The person I was referring to works in a restaurant. She absolutely cannot work from home. Therefore she can only claim the 80% salary if everyone is temporarily laid off. In the end, she didn't give enough info as they are fully closed and paying people anyway.
Those who work from home will be receiving their salary as normal so the 80% doesn't apply unless the business has to close and stop all homeworking.
The whole conversation was about the hospitality sector which is work that cannot be done from home, the early years which can't be done from home and non essential shops (everything but food and pharmacy)
If all these close then the Gov will cover 80% of all salaries as long as those people are taken back on after.
If they stay open (without forced closure) then employees can either work, self isolate and claim sick pay, not work and claim universal credit. The 80% will then come into play once the entire business closes.
Hi Emily
That's very interesting and if correct happy to concede my logic was flawed.
If it is correct it could present a challenging conundrum for businesses. For example:
A company might have 200 employees who work in the production facility which has to be closed down due to coronavirus. They may also have a team of 50 people who are engaged in product development, IT development, marketing, finance etc etc who could work from home completing tasks that would prepare the business to be up and running efficiently when the time is right.
If I am understanding the 80% correctly the company have 2 options:
1. Continue to operate which means that 50 people will receive full salary and the business will be well prepared for re-start whilst the 200 are forced to apply for SSP or Universal Credit, both of which will be (I assume) less than 80% of salary.
2. Close down the business so that all employees receive 80% of salary but the business will not be prepared for restart thus slowing the return to profitability and possibly leading to further job loss.
In option 1 the 200 will be resentful of the business owners and perhaps the 50 because they have been driven into poverty and have no promise of a job to return to.
In option 2, the business and perhaps the 50 will be resentful of the 200 because the 50 will only be receiving 80% of salary and the business will not be as well prepared for restart.
Is my understanding correct? If so what a choice. Which one do you think businesses will make?
