work. So while you may have to pay a few weeks severance, you will likely save years worth of reduced wages / benefits.

  18. #58
    The Undying Themius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    35,224
    As I said already, it makes no sense to kick anyone out immediately.

    The rooms aren't going to magically be rented out... no one is doing anything.

    You can easily give them accommodations and say a few weeks to find new accommodations, exactly what will they lose by doing that? Rooms that would otherwise be empty have people in them who aren't paying... but an empty room doesn't pay for itself either.

  19. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by Krastyn View Post
    First off, the full details of this weren't actually published until later in the same day I made the post. While it covers "associated Employer National Insurance contributions and minimum automatic enrolment employer pension contributions on that wage", it does not cover "Fees, commission and bonuses". It doesn't cover things like, living expenses or overrides existing contracts. So in the OP's case, can the hotel still kick them out of the living quarters.

    Second, there are still costs to this. As I said, the employee still has to agree to be furloughed. You then need to file the claims. You then need your accounting group to refile the claim if the timeline expire. You then need to pay them. None of this is done without time worked by someone.

    Third, you have no idea if they are ignoring employment law, as you're assuming they didn't give proper notice. From the OP's post, the person in the letter had been working two years. per UK law, that's one week, which is what he is entitled to.

    Fourth, you fail to see that when things do start to recover, this is going to be an employers market, not an employee's market. If you furlough an employee, their original contract remains. There's going to be a flood of workers looking for work. So while you may have to pay a few weeks severance, you will likely save years worth of reduced wages / benefits.
    The whole point of the scheme is to avoid businesses laying of staff because they cannot afford to pay them as a result it was never going to be a requirement for the business to continue making NI or pension contributions based on CJRS what was unclear was whether this would included in the payments or on top of them thus your claim that I was ignoring hidden costs was false.

    The calculation for furloughed payments is based on the higher of either he same month’s earning from the previous year or average monthly earnings from the 2019-20 tax year therefore if the employees wages includes any of these during either of those periods the employee will be paid, up to the maximum, for them.

    It is entirely up to the employer if they wish to top up employees' payments

    Given the option of unemployment - in the current economic climate - and being furloughed it is unlikely that the employee would choose not to be furloughed.

    Informing HMRC of an employee being furloughed is no different from informing them of the employee's payroll details through the RTI system - the costs are negligible.

    I heard an interview from an employee that claimed he had worked at the hotel for three years.

    I am not sure why you keep claiming I am ignoring things that have nothing to do with the point I was making. Businesses may very well be able to pick and choose from a large pool of potential employees when things get back to normal although it remains to be seen whether the costs of entering the employee's details every three weeks outweigh the cost of recruitment and training of new members of staff or whether there are savings in wages to made from replacing old staff with new recruits. However no business will be able to trade without customers and given the public reaction to these actions it is unclear whether the businesses who act like this will have many customers.

  20. #60
    Stood in the Fire Bethanie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    England
    Posts
    430
    Quote Originally Posted by Themius View Post
    As I said already, it makes no sense to kick anyone out immediately.

    The rooms aren't going to magically be rented out... no one is doing anything.

    You can easily give them accommodations and say a few weeks to find new accommodations, exactly what will they lose by doing that? Rooms that would otherwise be empty have people in them who aren't paying... but an empty room doesn't pay for itself either.
    I hope the government now forces the use of the empty rooms to accommodate homeless people, as they are more vulnerable than most and find it difficult to self isolate.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •