It Is Legal?

[chrisuk013]

I'm not exactly Kavanagh QC when it comes to law, so I thought I would ask.

How can a company/ies legally put X amount of employees on furloughed ie 80% pay, whilst keeping other employees within the company of their normal 100% salaried pay? Is this not discrimination of any kind? surely, it's illegal? or is it one of those 'grey' areas? I just can't get my head round it you see

Thanks

[Old_Geezer]

I would have thought that the company had the right to decide if some employees were essential while the others could be furloughed.

[THECORBYLOON]

The companies might be paying the remaining 20% to the affected employees.

[Buenchico]

Many businesses have distinct areas of work, where one part of their operations currently has to be closed down but another part can continue to operate normally. For example, Currys PC World has had to close all its stores, so its perfectly logical thatall its in-store staff should be furloughed on 80% pay. However the company can still operate online, so its warehouse staff can continue to work as normal, on 100% pay.

Other firms might not have such distinctive job definitions but still find that there's currently only enough work for just part of their regular workforce. So it's perfectly reasonable (and lawful) for them to retain some staff, doing their normal work, on 100% pay while placing the others on furlough at 80% pay.

[alidoc]

Can't answer for the ethics of the above, my observation is that the government has stipulated that they will pay 80% of the salary up to a limit of I think about £2500. Perhaps it would be fair for everyone else in the company to accept a pay drop to this limit, many of the higher earners will have savings they can fall back on.

[Hopkirk]

My wife's outfit have kept on a skeleton staff on full pay for the occasional bit of work and furloughed the rest.

[woofgang]

What else can they do? If they need to keep the company running at a lower level, they need to keep some staff on to do it but can't afford to keep everybody on then surely the right thing to do is to furlough some of the staff?

[woofgang]

alidoc, why? Those kept on are likely to have to work harder for their money in addition to being more at risk of infection.

[chrisuk013]

So, for instance at the moment in football neither player or non playing staff are carrying out their duties. So why therefore have non playing staff been furloughed? and don't hit me with the none of your 'non playing staff are not essential' business either

[Buenchico]

Football players aren't employees of the clubs they play for. They are technically self-employed, having contracts negotiated by their agents for them (in the same way that, say, many BBC presenters aren't employees of the BBC), with those agents receiving a cut of the pay. So football clubs can't put them on furlough, as (because they're not employees) they're not eligible for the Government scheme.

The only way that the clubs can reduce the amount that they pay to their players is through voluntary agreements between the clubs, the players and their agents. If no such agreements can be reached, the contracts must stand and the players must continue to receive the amounts stated in those contracts.

[FrillyPancake]

My place of work furloughed myself along with another 3rd of the site-@80% wages, and the remaining (skeleton) workforce are being asked to go in to the office for 4 days a week as opposed to 5, and have had a 20% wage reduction across the board.

So same reduction as the furloughed staff yet they still have to go into work to do whatever work there is,which isn't much....

[Skyline D]

Sorry Chris, that's complete nonsense. Football players absolutely are employees. None of them are self employed. That wouldn't be allowed. They are employees with fixed term contracts.

And plenty of footballers have been furloughed. Pretty much every one in Scotland for a start, certainly outside the top division. Football does exist outside the Premier League! Premier League players clearly earn so much that furloughing them is both pointless and a pr disaster so clubs haven't.

[New Judge]

//Premier League players clearly earn so much that furloughing them is both pointless and a pr disaster//

I should have thought precisely the opposite. If you have eleven players each earning £5m pa, furlough them and the club saves £1m a week. Meanwhile the poor things have to struggle along on the £30k pa maximum the government will pay. The club has a healthy saving which most of them need because, in the Never-Never Land that is football, they pay out a ridiculously high proportion of their income in wages.

As far as PR goes I should have thought it would be a winner. Fans who have been furloughed will no doubt have been told "We're all in this together." What better way for football clubs to demonstrate that than furloughing their multi-millionaire employees for the duration.

[fiction-factory]

If given a choice some would prefer 80% for doing nothing, no travel, rather than slaving away for 5 days for 100%. In fact the difference net of tax and NI is nearer 17%.
Some employers are inviting volunteers but it's not always feasible.
Many furloughed would prefer 80% to being laid off/made redundant/dismissed if less than 2 years service

[Maydup]

I'm furloughed and lucky enough to be receiving 100% salary. I felt guily at first that some of my colleagues are working hard for their 100% whilst I potter about in the garden and enjoy the lovely weather.

But ..... firstly I think they are being allowed to work shortish weeks, and I hope to goodness they are being paid a but more than their 100%, but most important of all, their roles have been identified as essential to run a reduced business and they will be the last bunch to be made redundant should that be the outcome.

[Peter Pedant]

yes OK so long as they could show they had and used a sensible furlough policey

that is "furloughed because looks funny or is black " clearly is NOT suitable

[Maydup]

Equally I'm sure someone somewhere will bring a case against their employer for having to work while their colleagues are enjoying the break.

[Skyline D]

Sorry, late back to this. New Judge, I'm presuming you have by now realised there is a maximum on the value of furlough? Clubs wouldn't save £1m. Maximum salary to go on furlough is £2,500 per month. As I said, Premier players, and indeed Championship ones, earn far too much to be furloughed.