Wage Subsidy Scheme Issues

MargoChanning

Question about the Wage Subsidy Scheme and working hours being reduced:
My partner was told his entire workplace were being put on a 3 day week, but his employer had applied for the wage subsidy scheme and would be getting 85% of their wage and would top up the remainder.
Then yesterday my partner and a couple of his colleagues were asked would they do their normal 5 day working week and not reduce their hours.
So am I correct in thinking that the people working a 3 day week, will come out with the same wage as my partner, even though he has been requested to work 5 days?
Seems unfair!

Alrigghtythen

MargoChanning wrote: »

Question about the Wage Subsidy Scheme and working hours being reduced:
My partner was told his entire workplace were being put on a 3 day week, but his employer had applied for the wage subsidy scheme and would be getting 85% of their wage and would top up the remainder.
Then yesterday my partner and a couple of his colleagues were asked would they do their normal 5 day working week and not reduce their hours.
So am I correct in thinking that the people working a 3 day week, will come out with the same wage as my partner, even though he has been requested to work 5 days?
Seems unfair!

Your partner would still be coming out with the same pre virus wage for the same amount of hours worked.

MargoChanning

Alrigghtythen wrote: »

Your partner would still be coming out with the same pre virus wage for the same amount of hours worked.

Yeah, it’s just kind of inequitable isn’t it? He would be getting the same wage for doing the 3 day week- it’s not creating much encouragement for him to do a 5 day week when most of his colleagues will be working 3 days and coming out with the same wage.

Alrigghtythen

MargoChanning wrote: »

Yeah, it’s just kind of inequitable isn’t it? He would be getting the same wage for doing the 3 day week- it’s not creating much encouragement for him to do a 5 day week when most of his colleagues will be working 3 days and coming out with the same wage.

Well speaking as a taxpayer who has worked 100% through the crisis I think its inequitable of your partner to expect reduced working hours with a top up from the government. Why doesnt he just explain to his employer his role can be done in 3 days/week and take the pay cut to match?

MargoChanning

Alrigghtythen wrote: »

Well speaking as a taxpayer who has worked 100% through the crisis I think its inequitable of your partner to expect reduced working hours with a top up from the government. Why doesnt he just explain to his employer his role can be done in 3 days/week and take the pay cut to match?

I’m speaking about the employer effectively creating a two tier system in the workplace, by allowing 90% of the workforce work a 3 day week for the same wage as a small minority who are being expected to work 5 days for the same amount. This was also done on the sly, as the employer didn’t confirm participation in the wage subsidy scheme until today, which is the last working day for the employees who are on a 3 day week.

My partner has also worked 100% through this crisis, thank you very much- not sure what relevance that has?

ilovespudss

MargoChanning wrote: »

I’m speaking about the employer effectively creating a two tier system in the workplace, by allowing 90% of the workforce work a 3 day week for the same wage as a small minority who are being expected to work 5 days for the same amount. This was also done on the sly, as the employer didn’t confirm participation in the wage subsidy scheme until today, which is the last working day for the employees who are on a 3 day week.

My partner has also worked 100% through this crisis, thank you very much- not sure what relevance that has?

Personally I think that's short term thinking. I'd be stepping back and reassessing. Yes, your husband could be currently working 3 days instead of 5 for the same money, but ultimately he's working the same hours for the same money as he was previously. Hard to see why you would feel hard done here.

He's in the 10% of that companies employees that management see as being vital to the company trading in the current climate. When the wage subsidy scheme ends in the near future, businesses up and down the country will have a choice to make on whether they can trade and pay staff as normal or if they will need to let people go to balance the books. It sounds like your husband is in a good position when that decision is being made.

Also, if the company is topping up those on a 3 day week fully, which they are not required to do, they would appear to be a decent company to work for. They could easily be making a cash saving there but are choosing not to.

The only way the company can make that arrangement more 'equitable', in your words, is to reduce other members of staff voluntary top ups and so reduce their take home pay. As this would have no impact on your husbands income I can't see what benefit it would be to him or the economy.

Just my view on it

MargoChanning

ilovespudss wrote: »

Personally I think that's short term thinking. I'd be stepping back and reassessing. Yes, your husband could be currently working 3 days instead of 5 for the same money, but ultimately he's working the same hours for the same money as he was previously. Hard to see why you would feel hard done here.

