OK, if we have any lawyers on here willing to stick their necks out, I have a question. Not vital, but I’m puzzled by some features of it.
A shall we say, hypothetical local business is putting its staff on furlough. It notified them of this last week, giving various start dates for different people. Today was the last date by which time all but two people (the MD and his secretary) should be furloughed.
However, he is also ordering staff to sign an eight-point variation in their contracts, confirming they have been placed on furlough. This variation also gives him the power to unilaterally cut staff salaries or hours and also to make people instantly redundant with just statutory redundancy pay. He did not consult, he sent it out and gave staff 72 hours to sign it.
To compound matters he then put the wrong dates on it, so he has had to reissue it today - having ordered all staff to go on furlough from midnight last night.
So a few questions:
1) Does he need this variation? Or is notifying staff they have been out on furlough sufficient?
2) Can he compel staff to sign it, given they are on furlough?
3) If he does compel them to sign it, does that mean they are not on furlough?
4) If he sacks anyone for refusing to sign it, is he acting lawfully?
This particular individual has history in breaking contract law - two months ago he sacked somebody who had been there for six years, claiming he had only a temporary rolling contract, and he’s been known to falsify references - but everyone’s understandably leery of refusing to sign as what recourse would they have with all the courts shut?
Has anyone come across a case like this? Asking for a friend.
What the employer is proposing is very unusual.
Well, that’s my understanding too, which is why I was wondering if anyone had come across something similar.
The government’s own advice would seem to be perfectly clear - ‘To be eligible for the grant employers must confirm in writing to their employee confirming that they have been furloughed. A record of this communication must be kept for five years.’ So the idea of a variation seems a bit weird.
On topic, I think there's a decent way to split the difference on this which is to do "unity" but come down like a ton of bricks on anti-Semitism, and let anyone who doesn't like that purge themselves.
Owen Jones has said focus on the following -
1. Keep the proper Left policies. 2. Appeal to older voters. 3. Sincere reset with the Jewish community.
Stay Radical. Help The Aged. Impress Jews.
I like it but it's a shame that everything has to be this way now, courtesy of the brutalist Cummings.
It's not pointless from his perspective. His authority is ebbing away and he's surrounded by ambitious psychopaths. He's got to maintain the pretense of being in control as long as possible.
OK, if we have any lawyers on here willing to stick their necks out, I have a question. Not vital, but I’m puzzled by some features of it.
A shall we say, hypothetical local business is putting its staff on furlough. It notified them of this last week, giving various start dates for different people. Today was the last date by which time all but two people (the MD and his secretary) should be furloughed.
However, he is also ordering staff to sign an eight-point variation in their contracts, confirming they have been placed on furlough. This variation also gives him the power to unilaterally cut staff salaries or hours and also to make people instantly redundant with just statutory redundancy pay. He did not consult, he sent it out and gave staff 72 hours to sign it.
To compound matters he then put the wrong dates on it, so he has had to reissue it today - having ordered all staff to go on furlough from midnight last night.
So a few questions:
1) Does he need this variation? Or is notifying staff they have been out on furlough sufficient?
2) Can he compel staff to sign it, given they are on furlough?
3) If he does compel them to sign it, does that mean they are not on furlough?
4) If he sacks anyone for refusing to sign it, is he acting lawfully?
This particular individual has history in breaking contract law - two months ago he sacked somebody who had been there for six years, claiming he had only a temporary rolling contract, and he’s been known to falsify references - but everyone’s understandably leery of refusing to sign as what recourse would they have with all the courts shut?
Has anyone come across a case like this? Asking for a friend.
My take (but talk to a lawyer who specialises in employment law!)
HMRC states: "Employers should discuss with their staff and make any changes to the employment contract by agreement. Employers may need to seek legal advice on the process. If sufficient numbers of staff are involved, it may be necessary to engage collective consultation processes to procure agreement to changes to terms of employment."
This is a change to the terms of employment, so the employer needs the employee’s agreement to the change of contract terms. They do not need unilateral power to change pay rates, just the employee’s agreement for this particular change.
Furloughed staff remain employees with all benefits etc. Just because the contract of employment has changed doesn’t affect that.
If the company is short on cash & has to let people go then that’s a valid reason for redundancies, but they would have to make redundancy payments as defined in law, or the employee’s contracts.
In other words, the employer is clearly using the threat of redundancy to push through an unfair change in contract terms that will allow them to make redundancies later at lower cost if they so choose & arbitrarily cut pay. Given that the company has the option to furlough these employees at 80% pay without any of these powers, this seems grossly out of order.
