Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Government Benefits Megathread
Comments
-
Obviously for those awaiting a call back (I'm one) its straightforward enough, being self employed I guess a little more complicated.
If things do go awry and I have to leave my current job, I'd also be fairly peeved to be pushed into having to seek alternative employment before I can claim my fairly substantial redundancy on September 30th. That's a safety net that I won't be foregoing.
Redundancy discussion is going to have to come to the forefront soon, even just because the PUP is closed to new applicants from July 1st. People who are laid off after July 1st won't be able to claim redundancy for 3 months, which is an absolute joke really for anyone who finds themselves in that situation.0 -
Were they pushy at all about a timeframe of your return? I'm also waiting on a call back but the timeline of it is entirely dependent on the government loosening the restrictions on indoor gathering numbers for events and the return of regular foreign travel, particularly with the US. I'm going to be brought back as it stands now, but it could be September or October, it all depends on when restrictions lift and the planes are full again.
If things do go awry and I have to leave my current job, I'd also be fairly peeved to be pushed into having to seek alternative employment before I can claim my fairly substantial redundancy on September 30th. That's a safety net that I won't be foregoing.
Redundancy discussion is going to have to come to the forefront soon, even just because the PUP is closed to new applicants from July 1st. People who are laid off after July 1st won't be able to claim redundancy for 3 months, which is an absolute joke really for anyone who finds themselves in that situation.
Hi there,
To be honest, no they were not pushy but my sense is this is only the start of a process to try and reduce numbers on PUP. I agree with previous posts re redundancies as going to be a serious problem because I've no doubt alot of businesses really hanging on by a thin thread and will not be able to cover redundancy payments, leaving GOV to foot what's going to be a substantial bill.
You can not be pushed to do anything and certainly not leave a position technically and legal still active, the qualifying criteria for PUP has not changed, yes at some stage they'll start a push to get people looking however if they do that, they are opening up themselves for serious litigation if someone looses their redundancy entitlement through coercion, Hold firm, obviously express appreciation but make it clear you have a job and awaiting a call back (if this your situation) of course.
As an aside
It's very telling and I don't begrudge anyone in the Art's, but it seems to me a double standard being applied depending on the nature of your employment, if your an artist, kit gloves being applied, even suggestions of a living wage, if your a paye employee who's been laid off for 14 months, no such concerns.Is maith an scáthán súil charad.
0 -
You're spot on!
The lifting of the moratorium on redundancy applications at the end of September is not receiving any media coverage but it has to be of concern to the government.
And the timing of this gentle persuasion by the DEASP to get people to consider other forms of employment or retraining before the end of September is no coincidence.
Why all of a sudden the push? Could they not wait till September when PUP rates drop (and the economy is supposed to be fully open) and those people who have still not returned to work might be more open to alternative employment options?
I wonder will they push this out? If they don't there's going to some serious claims lodged and employers will just pass it on to government, its going to be an absolute mess I fearIs maith an scáthán súil charad.
0 -
I wonder will they push this out? If they don't there's going to some serious claims lodged and employers will just pass it on to government, its going to be an absolute mess I fear
https://amp.rte.ie/amp/1225527/Leo Varadkar also told businesses that the suspension of section 12A of the Redundancy Payments Act 1967 has been extended one last time until September 30, at which point employees can trigger a redundancy claim if not taken back on.
Varadkar was very clear that the current extension would be the last one. They might try roll back on it but there would surely be uproar given the PUP is already being cut from September 7th, 4 weeks earlier than people can claim their redundancy payments. Another few months extension, while they cut PUP rates again in November, would be a disgrace.0 -
https://amp.rte.ie/amp/1225527/
Varadkar was very clear that the current extension would be the last one. They might try roll back on it but there would surely be uproar given the PUP is already being cut from September 7th, 4 weeks earlier than people can claim their redundancy payments. Another few months extension, while they cut PUP rates again in November, would be a disgrace.
At this stage I'd take anything Leo says with a grain of salt to be honest, but yes I agree the situation is a mess.Is maith an scáthán súil charad.
0 -
Advertisement
-
Slightly off topic but does your time on temporary layoff count towards your redundancy time? Or is it classified as a break in service.0
-
Slightly off topic but does your time on temporary layoff count towards your redundancy time? Or is it classified as a break in service.
