Wage Subsidy Scheme Issues

head82

PickYourName wrote: »

Can you give a reference to where the government says it's OK to return people to full time work and pay them only the WSS?

I'm not saying the government claimed it was 'OK' to return people to work and only pay WSS.

But by the same token.. they never said it wasn't OK!

And it's this specific lack of clarification that is causing confusion.

Hence.. a 'loophole' that is being exploited by some employers.

PickYourName

head82 wrote: »

I'm not saying the government claimed it was 'OK' to return people to work and only pay WSS.

Direct quote from you (my emphasis) "According to the government take on this, you could quite legitimately have requested staff to return to full time work and still only pay them the WSS portion of their salary."

head82 wrote: »

But by the same token.. they never said it wasn't OK!

That's just childish: do you seriously expect the Revenue to state "by the way, you must pay at least minimum wage" or "other laws may apply" in their description of the scheme?

head82 wrote: »

And it's this specific lack of clarification that is causing confusion.

Hence.. a 'loophole' that is being exploited by some employers.

It seems to me you are going out of your way to find a "loophole" where none exists.

collsoft

Hi Alan

The fix that is available for people who were on maternity leave is also open to people who were on Illness Benefit as well.

If you refer to section 15.1 in the employee guide available here>>


It states that

"Where you are returning to work after Maternity, Adoptive, Paternity or Parental leave or directly related unpaid leave, or having received Health and Safety, Parent's or Illness benefit, it is understood that in some cases your income may have only consisted of the relevant benefit paid directly by DEASP, or may have been nil, where you were on unpaid leave.

As a result, you may not have been on the payroll on the 29 February or have not been paid in January or February 2020 and, consequently you either do not qualify for the TWSS or qualify for a reduced subsidy. This process is aimed at addressing these issues by ensuring that a full subsidy is paid."


Now you mentioned that your employer was providing a top up in this period and so your ARNWP is low and hence your subsidy is low. I know the document above talks about people who were not paid, but as far as I know it also covers employees who got top-ups from their employer and who have been disadvantaged as a result.

You will have to ask your employer to apply to Revenue for a revised subsidy calculation and he can find the instructions in section 3.15 of the Employer Wage Subsidy FAQ here>>


It takes a bit of time to process, but it is worth it. Initially the new subsidy will increase when your claim is processed, but eventually it will be back dated to the date when you recommenced work.

Hope this helps

Jason

alan partridge aha wrote: »

Hi maybe this has been covered. Employer doing the 70 30 wage scheme.

However for January and 1st week of Feb I was getting illness benefit (work acc) of €203 and the rest was made up by my employer.

Now I've been getting this wage subsidy since end of March. It's my gross wage less €203. This wage subsidy is set to continue till end of August. Also revenue are giving me a small bit of tax back.

Does anyone know is revenue going to sort this out or am I just going to be out of pocket. I know women on maternity leave have issues as well.

head82

=PickYourName;
That's just childish: do you seriously expect the Revenue to state "by the way, you must pay at least minimum wage" or "other laws may apply" in their description of the scheme?

It seems to me you are going out of your way to find a "loophole" where none exists.

Yes, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect clarification on this scheme and avoidance of any potentially unwanted issues down the line.

If you can point me in the direction where it states minimum wage must be complied with under this scheme, I'll humbly refrain from raising the issue any further.

Until then, the lack of information regards employers commitments is only going to cause more discontent between employers/employees.

Please understand, I'm not looking for a 'loophole' or advocating the exploitation of any shortcoming in the governments plan of this scheme.

But it is there and has been witnessed on these threads by a number of disgruntled employees.. used by employers to extract cheap labour from staff.

collsoft

Hi Head82,

The only change to employment law during the pandemic was around redundancies preventing employees triggering redundancy because they have been temporarily laid off.

Absolutely noting else has changed in employment law or regulations including the minimum wage.

