Asked to work full time hours on 60%wage-can they do it?&what if made redundant

Dav010

JustAThought wrote: »

sue them for breech of contract - lodge a case and complaint with the workplace comission ( or whatever the labour courts are called now) - constructive dismissal and breech of contract.

And assuming the employees win, which would be by no means guaranteed, what happens if the company has gone under?

The op has already confirmed the business is struggling and has had to lay off staff.

JimmyVik

I think you've your head ion the sand a bit Dav010.
There are real problems out there for real people.
I would be more worried about them than companies.
Sure worry about companies, but people first as far as im concerned.
You've stated what your priorities are, but that is no good to the OP.
Sure their company might go bust at some stage, but the OPs issue is real and now and is effecting their entire family and im sure other workers families.

witchgirl26

OP generally for a reduction in salary, the company are required to get your consent. Is it a straight 40% across the board for everyone? Sounds very drastic. Is it for a defined short period or have they stated at all how long it will last?

Unless you're a essential worker, you shouldn't be travelling for work so maybe discuss with them working from home if it's an option which will help save on the commuting and childcare. In fact you shouldn't have any childcare costs at the moment as no creche is open or should be charging.

It might mean some hefty cutbacks in your personal life but weigh it up in relation to taking the cut. Get a moratorium on your mortgage for a few months if needed or if you're renting, talk to your landlord.

antimatterx wrote: »

My company announced a pay increase freeze for year a few weeks back, as they predicted to be under target for Q1.

This week, they announced that they had exceeded Q1 expectations!

Shocking stuff imo

Q1 ended at the end of March. Therefore most of the restrictions only were in place for 2 weeks at the end of Q1 and may not have had a material effect on the profits for that quarter. Q2 will be the hardest hit for most companies as that runs from April to June. The worst affected months for shutdowns etc.

My company had a good healthy P&L for Q1 but that has gone completely now because all of our shops are shut so no money coming in.

JimmyVik wrote: »

Fair enough. Dont believe it if you dont want to. It happens and is happening.
You're probably on defending Ryanair too.

The OPs company is still taking the piss asking for 100% of the work for a fraction of the pay. Thats called taking advantage in my book.

It can't happen to some huge degree. The subsidy restrictions are quite tight in terms of eligibility. You have to show that you expected at least a 25% drop in turnover. While the company may still technically be profitable depending on the costs that they have, it's not going to be some amazing profit coming out of it.
Plus they can't use the subsidy for anything other than going to employees. Employees must receive 100% of the subsidy granted to the company in respect of them. Currently yes Revenue are giving the €410 for all employees who the company are applying for but the difference between that & what the employee is entitled to (& is in their payslip) is to be returned to Revenue.

So unless you're actively involved in some nefarious scheme to some how make a profit out of this and thus that's where you're getting your information (& also acting fraudulently), you're talking out of your ass.

Dav010

JimmyVik wrote: »

I think you've your head ion the sand a bit Dav010.
There are real problems out there for real people.
I would be more worried about them than companies.
Sure worry about companies, but people first as far as im concerned.
You've stated what your priorities are, but that is no good to the OP.
Sure their company might go bust at some stage, but the OPs issue is real and now and is effecting their entire family and im sure other workers families.

You see, there you go again making unfounded assumptions.

There are real problems for everyone, employers and employees. What good is it worrying only about the person being paid and not the one paying which you acknowledge, may go bust? If the business does not survive, how does that benefit the employee? No job, no redundancy payment apart from the State’s.

I have not stated what my priorities are, I stated that what you posted is without foundation in reality. I find your cynicism that a company does not waste a good virus or that it benefits them in profit quite disturbing, after everything in the news over the past 2 months, you seem to have a very poor understanding of the effect on businesses.

antodeco

My company have had a 95% reduction in their revenue. Literally what they would do in a day, they are barely doing in a month. They are still paying everyone. They still paid everyone's bonus and gave wage increases, as these were based in 2019. They said they will continue to pay everyone full wages for as long as they can. They basically had a 6 month contingency built into their business and that's exactly what they are doing.

seamus

punisher5112 wrote: »

Is it a small business or big multinational?

I can see many places doing exactly this to create even bigger profits.

Perhaps some very big companies who are still doing business, will. Most won't, because they're not doing business. Some companies will take this as an opportunity to shut down chronically underperforming parts of their business. Other companies are pumping cash into other parts of their business, giving out wage increases and hiring to beat the band to take advantage of the opportunities.

You have a very narrow worldview of employment.

When I told someone my company had cut wages, their response was, "Bastards! You should go get another job offer, bring it back to them and force them to restore your pay".

Said person works for a huge company will billions in the bank. I don't. I know for a fact my employer has limited bank and revenue is literally on the floor. We may as well not be trading. The purpose of the pay cut is to keep everyone employed for six months instead of three. The government subsidy isn't going to magically make profit magically reappear for us, but it will buy us another few months of employment.

And a massive amount of companies are in this boat. Getting hard-nosed about it, talk of unionising and refusing pay cuts is a sure fire way to find yourself out of a job faster. If a company has no money, they have no money. Many of the union mindset believe that companies have an endless money pot, and duty is all one-way; from the company to the employee.

Phoebas

OP, if they are asking you to take a 40% pay cut but haven't laid everything out on the table about how the company is doing and why this is necessary, then I'd be very worried.

Only you can do the calculation about your prospects of picking up another job vs staying around, but if you agree to the cut, you might want to negotiate some conditions e.g.
- that some or all of it is deferred to be repaid at a later date.
- that the cut is temporary and time limited and you automatically revert to normal pay after a set date.
- that the company provide regular updates to staff about their financial position.