Staff on JobKeeper Won't Come Back to Work

Lcainen on 26/05/2020 - 11:57

This is a vent as much as anything so apologies in advance.

My wife and I own a small business that was forced to shutdown back in March. In good faith we put eligible staff (2 people) onto the Jobkeeper program to keep them going through the shutdown and have them return when we open. We are now able to reopen from 1 June and we have a staff member who has been ignoring txts and phone calls since the announcement (on Saturday). They have finally messaged back this morning saying they are unable to return to work citing some BS reasons. Yesterday was the fortnightly Jobkeeper payment date so it now makes sense why they did not respond until this morning. In hindsight I should have held the payment back until they responded - I now feel stupid about not seeing this beforehand.

I have now learnt that they have been studying a completed unrelated course during the shutdown and never intended to return to work. Although we will (surely??) receive the money back we are now in a situation where we will be understaffed for our reopening in less than a week and we are expecting it to be extremely busy. This person was a core staff member and we are scrambling to find staff but it's proving difficult if not impossible.

I'm not sure what recourse is available, but even if there was something it is probably not worth the hassle of pursuing. I just feel so annoyed that this person has gamed us and the system.

/vent.

Financial

Comments

    • Amaris on 26/05/2020 - 12:05
      +69

      He’s upset as he’s feeling he was used!

      • cameldownunder on 26/05/2020 - 15:06
        +18

        Isn't that the game? You use and you get used?

        • monkeyfood on 26/05/2020 - 15:28
          +25

          Capitalism is the name

          • danyool on 26/05/2020 - 22:54
            +24

            @monkeyfood: Isn't JobKeeper more Socialist?

            • resisting the urge on 27/05/2020 - 12:59
              +5

              @danyool: Seems more that JK was designed to goto the aspirationals, the left-leaning voters that qualified were mostly collaterral damage.

              Eg, No actors, no young people, noone without 12 months of full time work up unto March, no-one working on and off, no artists, no-one part-time casual, none already unemployed, etc.

              Not sure how it can be a socialist conspiracy if it is designed to goto coalition voters whilst shutting out anyone with a less consistent financial footprint

            • Korban Dallas on 27/05/2020 - 19:29

              @danyool: Doesn't make LNP small business donators socialist though.

        • camelfarmer1 on 27/05/2020 - 07:00
          +3

          Hey get back on the farm I've been looking for you

        • RocketSwitch on 29/05/2020 - 11:15

          I know right? What do big business do to that employee who is not paid his worth and no pay rises for 5 years hoping he/she leaves?

        • FindMeADeal on 29/05/2020 - 12:09

          This, my friend is an underrated comment, even if it had 100 likes. Nailed it.

    • cainen on 26/05/2020 - 12:08
      +12

      We will find someone eventually but not before re-opening next week which I'm expecting to be mayhem due to pent up demand.

      • OzCheapo on 26/05/2020 - 12:20
        +2

        Can you automate some of the tasks e.g. pre-sell via your website to cope with the demand?

        You're not stupid, chalk this up to experience and get solid team players (I appreciate it can be a hit on temporary cashflow.)

        Silver lining is if they use you as a reference for a new job, then you can agree to be a referee and if the new employer asks, you can say that they have worked with you and you wouldn't hire them again.

          • ssquid on 26/05/2020 - 12:28
            +23

            @Mechz: It's not slander if it's true. The employee has proved themselves unreliable.

            • brad1-8tsi on 26/05/2020 - 18:10
              +8

              @ssquid: Where I work you can't say anything negative in a reference.

              You have to observe what is not said.

              My boss had a call about our worst team member ( I used to sit right outside the bosses' office and he had a voice like a foghorn).
              The phone call was like: "yes, he worked here from-to as an xxx. No I can't comment beyond that. No, I really can't comment."

              • tinyorca on 27/05/2020 - 09:07

                @brad1-8tsi: I thought it was across the board that you can't say anything negative in a reference.

                • trongy on 27/05/2020 - 20:09

                  @tinyorca: Not at all. It's not illegal to give a negative reference that's truthful.

                  However, the possibility of being sued for a negative reference means that some companies have a policy against it. Even if the lawsuit is defensible, they don't want to run the risk - it can be a huge waste of time and money.