Good question, my understanding is that as it was a forced layoff your contractual entitlements may be affected, I've no doubt there will be varying views on this.
In simple terms you remain employed during whatever the layoff period is, as such Redundancy is based on length of service, but wether your service in relation to assessing redundancy entitlement includes the time you've been laid off is not entirely clear and I suspect given the numerous extensions on the suspension of normal redundancy legislation, there is going to be legal challenges, I suspect the WRC will be dealing with a lot of disputes around this serious issue.
There is a very curious point I've noticed as part of the suspension of redundancy entitlement mentioned on the WRC website, which might be tied to the "Must be actively seeking work" eligibility criteria added after a few months to the PUP entitlement. It states on the wrc website you can take up other work and it won't affect your redundancy entitlement, this I find a little concerning because legally if you take up another position, you have in a sense left your previous Job, thereby forfeiting your redundancy entitlement. I care less about temporary legislation and more about the well established law/ rules relevant to an employees and employers obligations.
There are other entitlements people may not be aware of, such as Bank Holidays, even if laid off because of the Pandemic you are entitled when the dust settles to any bank holidays not paid, these are adding up also.
There is no straightforward answers but I sense Employers, even those who cease to trade will be prioritised over Employees whatever the final outcome. Bad enough many have lost Jobs but additional losses such as Commissions, Bonus, Holiday entitlements, allowances etc never discussed or mentioned.
I'm not Blaming employers who like employees were thrown into this through no fault of theirs. Ultimately the government will pick up the tab, the question will be how big that tab will be.Is maith an scáthán súil charad.
0 -
There is a very curious point I've noticed as part of the suspension of redundancy entitlement mentioned on the WRC website, which might be tied to the "Must be actively seeking work" eligibility criteria added after a few months to the PUP entitlement. It states on the wrc website you can take up other work and it won't affect your redundancy entitlement, this I find a little concerning because legally if you take up another position, you have in a sense left your previous Job, thereby forfeiting your redundancy entitlement. I care less about temporary legislation and more about the well established law/ rules relevant to an employees and employers obligations.
Unsurprisingly, at a few interviews I've done this year (genuinely seeking work PUP condition box ticking), I pointed out that I would have no choice but to walk the minute my old employer made contact to protect my redundancy rights and unsurprisingly, I did not get those jobs! Better to be honest about it than leave a business in the lurch.There are other entitlements people may not be aware of, such as Bank Holidays, even if laid off because of the Pandemic you are entitled when the dust settles to any bank holidays not paid, these are adding up also.0 -
I queried this about a year ago with WRC, Citizens Information and an employment lawyer, with CI and the lawyer both telling me that the advice was designed to slyly move people away from their redundancy entitlements so the depleted Social Insurance Fund wouldn't have to pick up the tab. To maintain your right to redundancy you have to be available to your employer for immediate return to work and if there's any delay at all, your right to redundancy is gone.
Unsurprisingly, at a few interviews I've done this year (genuinely seeking work PUP condition box ticking), I pointed out that I would have no choice but to walk the minute my old employer made contact to protect my redundancy rights and unsurprisingly, I did not get those jobs! Better to be honest about it than leave a business in the lurch.
I've been curious about this one myself, but I don't think they'll let people claim for those entitlements for the duration of lay-off. The WRC guidelines say you get them for the first 13 weeks, and I reckon they'll stick strictly to that, although even with that caveat people will still be owed for Paddy's/Easter/May/June Bank Holidays from 2020. If they allowed people to claim all Bank Holidays throughout, employers would owe someone who was on the PUP from, say March '20 - September '21, 14 Bank Holiday days. So I'm expecting the pre-existing 13 week rule for Bank Holidays to stand to protect employers from having to pay those days or give extra time off to returning staff.
Fascinating your research re first point and I'm not at all surprised, it actually makes you wonder how they inserted the "must be looking for work" clause, quite some after pup was introduced. Fair enough we're someone has fully lost a position, p45 issued etc.
Agreed re the B/H and other entitlement lost however I still think there's going to be a lot of litigation generally. I spoke to my own solicitor (brother a high profile SC) and there has been a lot of disquiet in employment law circles.Is maith an scáthán súil charad.
