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

          • [Deactivated] on 27/05/2020 - 15:15

            @sarahlump:

            When in reality, and it's always best to find yourself in reality, the majority of people don't have savings.

            Source?

            The household saving ratio (that is, net savings shown as a portion of net disposable income) was 4.8% last financial year and 3.6% in January.

            • sarahlump on 27/05/2020 - 15:43
              +1

              @[Deactivated]: Sure jar, "Our analysis shows that half of working households have 5.6 weeks’ income or less in the bank.2 The bottom 40 per cent of working households have about 3 weeks’ income or less in the bank. A quarter of all working households have less than one weeks’ income in the bank. Even at the top, about 40 per cent of the highest fifth of income earners have less than 4 weeks’ income in the bank."

              https://blog.grattan.edu.au/2020/03/as-the-covid-19-crisis-d…

              Most Australians can go at most a month with their savings.
              a shit ton of people don't have even a week of savings. Expecting people to have savings appears to not be a solution.

              • cainen on 27/05/2020 - 16:00
                +1

                @sarahlump: Worrying isn't it? I have actually lent the employee originally in question a decent chunk of money (interest free) to assist with their visa and living expenses while they have had no income. They can pay it off in their own time. This staff member has shown us a lot of loyalty.

                My original comment regarding 3-6 months savings was tongue-in-cheek as that is ALWAYS the first piece of advice given on this or any other forum when someone asks about their personal finances. I'm aware the vast majority do not have this amount saved. I probably didn't have it either until my late 20's.

                • [Deactivated] on 27/05/2020 - 17:43
                  +1

                  @cainen: Your employee is different as he receives no government assistance whatsoever, is more than likely sending money home to pay for the loan that he took to come to Australia and has visa expenses which can easily go in the $1000s . The average Australian has no excuse not to have any savings and the research shows that most do indeed have some. .

              • [Deactivated] on 27/05/2020 - 17:29

                @sarahlump: The Grattan article is using data which is "a couple of years old." Makes you wonder why when there are more recent ones.

                AVERAGE CASH SAVINGS (per person)

                ACT: $37,266

                NSW: $34,816

                VIC: $29,065

                WA: 25,872

                QLD: $24,533

                TAS: $17,454

                NT: $11,366

                National average: $28,602

                One of the findings of an 8-month investigation was that :

                individual savings goals varied and not everyone polled was saving for a home deposit — some were saving for a new car or for a holiday — but home ownership remained one of the top goals.

                • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 28/05/2020 - 12:26
                  +1

                  @[Deactivated]: I can't see how any person on an award or minimum wage could have those sort of savings. A glance at the Cost of Living Index backs that up.

                  That "survey" is based on 8k peeps who use Finder.com.au. Flawed metrics. I don't think it reflects real life.

        • outlander on 26/05/2020 - 20:52
          +3

          I can't speak to that. That's a business decision, that involves the consideration of multiple factor's, of which emotions would not be at the top of my list. In fact, given how robust the welfare and health system is in this country, I don't know why anyone running a business would be keeping staff if they felt it was such a risk.

          What I do know, is that there is highly possessive language going on in the OP. On some level, the poster above does believe they 'own' their employees. Which is contrary to the foundation of capitalism, freedom of choice.

          • [Deactivated] on 26/05/2020 - 21:23
            +1

            @outlander: Hmm. I didn't read it that way.

            I just read it as -"I applied for the JobKeeeper on behalf of the employee on the understanding that they are still want to keep the job. Slightly vindictive that I was mislead."

        • kiitos on 26/05/2020 - 21:52

          We have to do our homework and if we were incorrect, we would have lost that advance payment without getting reimbursed by JK

          What sort of homework did you need to do? If you were shut then your income would have dropped more than the min percentage? Or is it more involved determining eligibility?

          • [Deactivated] on 26/05/2020 - 22:14
            +2

            @kiitos: Determining eligibility and having paperwork sorted in case of an audit.

            For smaller businesses, this could be trying to understand the terminology and navigating the business portal. For those of us in healthcare, we are particularly inept at this and a lot of the terms such as GST isn't applicable.