                • brad1-8tsi on 28/05/2020 - 19:17

                  @tinyorca: it might be but I can only say about my work place

              • Jugganautx on 28/05/2020 - 17:25

                @brad1-8tsi: It's not illegal to give a bad reference. End of story.

          • iratepirate on 26/05/2020 - 12:32
            +5

            @Mechz: What you can do is say "they worked for me between this date and that date, and I can't say anything more about them".

          • burningrage on 26/05/2020 - 12:40

            @Mechz: Oh yes you can. It's telling the truth.

            I've heard examples where the reference giver even asked if he/she could do the job themselves lol.

            • psych23 on 27/05/2020 - 07:13

              @burningrage: lol - yup have had that happen as well as genuine enquiries re opportunities at their level. I worked in recruitment for 9 years. I employed a few (not many) people this way

          • TilacVIP on 27/05/2020 - 08:11
            +1

            @Mechz: Sounds like you're that "said" employee!!

          • PVA on 28/05/2020 - 09:22
            +1

            @Mechz: That’s not slander.

          • smartazz104 on 29/05/2020 - 15:21

            @Mechz: Found the lying "employee".

        • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 26/05/2020 - 13:16
          +2

          you can say that they have worked with you and you wouldn't hire them again.

          This EXACT scenario was tested in the UK Courts on 2 occasions and the employer was found guilty of negligence in both events.

          It is yet to be tested in Australian Courts.

          Just because something is "true" doesn't mean it's not defamation, as the "truth" you refer to is an personal opinion.

          • D C on 26/05/2020 - 13:36
            +3

            @Typical16-bitEnjoyer:

            This EXACT scenario

            You sure about that?

            Did you read the link you posted, or was that just the first hit in Google?

            Anyway, the fact that there have been TWO, yes TWO! cases must tell you something…

            • sarahlump on 26/05/2020 - 17:25
              +3

              @D C: It does, it tells you that there is precedence in case law. Now everybody is able to provide a case like this to the legal system. But the fact that it was able to happen and this as the result sets the precedence to say in future the same outcome will happen. If you abuse people like that you will suffer consequences.

              • D C on 26/05/2020 - 17:55

                @sarahlump:

                it tells you that there is precedence in case law.

                Yeah, for defamation. The said he was doing a crap job when he wasn't. You did read the link, of course.

                I can tell you what the other case was.

                The original quote was:

                you can say that they have worked with you and you wouldn't hire them again.

                That ain't defamation.

                And again, two whole cases in how many bad references?

                • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 26/05/2020 - 18:55

                  @D C: It's apparent you cannot read case law.

                  two whole cases in how many bad references?

                  Lol. It's the Highest Appellant Court in the UK. It's taken a long time to reach that scenario and it therefore becomes precedent. Once something like this occurs, it is very rare for another proceeding to reach that stage…because a precedent exists. That's how the law operates. We share their system.

                  • D C on 26/05/2020 - 19:29

                    @Typical16-bitEnjoyer:

                    and it therefore becomes precedent.

                    Right.

                    you can say that they have worked with you and you wouldn't hire them again.

                    Yeah, and how's it going to apply to that?

                    The whole "Ooh, they'll sue us for a bad reference" is HR bollocks.

                    Here's your other case: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1994/7.html. He won because they said he was dishonest, y'know, that defamation stuff.

                  • [Deactivated] on 27/05/2020 - 22:45

                    @Typical16-bitEnjoyer: Only a moron would put a potentially negative referee on their resume.

                    Resumes are full of so much horseshit anyway. Who's gonna notice a date or job askew or a personal favourite naming a former colleague as the boss and your referee. Lol.

                    I'm so glad I switched to reverse taxation a coupla years back. Y'all keep on working for me now….

          • dizzle on 26/05/2020 - 17:51
            +1

            @Typical16-bitEnjoyer: However you can say, you were disappointed that they quit without giving notice (which essentially they have), leaving you in the lurch at a very important stage.

            Certainly wouldn't be a good look for a new employer.

        • ssquid on 27/05/2020 - 09:22
          +3

          Jobkeeper is also for employees that have been stood down.

