Wage Subsidy Scheme Issues

eh i dunno

austenesque wrote: »

Hey hope someone can help!
If you are on the wage subsidy scheme getting the 70% from the goverment only - Can the employer force you to move from working part time to full time without topping up your wage?

Yes unfortunately once they can prove business is down by at least 25%

Glenbhoy

tiredblondie wrote: »

Thanks for looking at it for me - i just couldn't get my head around it.

So basically, come the end of the year when revenue starts taxing the wage subsidy payment, i'm going to owe a fairly high amount (350 x 20% or 40%)
Same as everyone else in here, only they've gotten the rebates now to cover it whereas i am going to be well out of pocket

I haven't looked at your numbers, but my understanding is that any excess tax owed at year end will be taken by adjusting your credits downwards for the next year, or possibly 2 years. In other words it's unlikely you'll have to file a return and pay the tax owing in one payment.

austenesque

eh i dunno wrote: »

Yes unfortunately once they can prove business is down by at least 25%

Really!! I thought the idea of theWSS was to keep people on the payroll with the employee either not working or working reduced hours until business improved. As business starts to return back to normal and companies need staff to return to working full time my understanding was that full wages should be reinstated?

eh i dunno

austenesque wrote: »

Really!! I thought the idea of theWSS was to keep people on the payroll with the employee either not working or working reduced hours until business improved. As business starts to return back to normal and companies need staff to return to working full time my understanding was that full wages should be reinstated?

No unfortunately not and employers can abuse it as much as they want

Tow

austenesque wrote: »

Really!! I thought the idea of theWSS was to keep people on the payroll with the employee either not working or working reduced hours until business improved. As business starts to return back to normal and companies need staff to return to working full time my understanding was that full wages should be reinstated?

You are correct. It's other purpose was to reduce number of PUP payments DEASP had to handle.

However, their are many employers thinking it is free money/labor from the state. They are now trying to pay employees and hitting off the employee's Maximum Employer Pay (Top up) limit. Then you have the chancers who are using the employee's own tax refunds to pay the employee etc...

SAMTALK

Tow wrote: »

You are correct. It's other purpose was to reduce number of PUP payments DEASP had to handle.

However, their are many employers thinking it is free money/labor from the state. They are now trying to pay employees and hitting off the employee's Maximum Employer Pay (Top up) limit. Then you have the chancers who are using the employee's own tax refunds to pay the employee etc...

Unfortunately this is happening. Our wages are being messed around with a lot and not getting answers when we question things.

we are getting tax refunds but our basic pay is down but because the nett is much the same they just say we're getting paid the same as always .

Have argued this every week and at this stage I'm so sick of it that if I could get Revenue on the phone I would start asking questions

austenesque

SAMTALK wrote: »

Unfortunately this is happening. Our wages are being messed around with a lot and not getting answers when we question things.

we are getting tax refunds but our basic pay is down but because the nett is much the same they just say we're getting paid the same as always .

Have argued this every week and at this stage I'm so sick of it that if I could get Revenue on the phone I would start asking questions

Yes definatly a lot of messing around with wages. The other issue is the 70% from gov is not net pay as this will be taxed at a later date. So if an employer for example tops up your net pay to 100% by paying out 30% themselves you are not actually recieving 100% net take home pay. So even if the employer tops up wages the employee is still at a loss. Is this correct?

kennethsmyth

austenesque wrote: »

Yes definatly a lot of messing around with wages. The other issue is the 70% from gov is not net pay as this will be taxed at a later date. So if an employer for example tops up your net pay to 100% by paying out 30% themselves you are not actually recieving 100% net take home pay. So even if the employer tops up wages the employee is still at a loss. Is this correct?

Nope, you are 100% correct in your statement above unless revenue decide at a later date that the covid twss payment will not be taxed. - I can't see this happening so instead the employees take the hit.

Pistachio19

austenesque wrote: »

Yes definatly a lot of messing around with wages. The other issue is the 70% from gov is not net pay as this will be taxed at a later date. So if an employer for example tops up your net pay to 100% by paying out 30% themselves you are not actually recieving 100% net take home pay. So even if the employer tops up wages the employee is still at a loss. Is this correct?