            This takes hours and isn't particularly exciting work.

  • dscott85 on 26/05/2020 - 13:04
    +25

    “They have finally messaged back this morning saying they are unable to return to work citing some BS reasons”

    • Op, what are these BS reasons?

    Without knowing the context of why your employee has refused to return to work, how could anyone here provide a balanced opinion?

    For all we know your opinion of BS reasons, could be looking after a disabled relative who can not get carers due to Covid19. And, yes that is happening…

    As an aside, without context -
    “I have now learnt that they have been studying a completed unrelated course during the shutdown and never intended to return to work”

    • this sounds & awful lot like you are stalking your workforce…

    Also, why shouldn’t someone use time off productively to study, when being stood down from work during the Covid crisis?

  • cainen on 26/05/2020 - 13:32
    +7

    Good discussion, thanks. I don't know why I hadn't turned to Ozbargain for all my business consulting needs earlier.

    • D C on 26/05/2020 - 13:40
      +7

      We fix washing machines too: https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/540156

      This place is the best!

      • cainen on 26/05/2020 - 13:47
        +7

        Gary is getting a lot more love than I am. I should be more like Gary.

        • D C on 26/05/2020 - 15:42
          +1

          Be more Gary.

          Gary is love, Gary is best.

    • mskeggs on 26/05/2020 - 15:12
      +1

      Did you advise the employee to work out their notice?

  • [Deactivated] on 26/05/2020 - 13:40
    +13

    JK is for employees that have lost their working hours.

    Now you are providing the working hours, they are expected to return or relinquish their post.

    If they do not want to resume working, terminate them and inform the appropriate channels that you are no longer claiming on that individual's behalf.

  • Miami Mall Alien on 26/05/2020 - 14:05
    +12

    Lol, if JobKeeper is a step up from a salaried position at your business (and one considered a "core member" at that), then it's clear you weren't paying them a livable wage.

    I just feel so annoyed that this person has gamed us and the system.

    Bloody hell, the sense of arrogant self-entitlement on display here.

    The employee didn't owe you a bloody thing and can walk out of your life at any time they like. Either hire full-time staff or accept the risks of a flaky workforce that you refuse to pay a decent wage.

    • [Deactivated] on 26/05/2020 - 14:17
      +6

      It has nothing to do with living wage or full time.

      Some employees only want to work part time. Some positions are only available as a part time.

      Now that position is available once more, some people feel it isn't worth coming back either because they are happy getting $1,500 per fortnight or they wouldn't get paid any more than the minimum $1,500 anyway.

      That was not the purpose of JK. That is the territory of JS.

      • Miami Mall Alien on 26/05/2020 - 14:24
        +11

        It also has nothing to do with "gaming the system" and the OP's delusional fantasy of being robbed of money he never owned.

        The employee was absolutely entitled to JK payments. Once the business reopens, assuming they don't resume employment, they no longer will be.
        The ball is in their court.

        This is absolutely cut and tried with no room for interpretation or irrational speculation here.

        The OP is the one making a mountain out of a molehill with their conjecture of a scheming employee that was conspiring to ruin their business and personally cause them distress, when in reality they simply acted completely within their obligations as a casual staff member. If they did something contrary to their employee agreement/contract the OP would surely have picked up on that by now; they're just getting pissy because the world isn't revolving around them for once.

        It's a goddamned BS sob story by someone who has trouble treating employees like independently-minded human beings.

        • [Deactivated] on 26/05/2020 - 14:28
          +8

          1. OP never said they were out of pocket or "robbed".

          2. Employees are gaming the system if they are refusing employment when offered because they are enrolled in JobKeeper.

          3. The employee was entitled to JK and still is as long as they are being stood down. They are no longer being stood down. They are choosing not to work.

          • Miami Mall Alien on 26/05/2020 - 14:36
            +12

            @[Deactivated]:

            OP never said they were out of pocket or "robbed".

            He honestly believed he can withhold JK payments like its his money.