0 -
I've been curious about this one myself, but I don't think they'll let people claim for those entitlements for the duration of lay-off. The WRC guidelines say you get them for the first 13 weeks, and I reckon they'll stick strictly to that, although even with that caveat people will still be owed for Paddy's/Easter/May/June Bank Holidays from 2020. If they allowed people to claim all Bank Holidays throughout, employers would owe someone who was on the PUP from, say March '20 - September '21, 14 Bank Holiday days. So I'm expecting the pre-existing 13 week rule for Bank Holidays to stand to protect employers from having to pay those days or give extra time off to returning staff.
I raised this issue on another thread.. 'Wage Subsidy'.. re Bank Holiday pay for the first 13 weeks of layoff.
The response I received was that unless those days are claimed within the applicable year, they cannot be carried forward to the next year.
This ruling also applies to any accumulated annual holidays due.
Essentially, all those days accumulated in 2020 while on layoff are now forfeited if employee is only returning to work sometime in 2021.
I didn't delve any deeper into it and I suspect it may vary depending on individual companys policy but apparently that is the legislation.0 -
Advertisement
-
I raised this issue on another thread.. 'Wage Subsidy'.. re Bank Holiday pay for the first 13 weeks of layoff.
The response I received was that unless those days are claimed within the applicable year, they cannot be carried forward to the next year.
This ruling also applies to any accumulated annual holidays due.
Essentially, all those days accumulated in 2020 while on layoff are now forfeited if employee is only returning to work sometime in 2021.
I didn't delve any deeper into it and I suspect it may vary depending on individual companys policy but apparently that is the legislation.
Hi there, its all well and good an employer stating this but if an employee has essentially been blocked from claiming their entitlements (which is the case for all on layoff but still legally employed and on PUP) it raises serious questions. In essence anyone on PUP could under no circumstances recieve payment from their employer, examples included owed holiday pay etc, if they did, their PUP payment would be stopped.
I appreciate those on wage subsidy schemes in a different situation.
Bank Holidays are not classified as part of a holiday entitlement, they are a stand alone entitlement in a calander year subject to working a specified amount of hours prior to each bank holiday. They are therefore not carried over. It is clear that for a period of the 13 weeks of forced layoff, employee's entitled to payment or time in lieu for any bank holidays that fell within that period, any suggestions otherwise by an employer is factually incorrect. There is clear guidence on this very topic on the wrc and citizen's info websites.
In relation to the wage subsidy scheme, whilst I understand revenue paid a percentage of an employees weekly wage, employers could top up etc, I don't think anything beyond a weekly rate of pay was factored in but equally I would have thought for example if an employee had a bank holiday, when employer was submitting payroll that week, either this would be recorded or for example even though employee only worked 4 days, they got paid 5, if I'm making sense? I don't know enough re wage subsidy schemes to be entirely sure but of course if someone on these schemes had been laid off for 13 weeks etc and then put on wage subsidy schemes, when these end, owed bank holidays will have to be revisited by employers whether they like it or not.Is maith an scáthán súil charad.
0 -
Hi there, its all well and good an employer stating this but if an employee has essentially been blocked from claiming their entitlements (which is the case for all on layoff but still legally employed and on PUP) it raises serious questions. In essence anyone on PUP could under no circumstances recieve payment from their employer, examples included owed holiday pay etc, if they did, their PUP payment would be stopped.
I appreciate those on wage subsidy schemes in a different situation.
Bank Holidays are not classified as part of a holiday entitlement, they are a stand alone entitlement in a calander year subject to working a specified amount of hours prior to each bank holiday. They are therefore not carried over. It is clear that for a period of the 13 weeks of forced layoff, employee's entitled to payment or time in lieu for any bank holidays that fell within that period, any suggestions otherwise by an employer is factually incorrect. There is clear guidence on this very topic on the wrc and citizen's info websites.
But is that not the crux of the matter? Blocked from claiming any Bank Holiday pay due within time limit allowed for fear of losing PUP entitlements.
Yet, same BH pay not officialy carried forward so therefore forfeited.
I dread to think the battle one would have on their hands in trying to claim entitled backpay under current.. and severly lacking in clarification.. guidelines.0 -
But is that not the crux of the matter? Blocked from claiming any Bank Holiday pay due within time limit allowed for fear of losing PUP entitlements.