On topic, I think there's a decent way to split the difference on this which is to do "unity" but come down like a ton of bricks on anti-Semitism, and let anyone who doesn't like that purge themselves.
Owen Jones has said focus on the following -
1. Keep the proper Left policies. 2. Appeal to older voters. 3. Sincere reset with the Jewish community.
Stay Radical. Help The Aged. Impress Jews.
I like it but it's a shame that everything has to be this way now, courtesy of the brutalist Cummings.
1 and 2 would appear to be contradictory. Unless he’s going for a Red Brexit.
That is very bleak. 6 months of lockdowns over the next 18 months based on a 5000 ICU bed lockdown trigger, peaking at about 12k beds required.
Seems to say we have the choice between many, many deaths on the one hand, or completely bankrupting ourselves and destryoying the economy (and the tax base, and, by proxy, the NHS) on the other.
you mean "Seems to say we have the choice between many, many deaths and a massive hit to the economy on the one hand, or completely bankrupting ourselves and destryoying the economy (and the tax base, and, by proxy, the NHS) on the other. "
But the easyJet board said they will bounce back in six months time!
Really, how likely are people to be willingly flying then.
You know, I think so many people have become addicted to their foreign trips - and they will feel after the lockdown, they DESERVE that trip to their favourite pub in Spain....
I expect things will bounceback far faster than is predicted. The modelling doesn't seem to remotely capture the "Ah, fuck it..." mentality of the many.
Boris's plight will have had a "shit got real" effect on that mindset - it certainly has on me (I'm a couple of years older than him). I have just had a call asking whether I mind treating my payment for a sailing expedition this summer, as payment for the same expedition in 2022. I thought that was grossly optimistic as regards both me, and the sailing.
On topic, I think there's a decent way to split the difference on this which is to do "unity" but come down like a ton of bricks on anti-Semitism, and let anyone who doesn't like that purge themselves.
Owen Jones has said focus on the following -
1. Keep the proper Left policies. 2. Appeal to older voters. 3. Sincere reset with the Jewish community.
Stay Radical. Help The Aged. Impress Jews.
I like it but it's a shame that everything has to be this way now, courtesy of the brutalist Cummings.
"Impress Jews" sounds sincerely patronising, if anything.
OK, if we have any lawyers on here willing to stick their necks out, I have a question. Not vital, but I’m puzzled by some features of it.
A shall we say, hypothetical local business is putting its staff on furlough. It notified them of this last week, giving various start dates for different people. Today was the last date by which time all but two people (the MD and his secretary) should be furloughed.
However, he is also ordering staff to sign an eight-point variation in their contracts, confirming they have been placed on furlough. This variation also gives him the power to unilaterally cut staff salaries or hours and also to make people instantly redundant with just statutory redundancy pay. He did not consult, he sent it out and gave staff 72 hours to sign it.
To compound matters he then put the wrong dates on it, so he has had to reissue it today - having ordered all staff to go on furlough from midnight last night.
So a few questions:
1) Does he need this variation? Or is notifying staff they have been out on furlough sufficient?
2) Can he compel staff to sign it, given they are on furlough?
3) If he does compel them to sign it, does that mean they are not on furlough?
4) If he sacks anyone for refusing to sign it, is he acting lawfully?
This particular individual has history in breaking contract law - two months ago he sacked somebody who had been there for six years, claiming he had only a temporary rolling contract, and he’s been known to falsify references - but everyone’s understandably leery of refusing to sign as what recourse would they have with all the courts shut?
Has anyone come across a case like this? Asking for a friend.
My take (but talk to a lawyer who specialises in employment law!)
HMRC states: "Employers should discuss with their staff and make any changes to the employment contract by agreement. Employers may need to seek legal advice on the process. If sufficient numbers of staff are involved, it may be necessary to engage collective consultation processes to procure agreement to changes to terms of employment."
This is a change to the terms of employment, so the employer needs the employee’s agreement to the change of contract terms. They do not need unilateral power to change pay rates, just the employee’s agreement for this particular change.
Furloughed staff remain employees with all benefits etc. Just because the contract of employment has changed doesn’t affect that.
If the company is short on cash & has to let people go then that’s a valid reason for redundancies, but they would have to make redundancy payments as defined in law, or the employee’s contracts.
In other words, the employer is clearly using the threat of redundancy to push through an unfair change in contract terms that will allow them to make redundancies later at lower cost if they so choose & arbitrarily cut pay. Given that the company has the option to furlough these employees at 80% pay without any of these powers, this seems grossly out of order.