The relevant regulations concerning the current level of minimum wage are available here.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2020/si/8/made/en/print

Perhaps you can point us to something that states that the above regulations no longer apply in any circumstances including within the wage subsidy scheme?

head82 wrote: »

Yes, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect clarification on this scheme and avoidance of any potentially unwanted issues down the line.

If you can point me in the direction where it states minimum wage must be complied with under this scheme, I'll humbly refrain from raising the issue any further.

Until then, the lack of information regards employers commitments is only going to cause more discontent between employers/employees.

Please understand, I'm not looking for a 'loophole' or advocating the exploitation of any shortcoming in the governments plan of this scheme.

But it is there and has been witnessed on these threads by a number of disgruntled employees.. used by employers to extract cheap labour from staff.

head82

collsoft wrote: »

Hi Head82,

The only change to employment law during the pandemic was around redundancies preventing employees triggering redundancy because they have been temporarily laid off.

Absolutely noting else has changed in employment law or regulations including the minimum wage.

The relevant regulations concerning the current level of minimum wage are available here.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2020/si/8/made/en/print

Perhaps you can point us to something that states that the above regulations no longer apply in any circumstances including within the wage subsidy scheme?

I am not disputing any change in employment law. If anything, I'm crying out for that law to be enforced!

What I'm try to emphasize is that the WSS does not allow for that law to be implemented.

Instead of asking me to point you in the direction of "something that states that the above regulations no longer apply in any circumstances including within the wage subsidy scheme?".. can you ..or anyone.. direct me to where it says that employers MUST top-up to at least minimum wage within the WSS?

Just to refer back to earlier posters query:

Hi all.Ive been on wage subsidy scheme since day 1 it was available.
Until today I worked 25h a week and my wages were not topped up and im getting 350 covid and 1cent wages plus 45€ tax and usc refund.

Just received call that from next monday we will be back to 40h but our wages still wont be topped up and no extra money for working sundays.
Can they force me to work 40h for 350 and giving me excuse that im also getting 40€ tak refund?
Company also didnt include my commison when calculating my income for scheme

Now it would seem to me this individual is likely facing redundancy if they refuse to return to work for LESS than minimum wage due to a lack of clarification on behalf of WSS regarding obligations of employers to top-up to at least minimum rates.

fly_agaric

Delurking, and maybe butting in somewhat but that paragraph above does looks like trying to pay someone less than min wage (??)

Where they get hold of the money to actually pay out the below minimum wage wages (covid-19 wage supplement scheme or their own resources) would seem to be quite irrelevant to me anyway.

Are Revenue responsible for enforcing minimum wage on employers? I don't think they are but maybe someone with more knowledge can give that information?

kennethsmyth

head82 wrote: »

I am not disputing any change in employment law. If anything, I'm crying out for that law to be enforced!

What I'm try to emphasize is that the WSS does not allow for that law to be implemented.

Instead of asking me to point you in the direction of "something that states that the above regulations no longer apply in any circumstances including within the wage subsidy scheme?".. can you ..or anyone.. direct me to where it says that employers MUST top-up to at least minimum wage within the WSS?

Just to refer back to earlier posters query:



Now it would seem to me this individual is likely facing redundancy if they refuse to return to work for LESS than minimum wage due to a lack of clarification on behalf of WSS regarding obligations of employers to top-up to at least minimum rates.

Ok this needs to be put to bed. The minimum wage has not changed its 10.10 per hour and always was during covid as well. The only thing changed was an employee could not force a redundancy situation after 4 weeks of laid off. The emergency legislation temporarily stopped this.

Employer cannot pay less than minimum wage and the relevant authority is the WRC who can and will investigate these infractions as they would be considered serious. There is no grey area here.

alan partridge aha

collsoft wrote: »

Hi Alan

The fix that is available for people who were on maternity leave is also open to people who were on Illness Benefit as well.