            Employees are gaming the system if they are refusing employment when offered because they are enrolled in JobKeeper.

            Whether they're "gaming it" or not is not a determination for anyone to make and doesn't come into play from a legal point of view. They were entitled to JK, it's as simple as that.

            The employee was entitled to JK and still is as long as they are being stood down. They are no longer being stood down. They are choosing not to work.

            Then fire their ass. What on earth is the problem here?

            Again, all of what you've said is pure speculation fueled by your own personal bias of being a small employer like the OP. You don't know what this employee decided upon and when they decided on it. It's been 3 days since the OP announced a change to the employee regarding their employment status and they are still several days away from re-opening, it's not like the employee promised to return to work and then backed out on the day of re-opening.

            The OP has not been caused any monetary loss nor damages at this point. There is nothing tangible to claim here as "recourse", he's going off what "he thinks" his employee "might be thinking/planning"; it's ridiculous. Show me an employment contract that allows an employer to seek damages against an employee for daring to think about making career changes without appraising his employer well beforehand.

            The OP is acting completely hysterical.

            • [Deactivated] on 26/05/2020 - 15:27
              +2

              @Miami Mall Alien:

              Show me an employment contract that allows an employer to seek damages against an employee for daring to think about making career changes without appraising his employer well beforehand.

              Every single permanent employment contract I have ever seen . If an employee's contract is silent about notice, or the employee doesn't have a written contract, the employee still need to provide reasonable notice ranging from 1 week to 1 month. The minimum notice period is based on the employee's 'continuous service'.

              An employer can deduct up to one week’s wages from an employee's pay if:

              • the employee is over 18
              • the employee hasn’t given the right amount of notice under the award
              • the deduction isn’t unreasonable.
              • Miami Mall Alien on 26/05/2020 - 15:43
                +4

                @[Deactivated]: I'm not talking about giving notice, which doesn't apply in this context anyway (otherwise the OP would surely have mentioned the employee violating that provision), I'm talking about an employee being allowed to change their mind about working for an employer for any reason they like and not voicing that decision until such a time as they feel they are obligated to, even if it is considered to be very "last minute" (within the context of an employee agreement, which in this case, has no notice period). That's an entirely personal matter that the employer has zero right to intrude upon or demand explanations about.

                The employee can study whatever they like on the side or even work a second job and make plans to completely ditch this dead-end role at the drop of a hat.

                None of that is against any policies.

                The OP is just having trouble seeing beyond his selfish little bubble.

                • [Deactivated] on 26/05/2020 - 15:48

                  @Miami Mall Alien:

                  The employee can study whatever they like on the side

                  Not if they are 16 and 17 year old

                  To qualify for JobKeeper from 11 May 2020, 16 and 17 year old employees must have been independent or not studying full time from 1 March (in addition to other eligibility criteria).

                  It would help if OP gave us more details about the employee in question.

                  • Miami Mall Alien on 26/05/2020 - 15:51
                    +9

                    @[Deactivated]: I doubt they're a minor mate. Seriously, stop clutching at straws.

                    It's a dead-end, under-paying job for an employer who is more and more projecting the image of a neighbourhood Soup Nazi who wants to know every time one of his staff members has a bowel movement (hell, he probably times how long they spend in the toilet too like an Amazon warehouse). Of course the employee in question doesn't feel particularly inclined on giving him ample advance warning of his intentions because he's probably tired of his BS and anytime he gets in contact with him he inevitably wants to question him about how much boot he'd like to lick today.

                    • [Deactivated] on 26/05/2020 - 16:12
                      +2

                      @Miami Mall Alien: I was trying to include all possible scenarios.

                      It's a dead-end, under-paying job

                      Possibly. After reading the forum section of ozb, it sounds like most jobs fall under those categories. What I don't understand is why you're getting so worked up over it.

                      an employer who is more and more projecting the image of a neighbourhood Soup Nazi who wants to know every time one of his staff members has a bowel movement (hell, he probably times how long they spend in the toilet too like an Amazon warehouse). Of course the employee in question doesn't feel particularly inclined on giving him ample advance warning of his intentions because he's probably tired of his BS and anytime he gets in contact with him he inevitably wants to question him about how much boot he'd like to lick today.