Yet, same BH pay not officialy carried forward so therefore forfeited.
I dread to think the battle one would have on their hands in trying to claim entitled backpay under current.. and severly lacking in clarification.. guidelines.
Of course I anticipate disputes over this issue but as explained there's a 13 week rule applying to the payment of B/H. It may not of course be black and white but an entitlement is an entitlement, its not so much something being carried forward, particularly BH as they are not carried forward. I suppose a simplistic way of looking at it would be that an employee was laid off for say 14 weeks, goes back and reminds employer, they lhave not been paid or got time in liue for the bank Holidays that fell during layoff , here's the information on it. The same will apply if as in many cases, employees return after a year. The calander year should not apply to something that's not carried over.
I suppose these are exceptional circumstances in exceptional times and I'm just suggesting if we go by what the rules state, the BH that fell within the first 13 week (Pandemic) lay off remain owing or un resolved.
And yes I fully agree, the guidelines are all over the placeIs maith an scáthán súil charad.
0 -
Fascinating your research re first point and I'm not at all surprised, it actually makes you wonder how they inserted the "must be looking for work" clause, quite some after pup was introduced. Fair enough we're someone has fully lost a position, p45 issued etc.
Varadkar strikes again here. He did an interview last summer where he mentioned people on PUP needing to be seeking work, around the time of all the furore last year about people on PUP going on holidays (THE HORROR) and as a direct result of that interview the seeking employment caveat was added to the PUP conditions. It was so glaringly obvious that it had been hastily amended because it took days for them to update the Irish language version of the guidelines to include the seeking work line. It was all in pursuit of covering Varadkar's arse so nobody thought he was just making conditions up as he went along, even though he was, the f*cking gowl.
They're going to have a lot of stuff to work out as we head towards September around all the other items discussed above; it's going to be a complete 'mare for employees, employers, the WRC, trade unions, the works. The nearer we get to September 30th the worse this is all going to get as the nitty gritty details are all going to need shaking out with clarity provide to all involved.
I'm going to be arming myself with all the info I can accrue in the coming weeks about it in case I need it, but you'd imagine there's already hundreds or thousands of workers who are off PUP and gone back to work and don't know they're potentially entitled to back pay or pay in lieu for Bank Holidays and Annual Leave. Lot of people have been left hanging out to dry because the government put no thought into all this.0 -
Varadkar strikes again here. He did an interview last summer where he mentioned people on PUP needing to be seeking work, around the time of all the furore last year about people on PUP going on holidays (THE HORROR) and as a direct result of that interview the seeking employment caveat was added to the PUP conditions. It was so glaringly obvious that it had been hastily amended because it took days for them to update the Irish language version of the guidelines to include the seeking work line. It was all in pursuit of covering Varadkar's arse so nobody thought he was just making conditions up as he went along, even though he was, the f*cking gowl.
They're going to have a lot of stuff to work out as we head towards September around all the other items discussed above; it's going to be a complete 'mare for employees, employers, the WRC, trade unions, the works. The nearer we get to September 30th the worse this is all going to get as the nitty gritty details are all going to need shaking out with clarity provide to all involved.
I'm going to be arming myself with all the info I can accrue in the coming weeks about it in case I need it, but you'd imagine there's already hundreds or thousands of workers who are off PUP and gone back to work and don't know they're potentially entitled to back pay or pay in lieu for Bank Holidays and Annual Leave. Lot of people have been left hanging out to dry because the government put no thought into all this.
Very Elegantly putand Ive watched from the outset, every twist and turn regarding PUP. A genuinely appreciated support but increasingly becoming a thorn in the side of Leo & Co.
I once recall the "we're in this Together" mantra, long since been replaced with PUP recepient smearing. Politically and thankfully there is support albeit primarily from the opposition.
The next few week's, months will be interesting albeit worrying for many. There's a sad other reality in all of this, alot of small businesss that have reopened will avail of that awful saying "pented up demand", when the landlords come a calling for substantial rental debts owed, banks leniency sways and government supports end those 1000"s of small businesses will close again and for good this time, probably as soon as October. Leo's belief the economy will take off like a rocket, will ultimately be the opposite ending to the sound of a damp squib.Is maith an scáthán súil charad.