You'll possibly end up paying tax at a later stage. One of our employees is getting tax back which brings him over his average net salary for Jan/Feb. The other is getting a bit less than his usual net salary even though he's getting a few quid tax back. That all depends on a persons personal tax credit. One is married so probably sharing credits, one is not. We are not in a position while availing of the TWSS to pay him his full usual monthly amount. That would mean revenue would decrease their subsidy for him. While some people may think their employers are messing them around, chances are they are abiding by the rules and actually are using the correct figures. Both our employers are back working but it will take another couple of months before turnover picks up so we will continue to use the subsidy. I'd hate to think either of them thought we were messing them about

kennethsmyth

Pistachio19 wrote: »

You'll possibly end up paying tax at a later stage. One of our employees is getting tax back which brings him over his average net salary for Jan/Feb. The other is getting a bit less than his usual net salary even though he's getting a few quid tax back. That all depends on a persons personal tax credit. One is married so probably sharing credits, one is not. We are not in a position while availing of the TWSS to pay him his full usual monthly amount. That would mean revenue would decrease their subsidy for him. While some people may think their employers are messing them around, chances are they are abiding by the rules and actually are using the correct figures. Both our employers are back working but it will take another couple of months before turnover picks up so we will continue to use the subsidy. I'd hate to think either of them thought we were messing them about

Understand employers are going through difficult times however the twss is between employer and revenue, the salary is between employer and employee.

the corpo

Does anyone know if it's possible to actually phone Revenue regarding the scheme? Can't find a number

Tow

kennethsmyth wrote: »

Understand employers are going through difficult times however the twss is between employer and revenue, the salary is between employer and employee.

This is were the real fun starts. The employer is legally obliged to pay employee's contracted rate, unless an agreement is made before hand.

austenesque

Tow wrote: »

This is were the real fun starts. The employer is legally obliged to pay employee's contracted rate, unless an agreement is made before hand.

Yes this is my reasoning on it. Therefore it seems wrong that an employer can expect you to return working full time without reinstating contracted wages and employment conditions.

SAMTALK

Tow wrote: »

This is were the real fun starts. The employer is legally obliged to pay employee's contracted rate, unless an agreement is made before hand.

This is my argument with them. We werent told that we were being put on scheme in the 1st place. Just received pay slip and nothing said

Then in May our basic was reduced so they could avail of payment increase .

Total messing going on and as we were not on reduced wage at any stage I have said we should still have same basic pay as this was the agreement between them and me

Lollipop95

Has anyone had any issues with the Covid payment scheme? I applied 3 weeks ago online and still haven’t received anything..

collsoft

Hi TOW,

You have actually hit the nail on the head.

The only change to employment law for COVID was a change to prevent an employee from triggering automatic redundancy if they were laid off by their employer for 13 weeks or more

All other employment law remains in force, and the WRC are the only relevant authority (apart from the courts perhaps) - not Revenue.

Our support helpdesk has started to see a lot of queries coming in on this particular issue as employees are pushing back against working full time and being paid the subsidy.

We have seen legal advice to both employees and employers which suggest that an employer who has put an employee on the wage subsidy scheme without prior agreement is likely to be in breech of the employment contract.

Furthermore, we have seen employees who are saying that they are actually being paid below the minimum wage because they are in receipt of the subsidy.

Employees are really coming under pressure if they are trying to get a mortgage or loan because all the bank are looking at is the reduced gross pay.


On the flip side, if the government told you to shut up your business for 3 months then it is obviously going to take some time for them to recover after re-opening, and you should expect some kind of period where the employees will need to work full time until the companies turnover recovers.

This is all going to get very interesting.

Tow wrote: »

This is were the real fun starts. The employer is legally obliged to pay employee's contracted rate, unless an agreement is made before hand.

Pistachio19

Lollipop95 wrote: »

Has anyone had any issues with the Covid payment scheme? I applied 3 weeks ago online and still haven’t received anything..

Did you apply via Enquiries on ROS? Ours was approved straight away. Have a look at your ROS enquiries to see if they replied at all.

Renjit

SAMTALK wrote: »

This is my argument with them. We werent told that we were being put on scheme in the 1st place. Just received pay slip and nothing said

Then in May our basic was reduced so they could avail of payment increase .

Total messing going on and as we were not on reduced wage at any stage I have said we should still have same basic pay as this was the agreement between them and me

So why not work reduced hours as per the new net weekly pay?

Renjit

collsoft wrote: »

Employees are really coming under pressure if they are trying to get a mortgage or loan because all the bank are looking at is the reduced gross pay.