Thanks. The bottom line would appear to be, this is a bit strange and out of line.
This is beyond daft with the red boxes etc being turned into a mega fomite vector no matter how careful they are. The only chance he'll be replaced is if he literally snuffs it; working from the hospital is ridiculous as he's increasing his chances of dieing by continuing to work whilst obviously ill.
After everything us British Jews have experienced over the last few years, it is a message of positivity that one is now acting PM, even if the circumstances are awful.
Perhaps it's just the contrast with his increasing political irrelevance (he couldn't even push his way into CorboLabour ffs!) but GG's brass neck seems to get brassier as his star fades.
"In a scenario where “lockdown”-type interventions were put in place to reduce transmission, these interventions would need to be in place for a large proportion of the coming year in order to prevent healthcare demand exceeding availability"
Well thanks for that, guys....
Yes, it's a similar to conclusion to Ferguson's simulation, but by somewhat different methods. However all these results depend heavily on the proportion of asymptomatic cases (and their infectiousness), and the effectiveness of the lockdowns/social distancing, and there is probably more potential for good surprises than bad ones in this area. Similarly fatality rates. I am hopeful that in a few weeks we'll see these models being re-run with more favourable inputs. Let's hope.
In their model with 5000-bed lockdown trigger, it was only in place for 35% of the time until end 2021; however, in that situation their model has a median of 130k deaths (which is actually the same as for no lockdowns at all -- the effect is to spread the cases to keep peak ICU requirements barely manageable).
--AS
We only need to look at Japan and Singapore for evidence of this, the former now declaring a state of emergency in the major population areas and the latter now announcing a lockdown. This virus will not be suppressed to such a degree that it can be ignored, Korea is getting a bit antsy now that people think it’s safe and unlocking themselves and China, well, who knows what might happen there now (and, if it does will it even be admitted to)?
I just don’t get why there is this holding onto getting back to how things were. It’s not difficult to imagine that something more radical is needed in terms of how economies are put on hold (and how they are to be restructured afterwards). If ever ‘blue sky thinking’ (bleurgh) was required, surely it’s now?
This is beyond daft with the red boxes etc being turned into a mega fomite vector no matter how careful they are. The only chance he'll be replaced is if he literally snuffs it; working from the hospital is ridiculous as he's increasing his chances of dieing by continuing to work whilst obviously ill.
I may be doing him a disservice, although I suspect not, if I imagine him thinking that dying in office would be a suitable epitaph
My take (but talk to a lawyer who specialises in employment law!)
HMRC states: "Employers should discuss with their staff and make any changes to the employment contract by agreement. Employers may need to seek legal advice on the process. If sufficient numbers of staff are involved, it may be necessary to engage collective consultation processes to procure agreement to changes to terms of employment."
This is a change to the terms of employment, so the employer needs the employee’s agreement to the change of contract terms. They do not need unilateral power to change pay rates, just the employee’s agreement for this particular change.
Furloughed staff remain employees with all benefits etc. Just because the contract of employment has changed doesn’t affect that.
If the company is short on cash & has to let people go then that’s a valid reason for redundancies, but they would have to make redundancy payments as defined in law, or the employee’s contracts.
In other words, the employer is clearly using the threat of redundancy to push through an unfair change in contract terms that will allow them to make redundancies later at lower cost if they so choose & arbitrarily cut pay. Given that the company has the option to furlough these employees at 80% pay without any of these powers, this seems grossly out of order.
Thanks. The bottom line would appear to be, this is a bit strange and out of line.
The company doesn’t need anything from the employee except their agreement to being furloughed & the consequent variation in wages.
Whether they’re legally able to require the rest of the contract changes is a question for an employment lawyer / and or union rep (power on the ground sometimes trumps legal details) but it’s not necessary in order to be furloughed.
As MP, you spend a lot of time meeting people from all round your constituency and elsewhere as well as being crammed into the Chamber. It really doesn't take much for it to spread widely in that particular community.
We haven't heard much about it spreading widely through the House of Lords - would be interesting to compare the two Houses.
Tens of thousands of ex Labour members rejoining to vote Starmer and prevent continuity Corbyn. Is there a name for that?
When tens of thousands of ex Tory members rejoined to vote for Boris rather than continuity Remain, it was called entryism...
Is there a difference?
No, so what?