0 -
They're going to have a lot of stuff to work out as we head towards September around all the other items discussed above; it's going to be a complete 'mare for employees, employers, the WRC, trade unions, the works. The nearer we get to September 30th the worse this is all going to get as the nitty gritty details are all going to need shaking out with clarity provide to all involved.
I'm going to be arming myself with all the info I can accrue in the coming weeks about it in case I need it, but you'd imagine there's already hundreds or thousands of workers who are off PUP and gone back to work and don't know they're potentially entitled to back pay or pay in lieu for Bank Holidays and Annual Leave. Lot of people have been left hanging out to dry because the government put no thought into all this.
Precisely!
Just yesterday I had a conversation with my employer regards returning to work after 15 months of layoff.
He offered me 4 days work per week at 4 hours per day!
A total of 16 hours pay.
This would result in a substantial reduction compared to what I'm currently receiving on PUP ( pre-pandemic, I was a full time employee on an income greater than PUP rates).
He seemed baffled at my rejection of his offer. Even though I explained to him clearly the vast drop in my weekly income.
Now, I don't know where I stand as regarding my potential claim to redundancy as I have effectively turned down a request to return to work.. despite that request resulting in a severly detrimental effect to my basic living wage income.
I've tried to find info relating to this particular situation but as I stated earlier.. there's a serious lack of clarification from the relevant government bodies.0 -
Precisely!
Just yesterday I had a conversation with my employer regards returning to work after 15 months of layoff.
He offered me 4 days work per week at 4 hours per day!
A total of 16 hours pay.
This would result in a substantial reduction compared to what I'm currently receiving on PUP ( pre-pandemic, I was a full time employee on an income greater than PUP rates).
He seemed baffled at my rejection of his offer. Even though I explained to him clearly the vast drop in my weekly income.
Now, I don't know where I stand as regarding my potential claim to redundancy as I have effectively turned down a request to return to work.. despite that request resulting in a severly detrimental effect to my basic living wage income.
I've tried to find info relating to this particular situation but as I stated earlier.. there's a serious lack of clarification from the relevant government bodies.
Absolutely shocking, 16 hours? My god why did he even bother offering. I'm sorry to hear this and I suspect this will happen to a lot of people, I hate to suggest it but this may also be a mechanism to avoid redundancy.
However there are some interesting points in link I'll attach, it's not quite as simple as informing an employee their hours are reducing, this potential/provision must be in your contract of employment.
It may not be of much help as you seemed to have done your own research but look through it. I won't add insult to injury but worth pointing out offering you (4 days) with reduced hours may also impact if you can claim a reduced payment benefit from SW.
Just a word of caution re refusal of this offer, you'll know about the PUP criteria and whilst on the surface you are completely justified so keep the eligibility criteria at the back of your mind.
Remain positive, if at all possible
https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/unemployment_and_redundancy/redundancy/lay_off_short_time_working_and_redundancy.htmlIs maith an scáthán súil charad.
0 -
Ask him to give you 2 8hr days and then you can claim the other days from the welfare otherwise you would be entitled to nothing from welfare.0
-
Absolutely shocking, 16 hours? My god why did he even bother offering. I'm sorry to hear this and I suspect this will happen to a lot of people, I hate to suggest it but this may also be a mechanism to avoid redundancy.
However there are some interesting points in link I'll attach, it's not quite as simple as informing an employee their hours are reducing, this potential/provision must be in your contract of employment.
It may not be of much help as you seemed to have done your own research but look through it. I won't add insult to injury but worth pointing out offering you (4 days) with reduced hours may also impact if you can claim a reduced payment benefit from SW.
Just a word of caution re refusal of this offer, you'll know about the PUP criteria and whilst on the surface you are completely justified so keep the eligibility criteria at the back of your mind.
Remain positive, if at all possible
Cheers Dempo1!
I couldn't help but feel at the time the offer was a deliberately 'crap' offer.
As if he knew full well that I could not accept but at least he was making an offer and that got him off the hook should he be contacted by DEASP or whoever. Which I suspect is what's happening at the moment.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Cheers Dempo1!
I couldn't help but feel at the time the offer was a deliberately 'crap' offer.
As if he knew full well that I could not accept but at least he was making an offer and that got him off the hook should he be contacted by DEASP or whoever. Which I suspect is what's happening at the moment.