He's in the 10% of that companies employees that management see as being vital to the company trading in the current climate. When the wage subsidy scheme ends in the near future, businesses up and down the country will have a choice to make on whether they can trade and pay staff as normal or if they will need to let people go to balance the books. It sounds like your husband is in a good position when that decision is being made.

Also, if the company is topping up those on a 3 day week fully, which they are not required to do, they would appear to be a decent company to work for. They could easily be making a cash saving there but are choosing not to.

The only way the company can make that arrangement more 'equitable', in your words, is to reduce other members of staff voluntary top ups and so reduce their take home pay. As this would have no impact on your husbands income I can't see what benefit it would be to him or the economy.

Just my view on it

Ah I know, that’s my view on it as well to be honest. I was just being devils advocate, and also wondering had Revenue considered the implications of this situation being created in a workplace where only some of the staff on reduced hours, and the rest doing a normal weeks work, and all coming out with the same wage.

Seve OB

I have reinstated a leaver... who only left because they were not entitled to go on the scheme as they were a higher earner

i have ran the mos recent import from revenue.

it will not process a covid payment for these people even though they are now entitled to it

monthly payroll run, sage micropay

anyone come across this and figure out how to get around it?

je551e

Question for Collsoft if available thanks:


ARWNP per revenue is 580
Gov Sub claimed by employer is 406

Max top amount is 174 is 30%

Now employer states my normal net pay is 450 but because I receive commission in Jan/feb which by the way is regular, I am only allowed a max top up of 450-406 = 44.


Is this correct? many thanks.

doc22

je551e wrote: »

Question for Collsoft if available thanks:


ARWNP per revenue is 580
Gov Sub claimed by employer is 406

Max top amount is 174 is 30%

Now employer states my normal net pay is 450 but because I receive commission in Jan/feb which by the way is regular, I am only allowed a max top up of 450-406 = 44.


Is this correct? many thanks.

Your allowed the 174 the employer only wants to pay you 44

je551e

doc22 wrote: »

Your allowed the 174 the employer only wants to pay you 44

Thanks thought so

collsoft

Hi Je551,

Indeed Doc_22 is correct, you are allowed to be topped up to your ARNWP

je551e wrote: »

Question for Collsoft if available thanks:


ARWNP per revenue is 580
Gov Sub claimed by employer is 406

Max top amount is 174 is 30%

Now employer states my normal net pay is 450 but because I receive commission in Jan/feb which by the way is regular, I am only allowed a max top up of 450-406 = 44.


Is this correct? many thanks.

collsoft

Hi Seve_OB

There could be a couple of reasons why this might be the case.

In order to qualify for the subsidy you must satisfy the following;

1) The Gross Pay in this period must be at least 20% lower than the ARNWP

And

2) The Gross Pay must be less than €960 per week (or €4160 per month)


Finally, it could also be the case that you are entitled to a subsidy, but because of tapering the subsidy is being wiped out completely in which case you revert back to the normal PRSI class

Jason

Seve OB wrote: »

I have reinstated a leaver... who only left because they were not entitled to go on the scheme as they were a higher earner

i have ran the mos recent import from revenue.

it will not process a covid payment for these people even though they are now entitled to it

monthly payroll run, sage micropay

anyone come across this and figure out how to get around it?

Seve OB

got it sorted and figured out how to override,
i got onto revenue who gave me the ok as long as it was correct (it is, top etc all under thresholds)
he said that it actually takes a day or 2 for system to update the csv file once you request a rpn and i only did that today
he also said they plan to issue new rpns next monday across the board with changes/updates/reconciliations

shelladoo

Our company is one of the unfortunate ones who had an amendment made to the payroll submission which has made us ineligible for the scheme. This is despite the fact that we have lost 95% of turnover so can't afford to restart business without having access to the scheme. Its ludicrous that they say that the scheme is there to support business but yet there is no appeals process that you can do and that a simple adjustment before all this happened can have such devastating impact on a business. Revenue just keep spouting the rules "an amendment was made so you aren't eligible" - without looking at the reality of the situation for all the employees affected. If the scheme is widened to include those on maternity in February, surely it should include people too who were physically working during the period and had payslips but are now out of work because of it.

snowgal

what was the amendment made? Havent heard about that. Surely they should be encouraging as many businesses as possible to twss?