If you refer to section 15.1 in the employee guide available here>>


It states that

"Where you are returning to work after Maternity, Adoptive, Paternity or Parental leave or directly related unpaid leave, or having received Health and Safety, Parent's or Illness benefit, it is understood that in some cases your income may have only consisted of the relevant benefit paid directly by DEASP, or may have been nil, where you were on unpaid leave.

As a result, you may not have been on the payroll on the 29 February or have not been paid in January or February 2020 and, consequently you either do not qualify for the TWSS or qualify for a reduced subsidy. This process is aimed at addressing these issues by ensuring that a full subsidy is paid."


Now you mentioned that your employer was providing a top up in this period and so your ARNWP is low and hence your subsidy is low. I know the document above talks about people who were not paid, but as far as I know it also covers employees who got top-ups from their employer and who have been disadvantaged as a result.

You will have to ask your employer to apply to Revenue for a revised subsidy calculation and he can find the instructions in section 3.15 of the Employer Wage Subsidy FAQ here>>


It takes a bit of time to process, but it is worth it. Initially the new subsidy will increase when your claim is processed, but eventually it will be back dated to the date when you recommenced work.

Hope this helps

Jason

Thank you so much for this very full reply, it's very much appreciated.

head82

kennethsmyth wrote: »

Ok this needs to be put to bed. The minimum wage has not changed its 10.10 per hour and always was during covid as well. The only thing changed was an employee could not force a redundancy situation after 4 weeks of laid off. The emergency legislation temporarily stopped this.

Employer cannot pay less than minimum wage and the relevant authority is the WRC who can and will investigate these infractions as they would be considered serious. There is no grey area here.

Fine then! So there is an obligation on employers to top-up subsidy (at least to minimum wage), despite WSS making no mention of this in their briefing.

This should be of some comfort to the OPs query regarding being expected to work full time at illegal hourly rate.

Hopefully they won't have to resort to WRC to have it enforced.

PickYourName

head82 wrote: »

Fine then! So there is an obligation on employers to top-up subsidy (at least to minimum wage), despite WSS making no mention of this in their briefing.

The reason it's not mentioned is because there is no such obligation. If, for example, someone returns to work part-time, the wage subsidy amount may more than cover the minimum wage for the hours worked.

There's a whole host of employment law that still applies, working hours/break times, holiday pay etc. etc. Do you expect Revenue to remind you of all of them in all its communications?

head82

PickYourName wrote: »

The reason it's not mentioned is because there is no such obligation. If, for example, someone returns to work part-time, the wage subsidy amount may more than cover the minimum wage for the hours worked.

And if the hours worked is not covered by the wage subsidy amount?
If the subsidy falls far short of minimum wage for a full 40 hr week.. which it obviously will.. where does that leave the employee?

PickYourName

head82 wrote: »

And if the hours worked is not covered by the wage subsidy amount?
If the subsidy falls far short of minimum wage for a full 40 hr week.. which it obviously will.. where does that leave the employee?

I think you're being deliberately obtuse at this stage.

I've answered this at least twice already, as have others.

It is illegal to pay less than the minimum wage.

My recommendation would be for the employee to make their case to their employer and if they didn't get anywhere with that to speak to a union and/or take a case to the WRC.

head82

PickYourName wrote: »

I think you're being deliberately obtuse at this stage.

I've answered this at least twice already, as have others.

It is illegal to pay less than the minimum wage.

My recommendation would be for the employee to make their case to their employer and if they didn't get anywhere with that to speak to a union and/or take a case to the WRC.

Apologies if I'm coming across as 'obtuse'. It's not deliberate.
I'm really just trying to get an educated answer from someone more informed than myself or at least a link to information that would inform me regards (what I believe to be) a poorly thought out scheme.

PickYourName

head82 wrote: »

Apologies if I'm coming across as 'obtuse'. It's not deliberate.
I'm really just trying to get an educated answer from someone more informed than myself or at least a link to information that would inform me regards (what I believe to be) a poorly thought out scheme.

I’m afraid I don’t believe you: your statements and assertions simply don’t support your latest claim of just looking to be informed:

“the WSS does not allow for that law [minimum wage] to be implemented.”