        • Krogers on 27/05/2020 - 09:27
          +3

          You are scamming the government and scamming the tax payers.

          That's not how this works. The clue is in the name. Job KEEPER

        • dizzle on 27/05/2020 - 12:28
          +3

          It's also to keep businesses viable to reopen.

          Without this payment, more businesses would have to stand staff down without pay, or have to make staff redundant.

          Without pay means that staff will look for other jobs while going on jobseeker (and getting the same payment anyway), and jobs will not be in the position to reopen quickly (and viably). Reopening without key staff and retraining people as well as the loss of income would see more businesses go under.

          Paying redundancies without forecasted income leaves businesses with a similar risk when reopening, but also have less in the bank. Not only would businesses go under, but many would also be bankrupt.

        • UncleRico on 27/05/2020 - 23:29

          Oh dear.

          Are you studying a BA, BA?

      • mskeggs on 27/05/2020 - 09:22
        +4

        I was wondering why you are so upset about this, but I didn't think it through from your perspective.
        You were expecting the employee to work from June to September while receiving Jobkeeper, so you would not have had to pay them from your pocket for their work, taking taxpayer money instead.

        But you need somebody to do the job, because you will be busy. But they won't be eligible for Jobkeeper, so you will need to pay them properly.
        That is $9000 of government welfare you will miss out on - no wonder you are so upset!
        You should have mentioned this aspect first, I am sure people would be much more sympathetic.

        • Chandler on 27/05/2020 - 09:59
          +3

          I didn't think it through from your perspective.

          I think you need to look at OP's perspective again…

          You were expecting the employee to work from June to September while receiving Jobkeeper

          The business won't be receiving JobKeeper if revenue is back up.

          so you would not have had to pay them from your pocket for their work, taking taxpayer money instead

          That's the point of JobKeeper - to keep people in jobs, either where they're unable to be productive (no work to do) or the business is suffering from decreased revenue (which is how JobKeeper is calculated). Without JobKeeper both those cases (unproductive staff or decreased revenue) would usually result in redundancies.

          But you need somebody to do the job, because you will be busy

          Yes, and they did have someone. But now that employee is refusing to return to work.

          OP now has to find someone to do the work in a very short period of time and in the current environment. And it's hard to find good staff at the best of times.

          But they won't be eligible for Jobkeeper, so you will need to pay them properly.

          If employee returned to work (as any normal person would/should), then OP wouldn't have made this post. Assuming business revenue goes up, the existing employee won't be eligible for JobKeeper and would need to pay them properly anyway.

          That is $9000 of government welfare you will miss out on - no wonder you are so upset!

          Again, if business revenue goes up, they'll be missing out on that "government welfare" in any case. You do know that 100% of that "government welfare" actually goes to the employee, not the employer?

          You should have mentioned this aspect first, I am sure people would be much more sympathetic.

          I suspect OP didn't since pretty much everything you've said is wrong.

          • cainen on 27/05/2020 - 11:06
            +3

            @Chandler: It's refreshing to see someone that actually has a reasonable grasp on the situation. I could spend all day replying to the ludicrous things people are saying in this thread. Thank you.

          • mskeggs on 27/05/2020 - 11:50
            +5

            @Chandler: Any source for losing jobkeeper if revenue picks up? Happy to hear businesses will no longer collect jobkeeper if revenues return, but ATO says:
            Question: My business suffered a steep decline in turnover in March, but I’ve changed to a new business model and I may build the business up again soon. Does this mean I lose JobKeeper?

            Answer: No. You only need to satisfy the decline in turnover test once to be entitled to JobKeeper. For example, satisfying it for March 2020 (compared in March 2019) is sufficient, even if your business recovers to previous levels after this.

            https://www.ato.gov.au/General/JobKeeper-Payment/In-detail/E…

            • cainen on 27/05/2020 - 12:36

              @mskeggs: This is correct.

            • Chandler on 27/05/2020 - 21:03

              @mskeggs:

              Any source for losing jobkeeper if revenue picks up?

              No source - that was the impression I got from discussions at my employer. The JobKeeper payment still must be made to the employee (the employer can't pocket it) and they still need to initially meet the revenue drop requirement.

