Wage Subsidy Scheme Issues

SAMTALK · 12-05-2020 4:48pm

ilovespudss wrote: »

Dont know about the 4 days, I dont see the reason for that, but the overtime is messy. If you are being topped up to your max allowable as standard, then there is no room to pay overtime without the subsidy being tapered. Not many employers are going to voluntarily do this.

It's a mess tbh . When we ask we get a different answer and it seems they dont know what they are doing themselves

im just afraid we'll be faced with a bill at the end of this and also be down money from employer because they keep changing the figure

blackwhite · 12-05-2020 5:00pm

blackwhite wrote: »

Some further digging on this.

Error in the Revenue files for our 3 legal entities seems to impact on any employee with ARNWP of between €943.75 and €960.

Column P (Tier 2) in the spreadsheet calculates a value based on 80% of ARNWP, and if that value returns higher than €755.00 then it appears to default the max top-up to €755. Works out correct for the vast majority, but for a very small number of staff it throws out an incorrect value.

We've flagged to Revenue so waiting to hear back from them

Just to follow up.

Revenue can see that there's a problem on ARNWPs betwen €943.75 and €960 but still don't seem sure as to 1) how it arose or 2) how to fix it.

They've advised us to amend manually in our payroll system this month - which we had already done.

th283 · 13-05-2020 1:48pm

Hi guys, quick question on the wage subsidy scheme, I'm a full time employee on a salary, I've been on the wage subsidy scheme for a few weeks, working my usual 5 days. Boss called me in to the office last week and said from now on I will only be working 2 days per week, have to take 2 days annual leave and 1 day unpaid. So two questions really - can i be forced to take annual leave? And will the wage subsidy scheme cover the "unpaid" day?

dundalkfc10 · 13-05-2020 2:19pm

gb19815 wrote: »

I’ve been getting covid payment from employer only , what happens too unused tax credits during this period ??

You will need them to cover the covid payment. Single persons credits only cover 317 a week, so if your Covid payment is more than this you will owe 20 possibly 40% of it

snowgal · 15-05-2020 2:51pm

BIOHAZARD96 wrote: »

Hi,
I'm totally lose when it comes to how I'm being paid and if I I will owe tax later in the year when its all balanced and figured out. My net pay before all of this chaos was €420. My employer has been geneourous enough to put up my pay slip from the wage subsidary that I received. My first payslip was as follows:

Covid19 subsidiary scheme:
Top up:
Total deductions:
Total take home (net pay):

The most recent payslip is written as followed:

????

snowgal · 15-05-2020 2:55pm

Hi
We have 2 employees who are on the wage subsidy scheme. At the minute we are covering 30% and the Government the 70. However in the next few weeks before we reopen our building we will more than likely need them in to assist for more than 30% of their time. However we're obviously still watching the pennies in any way we can to keep afloat. Is it possible that we pay them 50% of their salary for 50% of their time and the government would cover the other 50% or is this a completely wrong way of doing things? Thanks

eh i dunno · 15-05-2020 4:13pm

snowgal wrote: »

Hi
We have 2 employees who are on the wage subsidy scheme. At the minute we are covering 30% and the Government the 70. However in the next few weeks before we reopen our building we will more than likely need them in to assist for more than 30% of their time. However we're obviously still watching the pennies in any way we can to keep afloat. Is it possible that we pay them 50% of their salary for 50% of their time and the government would cover the other 50% or is this a completely wrong way of doing things? Thanks

Just continue to pay them 30% and the government will continue paying the 70%. That's what it's there for. And they should be grateful for you topping up the 30%.

snowgal · 15-05-2020 4:27pm

eh i dunno wrote: »

Just continue to pay them 30% and the government will continue paying the 70%. That's what it's there for. And they should be grateful for you topping up the 30%.

thanks. But are we entitled to ask them to work over 30% of their time if we continue to do this?

2Mad2BeMad · 15-05-2020 4:32pm

snowgal wrote: »

thanks. But are we entitled to ask them to work over 30% of their time if we continue to do this?

The whole point of the subsidy is to keep the person employed.

Im on the subsidy, my employer tops me up by 30percent, I am still doing 40hours of work a week (essential worker)(apparently)

Some employers are letting employees have some days of during this maybe because business is slow or they feel its fair as the company is only paying out 30percent.
But regardless you can make your employees work a full week as they are still being paid there wage in full.

Siobh73 · 15-05-2020 4:40pm

Asking again if anyone has experience of Revenue allowing them to go back and rectify top up amounts entered in the early weeks of the subsidy scheme? My employer won't even raise it as a query with Revenue as he says they won't entertain it. I feel they should at least ask...