                      It does sound like you're the one projecting here. But please, go on. Do tell us more about your job ( or is it your missus' job?) It might help to get all that pent-up frustrations off your chest.

                      • Miami Mall Alien on 26/05/2020 - 16:21
                        +9

                        @[Deactivated]: I don't have a dog in this fight and I'm hardly acting "worked up", though it's certainly not the first time my style of writing garners accusations of me being "angry" or "ultra-serious", but I can see a duplicitous, power-tripping petty tyrant from a mile off who's crying wolf with their crocodile tears and wants to garner the collective sympathy of the Internet to reassure their conscience of the vicious lies they keep telling themselves.

                        • [Deactivated] on 26/05/2020 - 16:24
                          +6

                          @Miami Mall Alien:

                          I'm hardly acting "worked up"

                          ok. Must be your DP then. I always read your comments with an angry, intense tone in my head.

    • [Deactivated] on 26/05/2020 - 15:13
      +1

      if JobKeeper is a step up from a salaried position at your business (and one considered a "core member" at that), then it's clear you weren't paying them a livable wage.

      Pre-jobkeeper : Staff had to work to earn his pay.

      During jobkeeper: Staff stayed home and still got paid. Hard to beat that!

      Bloody hell, the sense of arrogant self-entitlement on display here.

      The jobkeeper scheme is a convoluted system. It wasn't mandatory for OP to opt in. If he hadn't, the staff would have had to queue up at centrelink to apply for jobseeker, like the 1000s of other newly-unemployed did.

  • JimmyF on 26/05/2020 - 14:10
    +11

    Staff on Jobkeeper Won't Come Back to Work

    Advised them they need to come back on the 1st June otherwise they need to resign etc, so you can hire new staff.

    Yesterday was the fortnightly Jobkeeper payment date so it now makes sense why they did not respond until this morning.

    Its neither here nor there for you I guess, you're not out of pocket, so don't worry about it.

    Get them off your books, and focus on hiring new staff.

    • [Deactivated] on 26/05/2020 - 14:19
      +3

      Not out of pocket sure but the employer still has to pay in advance and if there are any disputes with pay, the employer is still obliged to attend to it even if the recipient of the JK is effectively no longer working or has no intention to resume.

      The above scenario does not benefit the employer yet still leaves the employer with liabilities.

      • JimmyF on 26/05/2020 - 15:18
        +7

        Not out of pocket sure but the employer still has to pay in advance

        Meh, things they still had to do if they returned to work.

        The point was, they are not out of pocket $3000/fortnight in wages, the gov picked up that tab. Its kinda a storm in a teacup at the end of the day, it is what it is, get them off the books and move on with hiring new employees. They can't make them come back to work and there is nothing they can do about the wages already paid out.

        • [Deactivated] on 26/05/2020 - 15:24
          +1

          From that perspective, I agree. I think that was OPs point too. He/she isn't trying to force an employee back to work. They are just upset that he/she has to keep maintaining someone on their payroll when they are essentially just gaming the system through OP.

          It's not a nice feeling.

  • sardines on 26/05/2020 - 14:19
    +3

    just my 2 cents…I would check whether they or anyone in their household are at risk. I cannot return to work yet but luckily i can work from home and still cannot see my daughter (I haven't seen her in person for two months) due to being on immunosuppressants and her at school. I suppose being a small business you cannot carry staff that have medical conditions etc…My previous employees didn't know of mt medical condition and only disclosed to current employee because i was taking more sick days than i was comfortable with and health was declining.

  • peter05 on 26/05/2020 - 14:23
    +14

    There are so many posters on here saying what those employees did was right. It's not.

    The whole purpose of the JobKeeper was to do just that, keep them in a job. In the true blue aussie dole bludger way, a certain portion of the population have found creative ways to have the cake and eat it too.

    I am very glad that shops are allowed to open ASAP as it will wean those taking advantage of the system, off the system.