Seve OB

that sounds very odd
they did want amendments submitted because it would cause confusion but i did hear of them allowing some
what was amended? i think there must be more to this than a simple amendment

jj.vita

Hi, my employer pays me the wage subsidy of €350, and doesn’t top up my wages. I work 6 days per week approx 50 hours (more than before The Pandemic started, where I used to work 5 and 6 days every second week). I know that employer’s are not required to make the top up to my wages, but is it legal that I’m only being paid €7 per hour?

kennethsmyth

Nope, the minimum wage has not been stopped by the emergency legislation. Its still €10.10 an hour.

The covid payment under TWSS is between the employer and governement, your salary is not affected unless you let it be. However the choice could be paid something and continue to have a job or not have a job - however again this is your decision the employer should be paying salary related to hours worked.

Beasty

Threads merged

Seve OB

have an employee due back the week after next from maternity leave.
we are just going to put her on the covid payment along with everyone else.
nothing on the csv import file for her.
does anyone know the protocol here?

eh i dunno

jj.vita wrote: »

Hi, my employer pays me the wage subsidy of €350, and doesn’t top up my wages. I work 6 days per week approx 50 hours (more than before The Pandemic started, where I used to work 5 and 6 days every second week). I know that employer’s are not required to make the top up to my wages, but is it legal that I’m only being paid €7 per hour?

I would be finding a new job. No one should work for €7 an hour. Is it all employees or just you?

c.p.w.g.w

eh i dunno wrote: »

I would be finding a new job. No one should work for €7 an hour. Is it all employees or just you?

Hearing plenty of stories, were employers are only giving staff 70%, not topping it up but staff are doing more work than pre-covid19...

eh i dunno

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

Hearing plenty of stories, were employers are only giving staff 70%, not topping it up but staff are doing more work than pre-covid19...

Unfortunately that's true. Employers hold all the power now after employees held all the aces over the last few years with full employment. You can guarantee wage cuts will be on the table next especially when the covid payments end.

je551e

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

Hearing plenty of stories, were employers are only giving staff 70%, not topping it up but staff are doing more work than pre-covid19...

Lots of employers exploiting this . Employees should receive the same hourly rate at a minimum , IMO hours should be reduced to match the reduction in salaries or some agreement put in place to pay back the employee the extra hours worked.
Some employers think they can do this without any repercussions. There needs to be agreement between employees and employers and the employee needs to be fully aware of how their salary has been reduced.

Lundstram

jj.vita wrote: »

Hi, my employer pays me the wage subsidy of €350, and doesn’t top up my wages. I work 6 days per week approx 50 hours (more than before The Pandemic started, where I used to work 5 and 6 days every second week). I know that employer’s are not required to make the top up to my wages, but is it legal that I’m only being paid €7 per hour?

Make contact with the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC). They're very nice people and easy to deal with.

There's 16 year olds making more money per hour than you.

c.p.w.g.w

Lundstram wrote: »

Make contact with the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC). They're very nice people and easy to deal with.

There's 16 year olds making more money per hour than you.

My MIL has had to do that, but as they can't visit sites, employer is just feeding them lies, and they aren't believing the MIL

jj.vita

I’m not sure of other staff pay. It’s large company, never closed during pandemic, I don’t think their turnover got anyhow affected by the Pandemic. Will contact WRC as advised

collsoft

Hi Seve,

Revenue are going to publish the protocol next week, they have set a deadline of the 12th, but i am expecting details on Monday or Tuesday.

What I do know is that Employers will be required to contact Revenue on a case by case basis and advise them of the employee in question. (Probabally by a myenquiries question)

Revenue will then carry out a manual assesment of the case and assign the employee an ARNWP, subsidy etc and add them to the CSV file manually.

There will be a lookback to the actual date of when the employee came back to work and the subsidy will be back dated to that date. This will be some time after the CSV is updated.

So keep a looknout for the announcement next week, and whatever you do, dont process a J9 until the employee is listed in the CSV,

Json

Seve OB wrote: »

have an employee due back the week after next from maternity leave.
we are just going to put her on the covid payment along with everyone else.
nothing on the csv import file for her.
does anyone know the protocol here?

RandomViewer

jj.vita wrote: »

Hi, my employer pays me the wage subsidy of €350, and doesn’t top up my wages. I work 6 days per week approx 50 hours (more than before The Pandemic started, where I used to work 5 and 6 days every second week). I know that employer’s are not required to make the top up to my wages, but is it legal that I’m only being paid €7 per hour?

The top up requirment being voluntary only applies if you arent working, the idea is the subsidy 70% to 85% of previous wage plus top up to make up the difference, if you are working 50 hours thats €500 minimum, should be overtime rate for 11 hours too