              • mskeggs on 27/05/2020 - 22:55
                +2

                @Chandler: Sure. But they don’t have to pay the usual wage as well. When businesses reopen it will be very lucrative for some employers.

                • Chandler on 28/05/2020 - 09:40

                  @mskeggs:

                  But they don’t have to pay the usual wage as well

                  By this I assume you mean that employers can have their employees work their normal hours with normal workload and still only pay them the JobKeeper payment?

                  I can see where you going, but there was nothing from employers doing that pre-Covid was there not??

                  Employees would then just need to take them to Fair Work as usual, no?

        • Boogerman on 27/05/2020 - 10:45

          Employer has to pay super, for the employee to get Jobkeeper

          • dizzle on 27/05/2020 - 12:33

            @Boogerman: From what I've read they don't have to pay super unless they are working. If stood down and getting jobkeeper, it's the employers choice.

            Even if working and getting jobkeeper, they don't have to pay on the $1500 per fortnight, only on what they work over that. Some companies choose to pay it all, some don't

            • cainen on 27/05/2020 - 12:37
              +1

              @dizzle: This is also correct.

            • Boogerman on 28/05/2020 - 06:08

              @dizzle: Yes, apologies. They only get superannuation paid for the hours they worked. If no hours worked, then no superannuation

    • tooslow8888 on 27/05/2020 - 09:38
      +3

      Then the right thing to do is resign. JobKeeper is not meant to give you free money to study.

      If the employee refuses to work, then it's just cause for dismissal. Beauty of jobkeeper is now the final entitlements owed is partially funded by jobkeeper. If anything, have them go on paid annual leave using their entitlements and drag it over multiple pay cycles so it's fully covered by Jobkeeper.

      /not legal advice .. as long as the employee receives $1500 per fortnight, it's fair game

      • zonfierre on 28/05/2020 - 19:21

        have them go on paid annual leave using their entitlements and drag it over multiple pay cycles so it's fully covered by Jobkeeper.

        Great idea

    • frewer on 27/05/2020 - 18:41
      -4

      This is an inevitable outcome of 'Trial of Socialism For The West'

      • Kill Joy on 28/05/2020 - 08:56
        +3

        You cant implement one aspect of socialism into a failing capitalist society and call it definitive proof of failure of socialism as a whole.

        • frewer on 28/05/2020 - 16:04
          -3

          I'd lived under Socialis/communism before, it aint pretty. None of these regime is good enough in its self, Stalin(communism), Mao or ultra nationalist aka Adolf Hitler.Heck even Socialist and communist countries moving toward free market model of the West yet keep their government power in ONE party … go figure.

          The way I see it is plain n simplpe, they ALL follow the script that to destroy small/medium businesses and lets the GIANT cooperation flourish. There is no RATIONAL nor SCIENTIFIC reason to 'shut down the whole country' yet lets cooperation business operate ( hence created an unfair level playground). Btw since when TV channels are consider ESSENTIAL business ?!? Since WWII I says.

          Destroy people's way to make a living > entrap them n future generation into debt trap > offer them solution that will benefit cooperation greatly.

          TLDR; Left or Right, Socialism or Capitalism. None of them have the solution. People must realize that there are bigger n darker force at work, hence come together and stop **** fight each other. /rant

          Here is my late-test source
          Exclusive: Professor Exposes Amplified Hysteria, Panic And Economic Misery

    • b0b0 on 27/05/2020 - 19:05
      +1

      Very upset that our income taxes are used to pay for these sort of employees

    • berry580 on 27/05/2020 - 22:46
      -1

      Yes the op is definitely pay for those scumbag to go on leave, and so are the rest of the tax payers.

      This JobKeeper system is as good as communism. There's zero incentive to go to work.

    • lltravel on 29/05/2020 - 11:53

      I am not sure why you have been downvoted but i completely agree with you. There is no reason to be upset. People move on.

  • whooah1979 on 26/05/2020 - 12:03
    +24

    Yesterday was the fortnightly Jobkeeper payment

    Call up human services and tell them that they no longer work there.

    • nedski on 26/05/2020 - 12:08
      +40

      If its jobkeeper, I think its ATO.