At present I don't believe SW actually contacting employers, but I agree that may change, whether there is data protection issues I can't say, currently employers can report employee's who refuse their Jobs back however being offered a 1/4 of your job back is absolutely not the same as being offered your actual Job back.
To date there's been very little, almost miniscule amounts of employers reporting employee's. My advice is hold fast, if you are contacted by SW, I absolutely and categorically deny you were offered your full time job back and furthermore you potentially persuing a redundancy claim.
Have you a contract of employment? If so is there any provision for your hours to be reduced?, I'm assuming your happy enough you have the service to be eligible for redundancy etc.
It's going to be cases such as yours that are going to create a stink, so hold fast, make no quick decisions.Is maith an scáthán súil charad.
0 -
Precisely!
Just yesterday I had a conversation with my employer regards returning to work after 15 months of layoff.
He offered me 4 days work per week at 4 hours per day!
A total of 16 hours pay.
This would result in a substantial reduction compared to what I'm currently receiving on PUP ( pre-pandemic, I was a full time employee on an income greater than PUP rates).
He seemed baffled at my rejection of his offer. Even though I explained to him clearly the vast drop in my weekly income.
Now, I don't know where I stand as regarding my potential claim to redundancy as I have effectively turned down a request to return to work.. despite that request resulting in a severly detrimental effect to my basic living wage income.
I've tried to find info relating to this particular situation but as I stated earlier.. there's a serious lack of clarification from the relevant government bodies.
I'm sorry you've to deal with that, it's a serious headache in an already highly unpleasant and uncertain situation. This could end up being an example case study of what we might see going forward... Bring employees back on short term working hours but short term hours are allowed to be questioned after 4 weeks, upon which you need to be guaranteed 13 weeks of unbroken work or you can claim redundancy. But how does that work if redundancies are banned?
These are the real issues with the PUP. While undoubtedly a fantastic thing to be introduced by the government, it was a blunt instrument and aside from demonising it, trying to cut rates and attempting to end the payment entirely on several occasions, the government have put no other thought or energy into it. The blunt instrument remains blunt rather than being refined to sensibly link it with pre-pandemic policy around working hours, lay off, shorter weeks and redundancies. It's maddening to hear of cases like yours, that shouldn't be arising but for the ineptitude of government to apply sense and refine the guidelines of the payment.
I'd hold on if I were you, definitely. Get your ducks in a row, contact Citizens Information and Welfare departments to probe around these issues and try and glean any information you can from them. Although I'd imagine in the end they'll be in the dark about this as much as we are. I feel sorry for the person from Welfare who's going to be calling me next week to check in because I'm going to have more questions for him than he's going to have for me.0 -
At present I don't believe SW actually contacting employers, but I agree that may change, whether there is data protection issues I can't say, currently employers can report employee's who refuse their Jobs back however being offered a 1/4 of your job back is absolutely not the same as being offered your actual Job back.
To date there's been very little, almost miniscule amounts of employers reporting employee's. My advice is hold fast, if you are contacted by SW, I absolutely and categorically deny you were offered your full time job back and furthermore you potentially persuing a redundancy claim.
Have you a contract of employment? If so is there any provision for your hours to be reduced?, I'm assuming your happy enough you have the service to be eligible for redundancy etc.
It's going to be cases such as yours that are going to create a stink, so hold fast, make no quick decisions.
I do have a contract of employment and there is a provision for hours to be reduced in the event of downturn of business which I was aware of and agreed to.
However, I was under the assumption that having been laid off for more than 6 weeks I could trigger a redundancy claim.
Granted, that avenue has been blocked off till end of September. But when Sep. ends and I have not returned to work on my original terms and conditions, then I believed I was still eligible to claim statutary redundancy.0 -
I do have a contract of employment and there is a provision for hours to be reduced in the event of downturn of business which I was aware of and agreed to.
However, I was under the assumption that having been laid off for more than 6 weeks I could trigger a redundancy claim.
Granted, that avenue has been blocked off till end of September. But when Sep. ends and I have not returned to work on my original terms and conditions, then I was still eligible to claim statutary redundancy.