The people happy to see others rejoining to vote Starmer or Nandy, or rejoining themselves to do so, were the ones who viewed the Tories who rejoined to vote Boris ‘entryists’, I reckon
Following your argument there'd be no such thing as entryism, ever.
The difference between the two situations is that the Labour leadership candidates appealed to non-members to join up to support them, whereas there was an external organisation that encouraged people to join the Tories to vote for Boris (and deselect sitting MPs who had supported Remain).
However, in the Tory case the external organisation does not appear to have the continuing control of its adherents to take over the party in full, and Johnson is not himself a member of that external organisation, so it's not a classical case of entryism, but it's not far off either.
Given that much of UKIP/BXP consisted of ex-Tories, it is not entryism but re-entryism, which is Isam's point.
Exactly. People were moaning about UKIP ‘entryists’ when most of them were just returning Tories.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-preview-yes-wisconsin-is-still-holding-its-primary-on-tuesday/ ...the administration of Tuesday’s election could be a disaster, as the state’s election infrastructure strains under the weight of the coronavirus crisis. As of Sunday, 1,268,587 absentee ballots had been requested for the election — far more than election officials are equipped to handle. Not only is that almost six times as many as were cast in Wisconsin’s 2016 presidential primary, but it’s also probably a higher volume of absentee ballots than Wisconsin has ever handled. In the 2016 general election, for instance, only 819,316 absentee ballots were counted.1
In addition to the avalanche of ballots arriving by mail, polling places may also be overwhelmed on Tuesday due to a dire shortage of poll workers. As of last Tuesday, almost 60 percent of municipalities in Wisconsin did not have enough poll workers, and more than 100 did not have any. ...
As MP, you spend a lot of time meeting people from all round your constituency and elsewhere as well as being crammed into the Chamber. It really doesn't take much for it to spread widely in that particular community.
We haven't heard much about it spreading widely through the House of Lords - would be interesting to compare the two Houses.
Yep, MPs are definitely in a high risk group. They meet with a lot of people, and shake hands with many more, they travel a lot more than most and come into contact with people who have been to China/Italy/Iran much more than average too.
The UK tipping point seems to have been half term skiing holidays in Italy, something done by a very small subset of the UK population - which includes a number of MPs and people they are likely to have have subsequently met.
Why should person C be released from lockdown here, when she lived with a brother who developed symptoms 2 days ago?
Posting again with the photo on my avatar (a Google shared photo didn't look.private enough to me). What the hell are the government letting person C out of isolation for??
No it doesnt, the response has been led by listening to the scientific advisers and the cabinet have a clear steer on who shall coordinate anything political.
Aha ... a buff envelope from HMRC. Must be that bung for self-employed geriatrics I've been holding out for. Zounds! It's a demand for yet another tax return. 31 January 2021 seems a very long way away.
Why should person C be released from lockdown here, when she lived with a brother who developed symptoms 2 days ago?
Posting again with the photo on my avatar (a Google shared photo didn't look.private enough to me). What the hell are the government letting person C out of isolation for??
As MP, you spend a lot of time meeting people from all round your constituency and elsewhere as well as being crammed into the Chamber. It really doesn't take much for it to spread widely in that particular community.
We haven't heard much about it spreading widely through the House of Lords - would be interesting to compare the two Houses.
I did mention when I was there in March that the Palace of Westminster seemed to have made no effort to cancel parties of schoolkids/foreign students, who were still wandering round in the way they have, basically with no notion of personal space. And MPs were still shaking hands with visitors. It was a complete "FFS....have you not been paying attention to anything?"
No it doesnt, the response has been led by listening to the scientific advisers and the cabinet have a clear steer on who shall coordinate anything political.
But that wouldn't make for a breathless news story now would it?
I'm more surprised he would specifically comment on ours, it's not as though others have not gone as far as us, or further.
The discussion in Sweden often refers to the UK's policy as an alternative.
Reading comments from a few Swedes they are saying many are effectively in a de facto Lockdown.
Also the main joke in Sweden about having to be 2m from each other was "That's a lot closer than normal!"
Comparing the end results with Norway and Finland may prove useful, given how social distance is the norm in all three countries.
I confidently forecast none will have done very well vs. Taiwan or South Korea. Taiwan could deserve country status in exchange for China's misdeeds. If China has let SARS-COV-2 spread as a result of errors or omissions - SARS-COV-1 in 2003 began in China but was brought under control and should have provided a warning - don't forgive it.
Do you really think there's any purpose to this endless Tweet-whining? [Tweening? Twhining?]
It winds up all the right people here...