Pistachio19 · 15-05-2020 5:08pm

snowgal wrote: »

thanks. But are we entitled to ask them to work over 30% of their time if we continue to do this?

Yes, they can be working more hours and you still use the scheme. Our employees haven't been working much so far but there is work coming up and they will be doing more hours. We will continue to use the scheme and top up in the same way we've been doing during the quiet periods i.e. taking the max subsidy and then topping up the balance. Rest assured we will continue to fit the criteria for elegibility for the scheme.

jos28 · 15-05-2020 5:28pm

Siobh73 wrote: »

Asking again if anyone has experience of Revenue allowing them to go back and rectify top up amounts entered in the early weeks of the subsidy scheme? My employer won't even raise it as a query with Revenue as he says they won't entertain it. I feel they should at least ask...

I made a total mess of the first 2 weeks payroll. I brought everyone on subsidy up to their normal take home pay without passing on the tax refunds that it triggered. I obviously had to re-do them even though I had submitted them to Revenue. I sent them a message through 'My Enquiries' and I was told to re-submit with the correct figures. I did that and it all balanced in the end.

relegation6 · 15-05-2020 5:38pm

My GFs work contract ends on May 31st. She's been receiving Covid payment since her place of employment closed it's doors. I'm thinking that her Covid payment will stop as soon as contract is finished (employer pays her the Covid payment) As she doesn't have an EU passport, I'm guessing she won't be entitled to any further benefits? She'll have to find a job somewhere.

Turtwig · 15-05-2020 5:45pm

relegation6 wrote: »

My GFs work contract ends on May 31st. She's been receiving Covid payment since her place of employment closed it's doors. I'm thinking that her Covid payment will stop as soon as contract is finished (employer pays her the Covid payment) As she doesn't have an EU passport, I'm guessing she won't be entitled to any further benefits? She'll have to find a job somewhere.

Non EU/EEA citizens can apply for the pandemic unemployment payment. They must be resident in Ireland and previously employed here.

relegation6 · 15-05-2020 5:54pm

Turtwig wrote: »

Non EU/EEA citizens can apply for the pandemic unemployment payment. They must be resident in Ireland and previously employed here.

Thanks a million.

tina1040 · 16-05-2020 10:16am

If the scheme ends mid June, how will that work for monthly paid staff for their June salary?

Tow · 16-05-2020 1:54pm

tina1040 wrote: »

If the scheme ends mid June, how will that work for monthly paid staff for their June salary?

It is a Weekly system, so Revenue want employees changed to weekly, to cater for this and other problems with restarters and leavers etc.

https://www.revenue.ie/en/employing-people/documents/pmod-topics/guidance-on-operation-of-twss.pdf 2.8

For pay frequencies other than weekly, employers should consider placing these rehired employees on a weekly pay frequency to simplify the alignment with the TWSS payments and to prevent PUP payment overlaps that may trigger a DEASP overpayment situation for the employee

tina1040 · 16-05-2020 2:15pm

Tow wrote: »

It is a Weekly system, so Revenue want employees changed to weekly, to cater for this and other problems with restarters and leavers etc.

https://www.revenue.ie/en/employing-people/documents/pmod-topics/guidance-on-operation-of-twss.pdf 2.8

I don't think revenue expect monthly salaries to be changed to weekly. There is no way to change to weekly on the software we use. I have based cash forecasts on 3 months of TWSS april, may and june.

snowgal · 16-05-2020 6:58pm

Pistachio19 wrote: »

Yes, they can be working more hours and you still use the scheme. Our employees haven't been working much so far but there is work coming up and they will be doing more hours. We will continue to use the scheme and top up in the same way we've been doing during the quiet periods i.e. taking the max subsidy and then topping up the balance. Rest assured we will continue to fit the criteria for elegibility for the scheme.

Thanks for the answers to this everyone. Afraid Im still not done! The Director here is saying that legally we cannot ask them to work more than 30% of their hours though I have said alot of companies seem to be. However she will not budge because of employees potentially suing or something :rolleyes: so Im trying to find if this is anywhere in writing from Revenue or Gov. Has anyone seen anything along the way about this? Many thanks

eh i dunno · 16-05-2020 8:00pm

snowgal wrote: »

Thanks for the answers to this everyone. Afraid Im still not done! The Director here is saying that legally we cannot ask them to work more than 30% of their hours though I have said alot of companies seem to be. However she will not budge because of employees potentially suing or something :rolleyes: so Im trying to find if this is anywhere in writing from Revenue or Gov. Has anyone seen anything along the way about this? Many thanks

https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/unemployment_and_redundancy/covid19_temporary_wage_subsidy_scheme.html

Everything you need is there. And your director is wrong. Course you can ask them to work more than 30% of the hours. You could actually have them working 100% of the hours and just have them claiming the covid subsidy payment with no top up from the employer.