I believe you are correct in your assumption, it's going to come down to interpretation of redundancy legislation and how the pandemic has impacted that and like many others you will have an arguable case. In the true meaning and spirt of redundancy legislation 1000"s will be in a similar bind.
A few years ago employers could claim for any redundancy payments made so there was little net cost to them, all that has since changed and now they can't claim any refunds. Currently if an employer fails or is unable to pay redundancy, then the government step in, for an employer to claim they can't afford to pay, they have to prove it.
I had a hope that Government would come up with a mechanism to help employers with this issue but such is the cost of this and the pandemic, it's unlikely. I still believe you should hold fast.Is maith an scáthán súil charad.
0 -
A few years ago employers could claim for any redundancy payments made so there was little net cost to them, all that has since changed and now they can't claim any refunds. Currently if an employer fails or is unable to pay redundancy, then the government step in, for an employer to claim they can't afford to pay, they have to prove it.
I had a hope that Government would come up with a mechanism to help employers with this issue but such is the cost of this and the pandemic, it's unlikely. I still believe you should hold fast.
I think all they've offered so far is an interest free loan to employers to pay a redundancy from the Social Insurance Fund rather than the pre-pandenic practice of basically having to declare insolvency almost for the SIF to step in and pay the employees package.
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/government-to-offer-interest-free-loans-to-firms-struggling-to-pay-redundancy-1.4583286“Companies genuinely unable to pay will be able to get an interest-free loan from the Social Insurance Fund,” Mr Varadkar said in the letter.
ICTU have been crawling all over them more than others about these things, so I think the likes of Dr. Laura Bambrick and others high in that organisation are going to play a key part in keeping these discussions live in the media as we progress through summer.0 -
I think all they've offered so far is an interest free loan to employers to pay a redundancy from the Social Insurance Fund rather than the pre-pandenic practice of basically having to declare insolvency almost for the SIF to step in and pay the employees package.
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/government-to-offer-interest-free-loans-to-firms-struggling-to-pay-redundancy-1.4583286
ICTU have been crawling all over them more than others about these things, so I think the likes of Dr. Laura Bambrick and others high in that organisation are going to play a key part in keeping these discussions live in the media as we progress through summer.
I really hope so, just so depressing hearing stories like people being offered a fraction of their jobs back if at all, it's a shocking thing to say but in one sense its almost better if a business closes or ceases trading ( I don't wish this of course) but you'll get my meaning. I'd heard of tge interest free loan idea but I think we both know, few if any employers will take that offer up.Is maith an scáthán súil charad.
0 -
Cheers Dempo1!
I couldn't help but feel at the time the offer was a deliberately 'crap' offer.
As if he knew full well that I could not accept but at least he was making an offer and that got him off the hook should he be contacted by DEASP or whoever. Which I suspect is what's happening at the moment.
Cannot change hours and pay without consultation - this is a bare minimum, I'll say there will be plenty of WRC cases next year essentially having to pay statutory redundancy up to the max of 2 years salary as that is the max WRC can apply.0 -
kennethsmyth wrote: »Cannot change hours and pay without consultation - this is a bare minimum, I'll say there will be plenty of WRC cases next year essentially having to pay statutory redundancy up to the max of 2 years salary as that is the max WRC can apply.
Fully agree but what does a consultation actually entail, an sms thread, a phone call, email etc, I suppose my point being we can certainly expect the norms will potentially be thrown out the window, I for one won't be tolerating itIs maith an scáthán súil charad.
0 -
Fully agree but what does a consultation actually entail, an sms thread, a phone call, email etc, I suppose my point being we can certainly expect the norms will potentially be thrown out the window, I for one won't be tolerating it
The norms will be as to the levels employees allow themselves to be pushed to. If there is pushback employers will find themselves without employees and a WRC case to handle regardless. The government has essentially put employers on the line for any issues as they have given the TWSS and PUP but made it so employers will be at fault if they do not keep to regulations. The only regulation changed was the forced redundancy legislation that an employee could push for if they were laid off for 4 wks and or not given 13wks of normal employment once requested. All other employee rights have not changed - even in the pandemic.
EWSS is what it should of been from the start not the TWSS as this did not allow employers to pay full gross pay without losing their funds from revenue as TWSS was net based.0 -
Advertisement
-
Anyone know what the qualifying criteria are for the EWSS after this month???0
Advertisement