My son in law is to go on furlough but his boss has asked them to come in for 4-6 hours a week to keep the business alive. The boss has said if they don’t he cannot do anything but shut the place down for good. I don’t know the boss although he is prepared to put this in writing. My son in law knows that if they are all made redundant then he won’t be able to get within 7k on earnings at a similar job and that would scupper plans for them to get on the property ladder which at this moment is only the first rung...... it’s a dilemma as well as the whole legal aspect... any input ?
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Misc] Advice or opinion on a furlough dilemma.
- Thread starter Questions
- Start date
GT49er
Well-known member
I don't know how many people work there, or what they do - but wouldn't it be an option to keep one person on full time (the equivalent of half a dozen people doing 4-6 hours a week) and furlough the rest? Or if it's larger numbers of employees, keep one in six working and again furlough the rest.
Da Man Clay
T'Blades
- Dec 16, 2004
- 16,254
You aren’t - but I think if I was in the same position as the OPs son I would be going in in his position.
Icy Gull
Back on the rollercoaster
- Jul 5, 2003
- 72,015
So would I but it will be interesting to see if the Government use IT investigations on companies emails etc to check what has been happening during the furlough period. They no doubt have the capability to do this imo.
We are taking no risks, furloughed employees are not working in any capacity.
Blue Valkyrie
Not seen such Bravery!
Clearly this is illegal, but if he is on full pay then he may not want to rock the boat for the sake of doing 4-6 hours per week.
But why doesn't the boss furlough most of the staff properly, and keep 1 or 2 on full time instead ?
But why doesn't the boss furlough most of the staff properly, and keep 1 or 2 on full time instead ?
Tight shorts
Active member
Agree with other responses. Don't forget that furlough is a minimum of 3 weeks so some rotation of staff could happen three weekly as an alternative.
Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk
- Jul 10, 2003
- 25,864
I'm aware of a couple of small businesses who have furloughed all their staff, but where a very small number pop in for a couple of hours to run payroll, check security, chase up invoices etc. Where there are only 2-20 staff, having them come off furlough in rotation may not be possible to cover the areas needing attention.
All I can say is that if it was me in that situation, I would certainly be happy to do it if it keeps the company running and means there's a job for me to get back to. I assume he's being paid at least 80% of his salary, so I don't think it's unreasonable of them to ask, if it's needed (which, of course, only he will know).
And yes, it's not strictly legal, but I can't see the Government wanting to chase up these situations after it's all over.
And besides, what would like be like if we never did anything illegal, immoral of fattening
All I can say is that if it was me in that situation, I would certainly be happy to do it if it keeps the company running and means there's a job for me to get back to. I assume he's being paid at least 80% of his salary, so I don't think it's unreasonable of them to ask, if it's needed (which, of course, only he will know).
And yes, it's not strictly legal, but I can't see the Government wanting to chase up these situations after it's all over.
And besides, what would like be like if we never did anything illegal, immoral of fattening
Last edited:
SeagullinExile
Well-known member
No company can FORCE a furloughed worker to work. But, being in a similar situation, I volunteer to do some basic security/Maintenance checks weekly. Slightly different as I live in company accommodation.
One thing I would check though, make sure you would be insured for any work place accidents before deciding.
One thing I would check though, make sure you would be insured for any work place accidents before deciding.
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 35,312
this is the correct answer.
Da Man Clay
T'Blades
- Dec 16, 2004
- 16,254
Whether or not they have the capability - realistically there is absolutely no value in them doing that - and the infrastructure the government we need to put in doing so wouldn’t be worth the return.
Strictly speaking if you’re furloughed you can’t give your employer any service at all.
Is your son in laws boss topping up the wages or just paying the 80%?
If it’s put in writing that staff are required to work while furloughed it could get everyone involved in a whole heap of trouble down the line so I would suggest not documenting it.
In my opinion it’s about give and take on both sides, I’m doing a security check on my branch every 2 or 3 days and have moved a few bits of stock about while I’ve been there purely because it will make my job easier when we all go back. Some of my team have asked to go in and do some bits and bobs but I’ve politely declined.
Is your son in laws boss topping up the wages or just paying the 80%?
If it’s put in writing that staff are required to work while furloughed it could get everyone involved in a whole heap of trouble down the line so I would suggest not documenting it.
In my opinion it’s about give and take on both sides, I’m doing a security check on my branch every 2 or 3 days and have moved a few bits of stock about while I’ve been there purely because it will make my job easier when we all go back. Some of my team have asked to go in and do some bits and bobs but I’ve politely declined.
IMO the government should have thought about cases such as this. Maybe they will in future so they are just as much culpable if not more. I would, the only issue you may have is if the police start checking more on travel they may ask where he is going. But they have more important things to worry about at the moment.
Baldseagull
Well-known member
As I understand it, it's the employer that is taking the risk here, in that if he has staff come in at all, he will not be eligible to reclaim 80% wage from HMRC. If it was me I would ask the boss to check the rules and see if he still wants to do that, especially if he thinks the firm will close if his boss can't reclaim, but it should be no legal issue for your son in law.
darkwolf666
Well-known member
That’s a very good point re insurance, as that could equally apply to your car insurance too, I would imagine, if you have social, domestic and commuting!
So the choice seems to be to sit at home and do nothing for 80% of wages for a few weeks, and then get made redundant, vs sit at home and do nothing except 4-6 hrs a week for a few weeks, and then go back to work full-time and continue to earn c£7K more than the average for that work?
Not much of a dilemna for me.
The only issue that none of us can know is how much to believe the boss, regarding shutting the company if your in-law does not go in. Can't say it is a gamble that I would be prepared to take.
(For comparison, I am classed as a 'key worker', am probably working at 120% of normal hours, still getting usual pay, and don't expect any kind of pay rise from the Govt when this is all over, as they will be financially bust from paying the 80% to all the furloughed workers. I don't have a problem with that, BTW.)
The only issue is the legal one. Practically it makes total sense to do the work and save your job.