Winding up the 'right people' has long been a rather petty motivation and a poor way to judge anything, but I would certainly not seek you stopping your tweet posting.
Why should person C be released from lockdown here, when she lived with a brother who developed symptoms 2 days ago?
Posting again with the photo on my avatar (a Google shared photo didn't look.private enough to me). What the hell are the government letting person C out of isolation for??
Most likely they were asymptomatic.
But it's all.too.posdible they managed not to catch it but could still contract it from person D? Surely the 14 days must reset? Sorry, off topiced you whilst trying to quote you.
Do you really think there's any purpose to this endless Tweet-whining? [Tweening? Twhining?]
Spending hours each day for years on end calling someone who has made a massive success of their professional life, who has possibly the best electoral record of any politician in history, ‘Bozo’ on a message board at every opportunity, is possibly the least self aware activity I’ve ever seen.
"Impress Jews" sounds sincerely patronising, if anything.
Respect Jews? Is that better?
Has to be just the 2 words.
How about treating them as normal people. I thought the left were big on equality.
Too many on the left have been very much big on promoting a very narrow view of diversity - which allows them to promote certain groups whilst also denigrating others.
I am still interested as to what the standard hospital treatment is for someone struggling with coronavirus.
We know that they are monitored, and we know that their breathing is supported with oxygen and ventilation to a greater or lesser degree.
Is there anything else? Vitamins and minerals on a drip? Any of the existing drugs that have been mentioned? It would be fascinating to hear how the treatment of this is developing in real time.
At Bournemouth Hospital they are trialing the HIV and Malaria combination
In Basingstoke it’s neubulised interferon and HCQ (malaria) under investigation
"Impress Jews" sounds sincerely patronising, if anything.
Respect Jews? Is that better?
Has to be just the 2 words.
How about treating them as normal people. I thought the left were big on equality.
Too many on the left have been very much big on promoting a very narrow view of diversity - which allows them to promote certain groups whilst also denigrating others.
Hence the article in the Guardian about how Asians of Hindu origin aren't really proper minority members anymore. Like the Jews they are going to be re-classified as White People, in progworld.
Why should person C be released from lockdown here, when she lived with a brother who developed symptoms 2 days ago?
Posting again with the photo on my avatar (a Google shared photo didn't look.private enough to me). What the hell are the government letting person C out of isolation for??
Most likely they were asymptomatic.
But it's all.too.posdible they managed not to catch it but could still contract it from person D? Surely the 14 days must reset? Sorry, off topiced you whilst trying to quote you.
How dare you, sir.
The advice is probably designed to be simple to follow, and to be effective in the majority of cases. In most cases if one member of a household gets it, it is very likely the rest will (regardless of whether they display symptoms). Anyway, this is mostly moot because of the shutdown people aren't going outside anyway.
Why should person C be released from lockdown here, when she lived with a brother who developed symptoms 2 days ago?
Posting again with the photo on my avatar (a Google shared photo didn't look.private enough to me). What the hell are the government letting person C out of isolation for??
Most likely they were asymptomatic.
But it's all.too.posdible they managed not to catch it but could still contract it from person D? Surely the 14 days must reset? Sorry, off topiced you whilst trying to quote you.
How dare you, sir.
The advice is probably designed to be simple to follow, and to be effective in the majority of cases. In most cases if one member of a household gets it, it is very likely the rest will (regardless of whether they display symptoms). Anyway, this is mostly moot because of the shutdown people aren't going outside anyway.
I went across Cannock Chase this morning on my bike, past Marquis Drive.
With all the car parks closed, people are parking very carefully in the entrances to them. But it was very quiet. The only people I saw were two other cyclists.
Building work is still going on though at a big new housing estate next to Pye Green.
OK, if we have any lawyers on here willing to stick their necks out, I have a question. Not vital, but I’m puzzled by some features of it.
A shall we say, hypothetical local business is putting its staff on furlough. It notified them of this last week, giving various start dates for different people. Today was the last date by which time all but two people (the MD and his secretary) should be furloughed.
However, he is also ordering staff to sign an eight-point variation in their contracts, confirming they have been placed on furlough. This variation also gives him the power to unilaterally cut staff salaries or hours and also to make people instantly redundant with just statutory redundancy pay. He did not consult, he sent it out and gave staff 72 hours to sign it.
To compound matters he then put the wrong dates on it, so he has had to reissue it today - having ordered all staff to go on furlough from midnight last night.
So a few questions:
1) Does he need this variation? Or is notifying staff they have been out on furlough sufficient?