That's pretty much the case here. The bank is revising the mortgage amount now because of less than actual net weekly pay.

The employer is asking to work full time while paying less. Not sure about the legality here. The payslip doesn't mention the number of hours worked.

gb19815

Hi I’m back at work , my employer again availed of subsidy scheme due to business been down . My basic pay is €650, this week he used wage subsidy while I’m working full time . My basic pay was only €600 paying no tax , he used 350 subsidy and topped up by 250 . Am I right in saying it should be topped up to basic €650 regardless of whatever deductions I’m paying ?

eh i dunno

gb19815 wrote: »

Hi I’m back at work , my employer again availed of subsidy scheme due to business been down . My basic pay is €650, this week he used wage subsidy while I’m working full time . My basic pay was only €600 paying no tax , he used 350 subsidy and topped up by 250 . Am I right in saying it should be topped up to basic €650 regardless of whatever deductions I’m paying ?

No its up to the employer how much if anything he tops you up by?

gb19815

eh i dunno wrote: »

No its up to the employer how much if anything he tops you up by?

Hi thanks for reply , even though we are working full time ? For a better word my employer is a greedy c unt

je551e

Employees should be working reduced hours while on the scheme or some agreement made to pay the employee back the hours.

eh i dunno

gb19815 wrote: »

Hi thanks for reply , even though we are working full time ? For a better word my employer is a greedy c unt

In the same boat myself.

Tow

gb19815 wrote: »

Am I right in saying it should be topped up to basic €650 regardless of whatever deductions I’m paying ?

If your ARNWP is 650 (and you only have one employment) the max the employer could top you up by is €300. 350 + 300 = 650. But even if they did this you still have tax to pay on the subsidy next year.

SAMTALK

Renjit wrote: »

So why not work reduced hours as per the new net weekly pay?

Not given an option. They seem to think that because Nett pay is the same as our usual we are not out of pocket, despite the fact we are not paying tax on basic or covid

kennethsmyth

collsoft wrote: »

Hi TOW,

You have actually hit the nail on the head.

The only change to employment law for COVID was a change to prevent an employee from triggering automatic redundancy if they were laid off by their employer for 13 weeks or more

All other employment law remains in force, and the WRC are the only relevant authority (apart from the courts perhaps) - not Revenue.

Our support helpdesk has started to see a lot of queries coming in on this particular issue as employees are pushing back against working full time and being paid the subsidy.

We have seen legal advice to both employees and employers which suggest that an employer who has put an employee on the wage subsidy scheme without prior agreement is likely to be in breech of the employment contract.

Furthermore, we have seen employees who are saying that they are actually being paid below the minimum wage because they are in receipt of the subsidy.

Employees are really coming under pressure if they are trying to get a mortgage or loan because all the bank are looking at is the reduced gross pay.


On the flip side, if the government told you to shut up your business for 3 months then it is obviously going to take some time for them to recover after re-opening, and you should expect some kind of period where the employees will need to work full time until the companies turnover recovers.

This is all going to get very interesting.

I thought the timeline was 4 weeks the employee could initiate redundancy from employer and then the employer has to show that they can provide full work for next 13 weeks to allow them to refuse redundancy?

Tomrota

I’m a student who worked 5-12 hours per week during college. I’ve been brought back working today and I’m working full time 42 hours. I’ve been told by a colleague that our employer is using the subsidy scheme. What will my wage be does anyone know?

It cannot possibly be 85% of my average weekly wage in January/February, that’s absurd? That would be 2,76€ per hour.

Lundstram

Tomrota wrote: »

I’m a student who worked 5-12 hours per week during college. I’ve been brought back working today and I’m working full time 42 hours. I’ve been told by a colleague that our employer is using the subsidy scheme. What will my wage be does anyone know?

It cannot possibly be 85% of my average weekly wage in January/February, that’s absurd? That would be 2,76€ per hour.

Hour rate x 42 x .85 = your wage

SCOOP 64

Tomrota wrote: »

I’m a student who worked 5-12 hours per week during college. I’ve been brought back working today and I’m working full time 42 hours. I’ve been told by a colleague that our employer is using the subsidy scheme. What will my wage be does anyone know?

It cannot possibly be 85% of my average weekly wage in January/February, that’s absurd? That would be 2,76€ per hour.

Wouldn't it be 42 x your hourly rate then 85% of this?