    This person probably thought they could ride the free income all the way through to October. As they are not able to return to work there is nothing more you can do OP other than to just cease payments to them.

    No repercussions here but their morals are clearly on display. Yes technically A doesn't owe B anything but if we are to build a society like that you must presume ill intent at first interaction….well it will be a sad place to live.

    EDIT: i'd also like to add this is exactly the reason why we can't have nice things and you know what, it's reality, but it doesn't mean that you can not acknowledge that what they did was jack and to try and deter that sort of behavior. We as a society dictate the ethical behaviour of it's participants, if those participants can't acknowledge that they were given a gift in good will (even if it's to keep the economy going so therefore it's selfish, blah blah reasons, discussion for another topic), and turn around and take advantage of it then you only need look at countries where you have the dog eat dog mentality and see how much better they are faring.

    • sarahlump on 26/05/2020 - 17:55
      -5

      By that note employee should have been getting fair 1/6 split of profits from the business. 6 employees making the actual money, each gets 1/6 of the total profits. Do we think OP was paying his employees 1/6 of the profits?

      • UncleRico on 27/05/2020 - 23:08

        I'm sure any staff who purchased equity and put their cash on the line for the inevitable loss-leading start-up would have received a dividend, preusuming the business was profitable.

        Why should all the risk be on the owner but rewards above and beyond remuneration be the domain of an uncommitted staffer who is clearly not invested in the business? In your socialist share world, should they still get the same 1/6 of any profit alongside actual hardworking staff who make a contribution and turn up for work, never mind the owner who has risked everything to offer employment to those seeking it?

        That shit may fly in union and university lecture halls, but jokes about communism only work if everybody gets them…

    • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 26/05/2020 - 19:19
      +10

      In the true blue aussie dole bludger way, a certain portion of the population have found creative ways to have the cake and eat it too.

      In true aussie way, there are hundreds, possibly thousands of businesses that have shut up shop. No intention to trade again. Have forfeited or terminated Leases. Delaying winding up their business for various financial reasons.

      Are those businesses paying out redundancies or termination entitlements to their employees? Nope. They are keeping them "stood down" until September. Even though the employer absolutely never plans on trading again. THAT is taking advantage of the system.

      That society you fear is the society we live in right now.

      Employees will look after themselves.
      Employers will look after themselves.

      It'll never change without legislation.

      • peter05 on 27/05/2020 - 13:54

        My statement was not exclusive of all others, there are people dodging the system everywhere.

        I think it would be difficult to argue though that a company is made of individuals, and that upholding the right ethics in an individual would go a long way to having those same values upheld in a collection of individuals, would you not say?

        • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 28/05/2020 - 12:29

          No, because only a very small proportion of those individuals have any power in your hypothetical company. Their motives will be vastly different than the rest.

    • tinyorca on 27/05/2020 - 12:09

      If the business wasn't able to reopen and decided to close for good, then the employee would be without a job. No questions asked and employee who has decided to be loyal and sit on their butts, loses.

      Instead, employee is thinking about their future employment. They don't want to sit on their butt doing nothing, so decide to study something they may even be interested in.

      Then apparently employee ignores texts and phone calls (how do you even know this is what they were doing?) and doesn't want to go back. All assumed by OP. Who knows the "bs reason", it may not even be bs.

      So many employers are using Jobkeeper unethically, so there is nothing wrong with employees safeguarding their future. There's no security when you're put on Jobkeeper. For all we know you might just keep them on until October when it ends and then get rid of them when you have to pay. Were you even paying the employee super?

      • Punda on 28/05/2020 - 01:05
        +1

        What are these many ways employers are using jk unethically?

  • cainen on 26/05/2020 - 15:00
    +17

    Well, I have made the front page of Ozbargain so that's something.

    What I have learnt from this is that I am:

    • a terrible business owner
    • a terrible boss
    • hysterical
    • a stalker
    • a control freak
    • arrogant
    • self-entitled

    And that many ozbargainers have NFI how Jobkeeper works, it's purpose, or how businesses are run.