2) Can he compel staff to sign it, given they are on furlough?
3) If he does compel them to sign it, does that mean they are not on furlough?
4) If he sacks anyone for refusing to sign it, is he acting lawfully?
This particular individual has history in breaking contract law - two months ago he sacked somebody who had been there for six years, claiming he had only a temporary rolling contract, and he’s been known to falsify references - but everyone’s understandably leery of refusing to sign as what recourse would they have with all the courts shut?
Has anyone come across a case like this? Asking for a friend.
What the employer is proposing is very unusual. That, I think, is grounds alone for why "some people of in the Internet said" is, unfortunately, not going to cut it. A proper lawyer (I'm guess no workplace rep) is needed.
Agree
For instance I don’t think you can legally make someone “instantly” redundant. There is a statutory consultation period
It's not pointless from his perspective. His authority is ebbing away and he's surrounded by ambitious psychopaths. He's got to maintain the pretense of being in control as long as possible.
Nah he just wants the Churchillian photos of reading papers in bed
On topic, I think there's a decent way to split the difference on this which is to do "unity" but come down like a ton of bricks on anti-Semitism, and let anyone who doesn't like that purge themselves.
Owen Jones has said focus on the following -
1. Keep the proper Left policies. 2. Appeal to older voters. 3. Sincere reset with the Jewish community.
Stay Radical. Help The Aged. Impress Jews.
I like it but it's a shame that everything has to be this way now, courtesy of the brutalist Cummings.
"Impress Jews" sounds sincerely patronising, if anything.
Marx was right about equality - it's a bourgeois concept that people can argue about eternally. If you want to give people equality of income, then you have to accept inequality of wealth, as people have different abilities, different needs, and different expenses. Ditto equality of wealth, and all other equalities. If only the Corbynites who pretended to like Marx had actually read him!
Do you really think there's any purpose to this endless Tweet-whining? [Tweening? Twhining?]
Spending hours each day for years on end calling someone who has made a massive success of their professional life, who has possibly the best electoral record of any politician in history, ‘Bozo’ on a message board at every opportunity, is possibly the least self aware activity I’ve ever seen.
Fuck me a genuine fan boy! I thought it was only HYUFD who bought into the crap about the man that is our current PM being some kind of messiah. His real outstanding achievement is that he is one of the biggest ever frauds in our political history. That said I wish the said fraud a speedy recovery. I am looking forward to him being gradually and forensically dismembered by a man who has actually had a successful career outside of politics and journalism, and doesn't seem to need to bolster his self-esteem by hw many women he has cheated on.
Do you really think there's any purpose to this endless Tweet-whining? [Tweening? Twhining?]
Spending hours each day for years on end calling someone who has made a massive success of their professional life, who has possibly the best electoral record of any politician in history, ‘Bozo’ on a message board at every opportunity, is possibly the least self aware activity I’ve ever seen.
Fuck me a genuine fan boy! I thought it was only HYUFD who bought into the crap about the man that is our current PM being some kind of messiah. His real outstanding achievement is that he is one of the biggest ever frauds in our political history. That said I wish the said fraud a speedy recovery. I am looking forward to him being gradually and forensically dismembered by a man who has actually had a successful career outside of politics and journalism, and doesn't seem to need to bolster his self-esteem by hw many women he has cheated on.
OK, if we have any lawyers on here willing to stick their necks out, I have a question. Not vital, but I’m puzzled by some features of it.
A shall we say, hypothetical local business is putting its staff on furlough. It notified them of this last week, giving various start dates for different people. Today was the last date by which time all but two people (the MD and his secretary) should be furloughed.
However, he is also ordering staff to sign an eight-point variation in their contracts, confirming they have been placed on furlough. This variation also gives him the power to unilaterally cut staff salaries or hours and also to make people instantly redundant with just statutory redundancy pay. He did not consult, he sent it out and gave staff 72 hours to sign it.
To compound matters he then put the wrong dates on it, so he has had to reissue it today - having ordered all staff to go on furlough from midnight last night.
So a few questions:
1) Does he need this variation? Or is notifying staff they have been out on furlough sufficient?
2) Can he compel staff to sign it, given they are on furlough?
3) If he does compel them to sign it, does that mean they are not on furlough?
4) If he sacks anyone for refusing to sign it, is he acting lawfully?
This particular individual has history in breaking contract law - two months ago he sacked somebody who had been there for six years, claiming he had only a temporary rolling contract, and he’s been known to falsify references - but everyone’s understandably leery of refusing to sign as what recourse would they have with all the courts shut?
