Company Not Eligible for Jobkeeper

My company just sent us an email saying we are not eligible. The email says -

I have had confirmation from management that at this stage (company name) is not eligible for job keeper subsidy.

There is criteria that relates to if a company earns over a billion in REV, and REV has dropped over 50% then the company is eligible. (Company name) is not in this position.

This may change, and believe unions may lobby this etc however for now this is what we need to communicate back to our team.

Seriously, they suspend us from work and this is what they tell the workers


  • I think jobkeeper have 2 criterias:

    • Employers with an annual turnover of less than $1 billion that have experienced a 30 per cent fall in revenue since March 1 will be eligible for the wage subsidy.
    • Companies with an annual turnover above $1 billion will have to have a 50 per cent fall in revenue to be eligible for the scheme. Businesses subject to a major bank levy will be ineligible.
    • Yes,our company made 3 billion last financial year. Don't know this year yet though but if the eligibility is a criteria then they're saying they didn't lose 50% revenue then.

    • +1

      How is the fall in revenue calculated - over which time period.

      When you say fall in revenue since 1 March. Are we comparing 4 weeks in Feb with 4 weeks in March? Or are we comparing 12 months till 1 March with revenue in March pro rata? Also, are we looking at Cash Basis or Accrual Basis?

      We have 60 day payment terms; so we will still be getting revenue till end of May and then drop off to nothing; but if we compare last financial year to this financial year; we won't be down 30% as we would have still got revenue for 11 months of the 12. Still very confused by the eligibility criteria.

      • +1

        It's comparing March 2019 with March 2020.

  • +9

    So you can go on Jobseeker payment then

    • Think thats the only way there is now

  • +4

    So they make over a billion in revenue and cant keep their employees for 6 months, sounds like you are better off not working for them.

    And what about the union stepping up to help you? Sounds like one of the larger unions which would be flush with funds

    Or does it always have to be the taxpayer?

    • +5

      A billion in revenue doesn't mean a billion dollar in net profit. A billion in revenue also doesn't mean they have a billion dollar in cash flow, to pay for the salary. Pandemic like Covid-19 didn't happen since the Spanish Flu a century ago. It's uncharted territory, so no one know how long it's going to last. Company management usually trying to conserve cash, by standing down staffs that are not needed at this point of time (e.g. Air steward(ess) since nobody is flying).

    • +1

      "Sounds like one of the larger unions which would be flush with funds"

      Because of course, Unions will be completely unaffected as millions of workers are laid off.

      • +1

        So Unions just bitch about others not looking after workers, when their revenue drops?

        Unions were set up to assist workers, so start assisting, that’s what fees are paid for, not reps tax free cars.

        BTW this is not anti union, it’s just that when many (not all) Companies are pitching in to help then they can do their bit, just like when there is a strike they use their money to help the workers.

        • -1

          The workers abandoned the Unions years ago (current density < 15%), but Unions have not abandoned the workers. They just have less resources and influence for the defence. But yeah, blame that on the Unions rather than the right-wing media's Union demonisation campaign, or Libera/IPA industrial relations legislation.

          I can assure you that union reps do not drive tax free cars. I think that the aforementioned media campaign may have had an effect on you unfortunately.

          • @Cheapskate Paul: Well from the above we can see your bias. I wasn’t blaming the unions, just pointing out, that this is one of the core reasons for being. Supporting us in times of need.

            Now it’s time to step up. Now they can show the workers the value for being in the union.

            Maybe your union rep doesn’t drive a tax free car, ours does. Tax free to them, not of course tax free to the union. And in the past 10 years has had a bloody new car every two years. (Mines 7 years old)

            It’s things like that why it’s so hard to get most workers in my industry to value the union.

            Btw what is this Aforementioned media campaign, I can’t see any post reference to that here.

            Not to say there isn’t a campaign, but aforementioned to means part of the discussion here and I cant see that in the posts.

            • @RockyRaccoon: In most industries the unions no longer have much influence on working conditions.
              Workers who are NOT members of a union
              ( source ABS 2016)
              Age 15-24 ~ 94%
              Age 25-44 ~ 87%
              Age. 45-64 ~ 81%
              There certainly was a lot of negative press in the media when unions were more powerful.

              • -1

                @ramshead: My post was about Unions being more relevant, instead of my Union having $74 million in savings, use that for members in this crisis.

                Guess what? in the future others in our industry will see the value of the Union, rather than criticise (validly) the Union reps flash new car.

                All it’s done is put up links to the government websites for Jobseeker payments.

                As for the press negativity, that’s just par for the course.

                Doing something for members counteracts this.