      • whooah1979 on 26/05/2020 - 13:06
        +1

        You’re probably right.
        Thanks.

      • banana365 on 26/05/2020 - 14:37
        +39

        Ah, so Inhuman Services.

    • sarahlump on 26/05/2020 - 17:26
      +19

      Except technically they do work there, were they fired? did they quit? if neither of those two things happened then they work there.

    • Tambani on 27/05/2020 - 01:47
      +3

      This person does not understand how jobkeeper works.

      • peterpaoliello on 27/05/2020 - 13:00
        +7

        Yes they do, and they took advantage of it by not giving notice knowing full well they could collect AND not work. Nothing more than opportunistic theft from a government program.

        Unfortunately there's really no recourse here, the returning to work part hinges on the employee actually retuning to work, rather than running out the timer as long as they can.

        • Tambani on 27/05/2020 - 20:38

          You misunderstand. whooah1979 thinks a current employee can be fired simply by telling DHS.

          Termination is subject to industrial laws. Especially when you're questioning their performance.

          Morally it may be a different story.

        • stringbean402 on 27/05/2020 - 20:54
          +7

          Job keeper is also not a means tested payment. It is perfectly legal for an employee receiving job keeper to hold or obtain other paid employment. If they refuse to return to work they can be legally dismissed.

          They will not have to repay a cent to the OP because the business did not fund job keeper, the fed govt did.

          • zonfierre on 28/05/2020 - 19:13
            +1

            @stringbean402: This right here is the correct response. If the employer is in receipt of JK for any particular (eligible) employee and doesn't on-pay it to said employee for whatever reason, that's fraud; don't claim JK pertaining to that particular employee, and terminate them.

            • thargelios on 29/05/2020 - 14:32
              +2

              @zonfierre: @planeodds except that the Employer needs to pay the employee before claiming the job keeper (done through STP).

              It's a reimbursement. They aren't forwarding on funds, they are being reimbursed for salary paid.

              Most of the cases of issues I've read is where employers are telling employees they need to 'pay back' part of the Job Keeper amount or forced work extra hours (which is illegal).

              • zonfierre on 29/05/2020 - 15:44

                @thargelios: Sorry, wrong terminology used but the concept remains the same. They shouldn't be claiming on behalf of anyone they don't intend to unconditionally pay (provided they're eligible under leg).

                • thargelios on 29/05/2020 - 17:41
                  +1

                  @zonfierre: @planeodds

                  Correct, however Job Keeper is contingent on keeping a Job (not getting money for free).

                  They were lucky to get the funds while the business was closed. Now that the business is opening, the employee has to work up to their usual hours. They can't choose not to.

                  So it's not completely unconditional. It's conditional on you working, unless the business is closed and you are unable to work due to the business being closed. Not due to you not wanting to work (as seems the OP).

                  Realised, re-reading you above….you could be agreeing with me here anyway.

                  • zonfierre on 29/05/2020 - 17:46

                    @thargelios: Yeah, I do agree with you. I should have been more specific on the use of unconditionally: in the context of an employer setting their own (non-leg) conditions like the one OP was implying, "In hindsight I should have held the payment back until they responded".

    • berry580 on 27/05/2020 - 22:47

      I thought you can't fire them

  • nedski on 26/05/2020 - 12:03
    +43

    I am sorry to hear that you are in the situation you are in. There will be good employees and bad employees through this situation. On the flip side, we have heard of employers that CBF dealing with jobkeeper and letting their staff go as well as employers only signing up for jobkeeper if they get a cut.

    Cut the employee loose and they can go onto jobseeker and just try to find a new employee and train them up fast.

      • [Deactivated] on 26/05/2020 - 12:40
        +45

        The staff didn't quit though. He gave an excuse to not attend work. As a casual, he has the right to refuse shifts without it affecting his payments under the JK scheme.

        Considering he is a casual, I guess OP can terminate him at any time. That's probably what I would do: terminate him and inform the ATO. That'll teach him for wanting to rort the system.

        P.s: Didn't neg you.

        • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 26/05/2020 - 12:45
          +119

          If OP's "core staff member" is a casual then OP should be having a hard look at how they run their business.