Has anyone come across a case like this? Asking for a friend.
What the employer is proposing is very unusual. That, I think, is grounds alone for why "some people of in the Internet said" is, unfortunately, not going to cut it. A proper lawyer (I'm guess no workplace rep) is needed.
Agree
For instance I don’t think you can legally make someone “instantly” redundant. There is a statutory consultation period
For particular complex legal questions there is never any substitute for legal advice. This is more true than ever now, with the massive increase in legal complexity and quantity of relevant legislation and case law. (This is one of the things unions ought to exist for - whether they are effective in this I cannot say.)
The Slaughter of the Innocent …Corporate Manslaughter?
For the last two Thursday evenings I joined my family on our doorstep applauding the NHS staff (of whom I had been one, until two months ago), but many of my former colleagues are telling me that rather than applause they would much prefer PPE (personal protective equipment), access to testing (both of staff and of a much wider range of patients), NHS managers who didn’t threaten them, and political leaders who seemed to have some sort of a clue. Already the names of five NHS doctors and several nurses and health care nurses who died of Covid19 almost certainly acquired from their work are in the public domain. These numbers are an understatement, as not every grieving family wants the details to be released to all and sundry. The numbers of staff deaths are the tip of the iceberg of what is to come. The death toll of Covid 19 is also, of course, massively higher than has been stated. Deaths are only listed when the patient has been tested positive; patients with false negative tests (about 30% or so) and those who die without having been tested are not included. This includes most of those dying in care homes, 13 in a single establishment in Glasgow, and large numbers elsewhere. The government almost daily announce how they are going to “ramp up” testing, but nothing happens. They announce how more ventilators are coming soon, not mentioning that more than 50% of those who are ventilated will die, or how oxygen and the drugs essential for patients on ventilators are already in short supply. None of this should be a surprise. In 2017 there was a pandemic awareness exercise, which showed that the NHS was woefully ill-prepared, but no action followed. Come Covid19 some bright spark thought up the mad idea of herd-immunity, without any thought as to its implications. Medical history shows that we are good at treating infectious disease. The principles are simple; identify those that are affected, isolate them, and protect their carers. The story of Covid19 so far in the UK is a disgrace. I hope even now my colleagues are preserving the evidence of what is criminal ineptitude. Meanwhile the lambs continue to be slaughtered in ever increasing numbers.
Comments
The government’s own advice would seem to be perfectly clear - ‘To be eligible for the grant employers must confirm in writing to their employee confirming that they have been furloughed. A record of this communication must be kept for five years.’ So the idea of a variation seems a bit weird.
https://twitter.com/lawsocgazette/status/1247135596952326146?s=21
1. Keep the proper Left policies.
2. Appeal to older voters.
3. Sincere reset with the Jewish community.
Stay Radical. Help The Aged. Impress Jews.
I like it but it's a shame that everything has to be this way now, courtesy of the brutalist Cummings.
My take (but talk to a lawyer who specialises in employment law!)
HMRC states: "Employers should discuss with their staff and make any changes to the employment contract by agreement. Employers may need to seek legal advice on the process. If sufficient numbers of staff are involved, it may be necessary to engage collective consultation processes to procure agreement to changes to terms of employment."
This is a change to the terms of employment, so the employer needs the employee’s agreement to the change of contract terms. They do not need unilateral power to change pay rates, just the employee’s agreement for this particular change.
Furloughed staff remain employees with all benefits etc. Just because the contract of employment has changed doesn’t affect that.
If the company is short on cash & has to let people go then that’s a valid reason for redundancies, but they would have to make redundancy payments as defined in law, or the employee’s contracts.
In other words, the employer is clearly using the threat of redundancy to push through an unfair change in contract terms that will allow them to make redundancies later at lower cost if they so choose & arbitrarily cut pay. Given that the company has the option to furlough these employees at 80% pay without any of these powers, this seems grossly out of order.
Funny, but naughty!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uvqJ1mTkEuY
https://twitter.com/internetbritish/status/1246876888733290498?s=21
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/05/apple-will-produce-1-million-face-shields-per-week-for-medical-workers.html
So it does make some sense that we would have more deaths given we started an effective measure at a later stage.