    Thanks guys, you're great.

    • ThithLord on 26/05/2020 - 15:13
      +13

      You never elaborated on what the BS reasons were for the employee not returning?

      • cainen on 26/05/2020 - 15:19
        +6

        It was the same reasons they gave their previous boss when they decided to quit and come work for us. I know this because I am a stalker.

        • JimmyF on 26/05/2020 - 15:20
          +9

          and that was?

          • cainen on 26/05/2020 - 15:27
            -7

            @JimmyF: It's specific enough that I fear it would give too much about me away. Mysterious right?

            • [Deactivated] on 26/05/2020 - 16:14
              +1

              @cainen: Have you told them that you've asked the ATO to stop their jobkeeper payments yet? What was their reaction?

              • cainen on 26/05/2020 - 16:27

                @[Deactivated]: I make the payments and the ATO reimburses so if I don't pay the ATO doesn't reimburse. I do have to notify the ATO they are no longer employed but I don't have to do that immediately.

                The person in question is aware they will not be paid going forward. Their reaction to that…no reply.

                • [Deactivated] on 26/05/2020 - 16:29

                  @cainen:

                  The person in question is aware they will not be paid going forward

                  Were they always aware that was going to be the case?

                  • cainen on 26/05/2020 - 16:30
                    +3

                    @[Deactivated]: I'm speculating but I would say they would have known it to be highly likely.

                    • [Deactivated] on 26/05/2020 - 16:43
                      +3

                      @cainen: Just make sure you have a record of when you terminated them.

                      • dizzle on 27/05/2020 - 12:45

                        @[Deactivated]: And do it properly. Have a witness to the conversation. Make an attempt to do it in person, but if over the phone do it on speaker so the witness hears. Give a reason for their termination in writing. I'm not in HR, but I think "you have stated you have no intention of returning to work for the shifts we require you" should be a good enough reason.

                        I'm not sure but you may be able to use the jobkeeper to pay out their notice period.

                • ozhunter on 26/05/2020 - 16:32

                  @cainen: They'll likely just be applying for job seeker.

                • tooslow8888 on 27/05/2020 - 09:57
                  +1

                  @cainen: Remember to end the JK payments through Payroll (STP submission) - you'll have to create a pay element to end JK with the ATO's fort-night number.

                • Lichen6420 on 27/05/2020 - 21:24

                  @cainen: Just be careful, the backpayment is made monthly and you must meet the qualification criteria of ensuring all eligible staff are paid for both fortnights, otherwise your business becomes jobkeeper ineligible for the entire month.

                  If you pay them for one fortnight and not the other you will not get back money paid for the first for ANY eligible employees.

                  I am not keeping track of the dates but just check what fortnight we’re actually in before you stop paying or you might be out ALL wages paid for the month for all employees.

                  Obviously terminate their employment at the end of the jobkeeper payment cycle for that back-payment period and advise the ATO when you do.

        • ozhunter on 26/05/2020 - 15:24
          +4

          And you still chose to hire them?

          • [Deactivated] on 26/05/2020 - 18:41
            +1

            @ozhunter: Don't we all know someone who is now married to the person who cheated on their ex to be with them, expecting that person to be faithful to them?

    • JimmyF on 26/05/2020 - 15:20
      +4

      What I have learnt from this is that I am:

      Welcome to ozbargain! I would say you are you new here, but you're not :)

    • m34nstav on 26/05/2020 - 15:23
      +5

      Honestly, just give them notice and move on. I understand it's a stressful time for a lot of small businesses (I own one myself), but it's obvious the situation has made you emotional and that has no place in business.

      Be professional, give them notice of termination if they no longer intend to work, and find someone else. Just do your bit and even if you are wronged in the situation, just move on.

      • cainen on 26/05/2020 - 15:29

        Thank you. Yes, that really is the plan. Was just venting and perhaps should do that privately in the future..

    • Magnastar on 26/05/2020 - 15:26
      +8

      I still think you’re pretty neat.

      Hang in there!

      • cainen on 26/05/2020 - 15:30

        Thanks bud!