          • [Deactivated] on 26/05/2020 - 12:47
            +4

            @Typical16-bitEnjoyer: Restaurants employ casual cooks all the time. They are core in that they prepare the meals. But yes, a bit silly of OP if that is the case.

            • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 26/05/2020 - 12:55
              +86

              @[Deactivated]: OP doesn't run a restaurant. They "run" a shop despite having a day job

              OP also sacked 4 other employees.

              Maybe sacking 4 other employees and relying on this single employee, who we don't even know was casually employed, was a terrible business move.

              OP said "BS reasons" and we really don't know what they are.

              End of the day my original post is not wrong. They have the right not to return.

              • cainen on 26/05/2020 - 13:11
                +9

                @Typical16-bitEnjoyer: Would you continue to pay 4 staff that were ineligible for Jobkeeper while your business was closed and had literally zero turnover? That would be a terrible business move!

                • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 26/05/2020 - 13:23
                  +69

                  @cainen: Did you think reopening your business with 2 staff, when you typically employ 6 staff, with absolutely no backup plan, was a sound business move?

                  You chose to hire what I assume are foreign or VISA employees (as you state they are ineligible for JK).

                  You have 3 months free rent. Your other post indicates this. Work it out. Act like a business owner.

                    • serpserpserp on 26/05/2020 - 14:16
                      +6

                      @cainen:

                      Not a single thing you just said is correct.

                      Looks like he was.

                      • cainen on 27/05/2020 - 16:32
                        +8

                        @serpserpserp: We are not reopening with 2 staff. We do not choose to hire foreigners or VISA employees (whatever they are). We have one on a bridging visa.
                        There are other reasons people are not eligible. Nothing he assumed/said was correct. He edited in the 3 months rent bit in after I had already replied.

                  • [Deactivated] on 26/05/2020 - 15:39
                    -6

                    @Typical16-bitEnjoyer:

                    You chose to hire what I assume are foreign or VISA employees

                    To be fair, the government decided to give work entitlements to those temporary migrants, not Op. Temporary migrants with work rights are considered Australian Residents by the ATO.. By going by that, they shoudl have been included in the jobkeeper scheme.

                    • bobbified on 26/05/2020 - 15:49
                      +3

                      @[Deactivated]: … and they were willing to work for less money! :p

                      • [Deactivated] on 26/05/2020 - 16:21
                        +6

                        @bobbified: The irony is that government 'reset' of the economy is going to rely heavily on international students and migrants. LOL!

                        • bobbified on 26/05/2020 - 16:31
                          +10

                          @[Deactivated]:

                          ….going to rely heavily on international students and migrants.

                          After being totally abandoned, it'll be interesting to see the sentiment when they try to woo the internationals back!

                          • [Deactivated] on 26/05/2020 - 16:32

                            @bobbified: Same!

                          • tryingtohelp on 26/05/2020 - 17:32
                            +4

                            @bobbified: A little relaxation in becoming a permanent resident will bring a flood of students to this country. A revenue stream always in control of the govt.

                            • Sutra on 26/05/2020 - 17:56
                              +1

                              @tryingtohelp: This is so spot on.
                              Everything will be forgotten if ghetting PR becomes easier

                            • [Deactivated] on 27/05/2020 - 09:57

                              @tryingtohelp:

                              A revenue stream always in control of the govt.

                              Sure, which is why students only come here when they are looking for permanent residency but go elsewhere when they want a proper education.

                              • tryingtohelp on 27/05/2020 - 10:40

                                @[Deactivated]: Absolutely!!

                                Don't wish to start a whole new level of debate, but India has a highly competitive education system than here in Aus.

                          • Other on 28/05/2020 - 17:09

                            @bobbified: Hopefully they won't come back to teach the sector a Big lesson.

                            • [Deactivated] on 29/05/2020 - 13:30
                              +1

                              @Other: My wife and I volunteered a couple of days at a soup kitchen. I've met at least a dozen international students during that time who said that it was their first meal in a week.They wanted to go back home but the border was closed.

                              On the same day, there was an Australian lady on the news crying because she could only afford to have 2 meals a day and peeps on ozbargain winging about having to wait in line for their free money.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join