I just don’t get why there is this holding onto getting back to how things were. It’s not difficult to imagine that something more radical is needed in terms of how economies are put on hold (and how they are to be restructured afterwards). If ever ‘blue sky thinking’ (bleurgh) was required, surely it’s now?
https://order-order.com/2020/04/01/mps-self-isolating/
Whether they’re legally able to require the rest of the contract changes is a question for an employment lawyer / and or union rep (power on the ground sometimes trumps legal details) but it’s not necessary in order to be furloughed.
We haven't heard much about it spreading widely through the House of Lords - would be interesting to compare the two Houses.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-preview-yes-wisconsin-is-still-holding-its-primary-on-tuesday/
...the administration of Tuesday’s election could be a disaster, as the state’s election infrastructure strains under the weight of the coronavirus crisis. As of Sunday, 1,268,587 absentee ballots had been requested for the election — far more than election officials are equipped to handle. Not only is that almost six times as many as were cast in Wisconsin’s 2016 presidential primary, but it’s also probably a higher volume of absentee ballots than Wisconsin has ever handled. In the 2016 general election, for instance, only 819,316 absentee ballots were counted.1
In addition to the avalanche of ballots arriving by mail, polling places may also be overwhelmed on Tuesday due to a dire shortage of poll workers. As of last Tuesday, almost 60 percent of municipalities in Wisconsin did not have enough poll workers, and more than 100 did not have any. ...
The UK tipping point seems to have been half term skiing holidays in Italy, something done by a very small subset of the UK population - which includes a number of MPs and people they are likely to have have subsequently met.
Why should person C be released from lockdown here, when she lived with a brother who developed symptoms 2 days ago?
Posting again with the photo on my avatar (a Google shared photo didn't look.private enough to me). What the hell are the government letting person C out of isolation for??
Has to be just the 2 words.
I was glad to get out of there.
Please do not do it again.
I confidently forecast none will have done very well vs. Taiwan or South Korea. Taiwan could deserve country status in exchange for China's misdeeds. If China has let SARS-COV-2 spread as a result of errors or omissions - SARS-COV-1 in 2003 began in China but was brought under control and should have provided a warning - don't forgive it.
Sorry, off topiced you whilst trying to quote you.
Titter.
The advice is probably designed to be simple to follow, and to be effective in the majority of cases. In most cases if one member of a household gets it, it is very likely the rest will (regardless of whether they display symptoms). Anyway, this is mostly moot because of the shutdown people aren't going outside anyway.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1247130744260083712
With all the car parks closed, people are parking very carefully in the entrances to them. But it was very quiet. The only people I saw were two other cyclists.
Building work is still going on though at a big new housing estate next to Pye Green.
And a man well-versed in classical history should remember the example of Alexander.
For instance I don’t think you can legally make someone “instantly” redundant. There is a statutory consultation period
"Treat Jews as normal people" - that's FIVE words, is it not?
People can't process that.
There is no racist on earth - and there never has been - who treats people the same regardless of skin colour.
For the last two Thursday evenings I joined my family on our doorstep applauding the NHS staff (of whom I had been one, until two months ago), but many of my former colleagues are telling me that rather than applause they would much prefer PPE (personal protective equipment), access to testing (both of staff and of a much wider range of patients), NHS managers who didn’t threaten them, and political leaders who seemed to have some sort of a clue.
Already the names of five NHS doctors and several nurses and health care nurses who died of Covid19 almost certainly acquired from their work are in the public domain. These numbers are an understatement, as not every grieving family wants the details to be released to all and sundry. The numbers of staff deaths are the tip of the iceberg of what is to come. The death toll of Covid 19 is also, of course, massively higher than has been stated. Deaths are only listed when the patient has been tested positive; patients with false negative tests (about 30% or so) and those who die without having been tested are not included. This includes most of those dying in care homes, 13 in a single establishment in Glasgow, and large numbers elsewhere.
The government almost daily announce how they are going to “ramp up” testing, but nothing happens. They announce how more ventilators are coming soon, not mentioning that more than 50% of those who are ventilated will die, or how oxygen and the drugs essential for patients on ventilators are already in short supply.
None of this should be a surprise. In 2017 there was a pandemic awareness exercise, which showed that the NHS was woefully ill-prepared, but no action followed. Come Covid19 some bright spark thought up the mad idea of herd-immunity, without any thought as to its implications. Medical history shows that we are good at treating infectious disease. The principles are simple; identify those that are affected, isolate them, and protect their carers.
The story of Covid19 so far in the UK is a disgrace. I hope even now my colleagues are preserving the evidence of what is criminal ineptitude. Meanwhile the lambs continue to be slaughtered in ever increasing numbers.
General Westmoreland, I think.