Question for finance/econ twitter about Government policy and the furloughed workers scheme ("CJRS").
Someone has leaked papers to me showing a really big employer who made staff redundant before CJRS was announced paying, say, enhanced redundancy of 100. When CJRS was...
Someone has leaked papers to me showing a really big employer who made staff redundant before CJRS was announced paying, say, enhanced redundancy of 100. When CJRS was...
... announced said big employer wrote to those staff saying 'you can keep the 100 or we can furlough you and make you redundant when the furlough ends. You'll receive 90 and we'll then give you statutory refundancy of 30.' Ie the employees will be better off by 20....
... the employer will be better off by 70 and the staff will stay redundant. So the 90 comes from the fisc and is basically helicopter money to the big employer and the employees and doesn't save a single job.
I am pretty outraged by this - am I right to be?
I am pretty outraged by this - am I right to be?
(I have permission to leak the papers - and the name of the big employer which is a big multinational with, I am told, a history of ugly tax avoidance... but that's a slight side issue.)