"According to the government take on this, you could quite legitimately have requested staff to return to full time work and still only pay them the WSS portion of their salary."

If you’re looking for specific information, then ask away. If you have something of value to share with others, please share it. If you have nothing to add other than repeated false claims, please stop.

The WSS was designed and implemented in an incredibly short period of time, so yes, it was poorly thought out in the sense it didn’t have months of consultation and careful analysis to guide it. It has many flaws and cracks into which some people have fallen; most of these have been or will be addressed. It is not perfect by any means. However, without it, we would not be trading and indeed we would have been forced to close permanently, as would many thousands of similar companies.

Although it started off as a very simple scheme, it is now more than a little complex, mostly in an effort to address the initial shortcomings. If you want to throw rocks at it, please do so elsewhere: you are not helping anyone here.

Tow

Re Min Wage. A couple of pages ago someone posted they were on 203 since March. This was the initial Employers Subsidy scheme amount, which was exceed by TWSS after a couple of weeks and has been modified several times since. Their Employer is going to have big issues with Revenue in the Reconciliation phase! Currently the scheme allows those with a low ARNWP to be topped up of 350, to meet the inital PUP payment level.
This allows at ~ 34 hours of work at min wage.
In addition the Employer is also making a substantial saving in Employer PRSI.

PickYourName

galway1234 wrote: »

You are entitled to holidays for the period you work regardless of being on the covid subsidy scheme. However if you were on layoff for any period you do not accrue holidays for that. So in your situation you are entitled to your full holiday entitlement. (I got legal advice on this).

Just following up on this, from somewhat earlier in this thread.

That's clear enough in terms of how holiday entitlements are accrued. However, how are they taken?

For example, take someone who:

- before March, worked full time
- was temporarily laid off and put on the WSS, where they've been ever since
- came back part-time for a period
- worked full-time for a period
- went back to part time
- laid off again

The last three are speculative, by the way. Now working out their holidays due is certainly possible, if somewhat complex. But how can they take the holidays? Say the WSS was extended to the end of the year, and they remained off to November, but we needed them back in December. Could they just turn around and say, "I'm taking my holidays now"? It seems a bit daft.

To be totally clear: I'm trying to figure out the "right" thing to do here is, not to either screw staff out of their holidays on the one hand and on other other of the company funding people for holidays when they've already been on paid holiday for the bulk of the year.

jrosen

PickYourName wrote: »

Just following up on this, from somewhat earlier in this thread.

That's clear enough in terms of how holiday entitlements are accrued. However, how are they taken?

For example, take someone who:

- before March, worked full time
- was temporarily laid off and put on the WSS, where they've been ever since
- came back part-time for a period
- worked full-time for a period
- went back to part time
- laid off again

The last three are speculative, by the way. Now working out their holidays due is certainly possible, if somewhat complex. But how can they take the holidays? Say the WSS was extended to the end of the year, and they remained off to November, but we needed them back in December. Could they just turn around and say, "I'm taking my holidays now"? It seems a bit daft.

To be totally clear: I'm trying to figure out the "right" thing to do here is, not to either screw staff out of their holidays on the one hand and on other other of the company funding people for holidays when they've already been on paid holiday for the bulk of the year.

Im no expert so perhaps I am wrong but ive been having similar discussion with my own boss.
My recent chat to cit advice was the following.
Annual leave rules apply like they always have. Staff will have x number of days and they can apply for annual leave like they would any other year. Obviously they can be approved or rejected but ultimately employees are entitled my law to their annual leave.

Renjit

How long will this wage subsidy last? Until the end of August?

PickYourName

Renjit wrote: »

How long will this wage subsidy last? Until the end of August?

As of now, yes, August. There is a possibility it could be extended, though that's probably unlikely. A lot depends on the attitude of the new government.