Will23 · 17-05-2020 8:29pm

eh i dunno wrote: »

https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/unemployment_and_redundancy/covid19_temporary_wage_subsidy_scheme.html

Everything you need is there. And your director is wrong. Course you can ask them to work more than 30% of the hours. You could actually have them working 100% of the hours and just have them claiming the covid subsidy payment with no top up from the employer.

I wouldn’t fully agree with you here, though I do get your point.

The subsidy scheme is in place to ensure that a business with temporary reduction in income / cash flow can retain the contractual link to their employees.

However I understand that strictly speaking a reduction in salary can only be agreed with the employee’s consent as it is a change to the contract between employer and employee.

Now the alternative is often redundancy so it’s usually accepted. But I would think the employee is within their rights not to work 100% of the hours if they’re not getting paid their agreed full salary.

A subtle difference to your point but one worth noting.

eh i dunno · 17-05-2020 9:28pm

Will23 wrote: »

I wouldn’t fully agree with you here, though I do get your point.

The subsidy scheme is in place to ensure that a business with temporary reduction in income / cash flow can retain the contractual link to their employees.

However I understand that strictly speaking a reduction in salary can only be agreed with the employee’s consent as it is a change to the contract between employer and employee.

Now the alternative is often redundancy so it’s usually accepted. But I would think the employee is within their rights not to work 100% of the hours if they’re not getting paid their agreed full salary.

A subtle difference to your point but one worth noting.

I've had my hours cut during this and am on the wage subsidy scheme at the minute so it will be interesting if my boss asks me to work full time next month while not topping up my 70% government benefit.

Will23 · 17-05-2020 10:57pm

eh i dunno wrote: »

I've had my hours cut during this and am on the wage subsidy scheme at the minute so it will be interesting if my boss asks me to work full time next month while not topping up my 70% government benefit.

Yeah, true. In a sense the subsidy is between the employer and revenue and has nothing to to with the employee, I mean that in the sense that if you continue to get paid for the work you do it doesn’t really matter where it comes from.

Hopefully if they’re expecting you to fulfil your full hours you’ll get paid as you did before.

MoonUnit75 · 17-05-2020 11:06pm

Will23 wrote: »

Yeah, true. In a sense the subsidy is between the employer and revenue and has nothing to to with the employee, I mean that in the sense that if you continue to get paid for the work you do it doesn’t really matter where it comes from.

Hopefully if they’re expecting you to fulfil your full hours you’ll get paid as you did before.

Well it does, the company will be putting the employee into arrears with Revenue, not the company.

Skyrimaddict · 18-05-2020 7:21pm

I have a question.
Some staff of a supplier of mine are back working today. They mentioned that while off they got more from furlough payment than actual wages.
Worried now they have to repay.
Question is, did people come out with more being furloughed than working?

drunkmonkey · 18-05-2020 7:24pm

They'll have to pay tax on the 350, not sure the exact amount but everyone seems to be saying save 30% as it's owed back.
Lots of people in the same situation, could have been doing a few hours on a Saturday getting €50 there now on €350 until God knows when.
Payment should have been based on average of last few paypackets to avoid the situation we have now.

RandomViewer · 18-05-2020 7:26pm

Skyrimaddict wrote: »

I have a question.
Some staff of a supplier of mine are back working today. They mentioned that while off they got more from furlough payment than actual wages.
Worried now they have to repay.
Question is, did people come out with more being furloughed than working?

No tax on payment at present

L-M · 18-05-2020 7:28pm

drunkmonkey wrote: »

They'll have to pay tax on the 350, not sure the exact amount but everyone seems to be saying save 30% as it's owed back.
Lots of people in the same situation, could have been doing a few hours on a Saturday getting €50 there now on €350 until God knows when.
Payment should have been based on average of last few paypackets to avoid the situation we have now.

I know of 2 people who are older who get around 100 a week from work and they don’t pay tax.

They won’t be taking it back because they won’t get it. It was announced for all as a streamline payment, that’s how it came into effect so quick

Alrigghtythen · 18-05-2020 7:32pm

L-M wrote: »

I know of 2 people who are older who get around 100 a week from work and they don’t pay tax.

They won’t be taking it back because they won’t get it. It was announced for all as a streamline payment, that’s how it came into effect so quick

They will be taking it back and I hope they enforce it 100%. Not everyone in the country got it. Some people still had to work and got nothing from the government.

RandomViewer · 18-05-2020 7:34pm

Alrigghtythen wrote: »

They will be taking it back and I hope they enforce it 100%. Not everyone in the country got it. Some people still had to work and got nothing from the government.

?? You got paid ,didn't you?

Wage Subsidy Scheme Issues

Comments