            • @RockyRaccoon: "Btw what is this Aforementioned media campaign, I can’t see any post reference to that here."

              The part that you couldn't see is in my post above which you responded to.

              "the right-wing media's Union demonisation campaign"

              • @Cheapskate Paul: Ah yes, sorry I was taking "aforementioned" as being prior to your post. Understand now! 👍

  • -1

    Sounds like all this company cares about is their bottom line. Screw the staff - they're all replaceable. American company?

    • Surprisingly Aussie company, big one as well

      • I think I have a fair idea which one it is. I saw an article on it this morning.

    • That's every company. Every single one of them. Their only goal is to make money. Sure a lot of them make noise about all the charitable stuff they do and the good stuff for employees when times are good but if it comes down to choosing between something and the company interest the company is going to put themselves first every time.

      • +3

        I believe that legally, the company must act for the shareholder, not for the employee.

        • Exactly, it makes me laugh when people talk about loyalty to a company, as if it could ever have it in return.

  • Company should be digging into their own funds and paying you, then if that results in a 50% reduction, they can get that back courtesy of the taxpayer….unless they're heartless.

    • No its revenue, so expenses (like Staff) isnt part of the calculation.

      • Which is the way it should be.

        If the company hasn't seen a fall in revenue, then why are the axe-ing/standing down staff.

        The %s and $s is basically the government saying if your business makes that much $ and doesn't loose that much % in, then they should be able to afford to continue paying their staff (even if no work).

        But the government hasn't made it that those companies that don't meet the criteria for JobKeeper have to keep paying their staff.

  • Name and shame.

  • Myer is my store?

    • Nope

  • +4

    JobSeeker, JobKeeper… we’re just a JobCatcher and a JobBeater from a quidditch team…

  • No one knows. The legislation has not been finalised so anything at the moment is pure speculation. The government is still consulting about it.

  • +2

    Don’t worry I can’t get either, company doesn’t qualify, misses earns just over the cap, by a few hundred,

    Thing that annoys me is part time workers earning less than 750 now get a pay rise, bloody insane, and I’ll pay more tax next year to repay it. Foreign students are covered, bit harsh they will just rot.
    Rules are meant to be for all…

    In all seriousness though look for another job, plenty of vacancies in next few months, as the people will swap companies
    As will feel hard done by company

    • 100% agree, the rules aren’t fair and i have to pay for it

    • If it really is only a “few hundred” is her work flexible enough that she could take a pay cut in return for a higher level of annual leave? She could always just cash the annual leave out once you are back working again.

      • possibly will do this, but is it stands if you take unpaid leave your annual salary on the pay slip / contract is still the same.

        anyway don't need to take this path yet

        • Could she put more money in super ie salary sacrifice and bring her taxable income under the threshold?

          • @imtahir7: it doesnt work like that, you dont know your taxable income till the end of the FY, they look at your contract / payslip

            • @Donaldhump: Can she drop a couple of hours?

    • Foreign students are covered, bit harsh they will just rot.

      Do you mean they aren't covered? They've just been told to go home if they run out of money.

  • Yes mate, many of us are in the exact same position, probably hundreds of thousands at least I'd guess.

    For many companies jobkeeper may be effectively useless anyway, especially where there is nothing for staff to do due to no customers. And if most staff get paid more than $750 per week, just a bit above minimum wage, the company would go deeper in the hole by applying for jobkeeper vs just standing most people down.

    At the end of the day the business has to run according to the best interests of their owners, the shareholders. If the choice is to lose millions or 10's of millions by applying for jobseeker (if eligible) vs standing people down, of course they will stand people down.

    The positive takeaway for you is that your company has not hit 50% down yet, so your company will probably survive and you'll still have a job on the other side of this. Sadly that's not the case for millions of other people who have no idea what the future holds.

    And quite obviously, if everyone stayed home unless it was critical to go out, the sooner this would all be over. But frustratingly, as we see on the news every day, thousands and thousands of people do not give a f*** about others and continue to flout or stretch the law in relation to staying at home.

  • Seriously, they suspend us from work and this is what they tell the workers

    So you want your employer to break the law because they're not eligible for JobKeeper and because they're not, you're throwing a hissy fit? I'm not understanding the logic here. There's JobSeeker payments to cover people in your position.

  • +1

    yep, I had to lay off a guy I liked in December because of a downturn. Business has picked up since then but not enough to re-employ him.
    3.5 nanoseconds after this was announced he emailed me asking to come back- and I don't qualify because
    - he was laid off to early
    - business hasn't dropped 30%

    so if the government had some handouts for employing more people, we'd be right there!

Login or Join to leave a comment