My example above was hypothetical. Another example is where someone is on temporary lay off until beyond the end of the year. If they're not working, they can hardly take holidays from work.

jammiedodgers

Renjit wrote: »

How long will this wage subsidy last? Until the end of August?

August 10th

Edit: Never mind, see below!

blackwhite

jammiedodgers wrote: »

August 10th

August 10th is the Pandemic Unemployment Payment.

The Temporary Wage Subsidy Scheme is until the end of August

collsoft

Big Comms drop from Revenue today regarding TWSS - Links are below

I have not had a chance to read it all in detail as yet, but there is one very interesting line in the last document where it mentions tapering. Specifically it states that

"In the circumstance where an employer pays normal pre-COVID wages, no subsidy is due"

They have also confirmed that the scheme is extended to 31st August, and that apprentices are now eligible for the scheme.

Finally there is also a major compliance initiative where Revenue will be contacting all employers availing of the scheme asking them to confirm that

1) They meet the eligibility criteria
2) Employees are receiving the correct amount of subsidy
3) The subsidy is being reported on employee's payslips

Details of TWSS paid to employees will now be visible in their "MyAccount" records.

I am wondering if all of this is pointing to some employers using the scheme but not alerting employees to the fact!!!

Links are;

https://www.gov.ie/en/press-release/d7ab9-minister-donohoe-makes-changes-to-the-temporary-wage-subsidy-scheme-to-accommodate-apprentices-on-off-the-job-training/

https://www.revenue.ie/en/tax-professionals/ebrief/2020/no-1172020.aspx

https://www.revenue.ie/en/corporate/press-office/press-releases/2020/pr-230620-revenue-provide-important-information-on-extension-of-twss.aspx

Renjit

collsoft wrote: »

I have not had a chance to read it all in detail as yet, but there is one very interesting line in the last document where it mentions tapering. Specifically it states that

What does that mean? Tapering is already in the guideline book from may and very few employers will wish to reduce covid subsidy amount.

PaybackPayroll

collsoft wrote: »

Finally there is also a major compliance initiative where Revenue will be contacting all employers availing of the scheme asking them to confirm that

1) They meet the eligibility criteria
2) Employees are receiving the correct amount of subsidy
3) The subsidy is being reported on employee's payslips

Interesting times ahead. There could be many employers who might wish they went the PUP route instead.

collsoft

I think you are right Eamon, there may well be many employers who wished they went that route.

This compliance sounds very interesting, lets see what it throws up

Jason

PaybackPayroll wrote: »

Interesting times ahead. There could be many employers who might wish they went the PUP route instead.

collsoft

There are a number of employers who are ignoring tapering so that they can achieve a total payment to the employee (Subsidy + Gross Pay) that totals to the same as the employee's pre-covid gross pay

And I am talking about total payment or remuneration for work done - not an employee's Gross or Net pay

Renjit wrote: »

What does that mean? Tapering is already in the guideline book from may and very few employers will wish to reduce covid subsidy amount.

doc22

Callsoft, Maybe all software providers aren't as good as you ? Do you hear of any mass issues with Revenue?

je551e

collsoft wrote: »

There are a number of employers who are ignoring tapering so that they can achieve a total payment to the employee (Subsidy + Gross Pay) that totals to the same as the employee's pre-covid gross pay

And I am talking about total payment or remuneration for work done - not an employee's Gross or Net pay

Hi , sorry to jump in but can you explain this a little more? How can an employer ignore tapering? Are you saying employers are putting through the full subsidy and topping up more then then they should be .wont this be spotted by revenue easy enough though? Can’t believe some employers are doing that if I’m picking you up right, TIA.

Seve OB

je551e wrote: »

Hi , sorry to jump in but can you explain this a little more? How can an employer ignore tapering? Are you saying employers are putting through the full subsidy and topping up more then then they should be .wont this be spotted by revenue easy enough though? Can’t believe some employers are doing that if I’m picking you up right, TIA.

If you read many comments above it appears there are, and they think they are doing nothing wrong.