    • SleepyPolarBear on 26/05/2020 - 15:30
      +2

      You are a business owner, not a charity, just act for your own interests without violating any laws.

      What your employee does prior to June 1 (your reopening) honestly doesn't concern you. However, if they refuse to work post June 1, just terminate, and rub off the name in business portal for that corresponding reporting period. Yes, it's unfortunate that your new hires won't be under the jobkeeper program, but it's still better than having someone leeching off your business.

      • SleepyPolarBear on 26/05/2020 - 15:43
        +1

        But to be fair to the employee, you should still pay the employee for the period 25/5-7/6, because as far as I can read, they are technically still an employee and eligible for job keeper till termination date. It will cost you a bit of cashflow, but might save from a headache later on.

      • tinyorca on 27/05/2020 - 12:12

        "Leeching"??? The government pays Jobkeeper not the employer.

        • SleepyPolarBear on 27/05/2020 - 14:39

          The actual payment is still from the business. The benefit arises from being in employment from the business. If said employee does not want to perform the tasks set out by contract of employment, but still wants to accrue JobKeeper payments, that IS leeching.

    • leiiv on 27/05/2020 - 02:17

      No need to be sarcastic, in a hindsight, you should have known what's coming for this type of post. :)

    • CalmLemons on 27/05/2020 - 15:18

      Just stop paying him job keeper. We run several businesses. Clear and simple. Then next time you logon to the ato portal just declare 1 less employee.

      You run a business, you should know by now most people are, well, disappointing.

      You do realise, most people on ozbargain are employees, not business owners. Business owners tend to want to not spend their money.

      • gimme on 27/05/2020 - 15:44

        correction - most people on here are students lol

    • [Deactivated] on 27/05/2020 - 16:48

      Most OzBargainers, in fact just in general, are employees that will never in their life be an employer.

      If you didn't adjust your expectations of the responses you were going to receive, that's on you.

  • lazarski on 26/05/2020 - 15:44
    +10

    You don't need to get revenge on them
    cut your losses move on

    It's far more common that employers take advantage of employees

  • Windows98 on 26/05/2020 - 15:48

    Just fire the person and move on. The business will adapt until a replacement is up to scratch.

  • Ononono on 26/05/2020 - 16:00
    +7

    They decided it was no longer in their best interests to keep working for you, there's no reason to take it so personally. You don't own your employees, they have their own aspirations and goals too. They could have been conflicted about it too and maybe that's why they didn't tell you sooner, anyway you can't just make assumptions. Hire new staff and move on

  • shaybisc on 26/05/2020 - 16:09

    How many hours per week were they doing before and how many do you want them to do now?

  • TEER3X on 26/05/2020 - 16:32
    +7

    Can I have their jobs?

    Currently looking for work

    • cainen on 26/05/2020 - 16:36

      Seems like you're in the wrong state, sorry mate.

  • Parrot on 26/05/2020 - 17:24
    +23

    I don't think you'll be able to coax them back because a raised jobseeker is going to allow them enjoy their time off and get into a new industry. Lots of people are using this time to find proper jobs. Lots of people that couldn't see the light and probably woke up everyday with depressive symptoms. Magically those symptoms disappear which shows you depression really doesn't need medication in most circumstances. I had one of my old school friends call up and ask me if they should quit and I gave them my opinions on what they should do next. They basically described how they were mentally affected by the job and so on. If you are like that, quit brother/sister.

    To add: It's pretty obvious if all the symptoms disappear because they have had weeks off work.

    If the person decides to go onto jobseeker, the payment is backdated to whenever you decided to stop paying them and if they apply today, they aren't out of pocket. In fact they might be ahead because they don't have anything PAYG withheld.

    Fact is, your company doesn't have the same appeal it did before. The sheeple woke up, as I would like to quote.

    I'm a small business owner too. You need to understand the employees and why they are doing what they are doing. Chances are they won't be open to telling you everything unless you are the type that goes that extra mile. e.g. Helping them get wireless 4G and remote working if their NBN is down. Visiting them in the hospital when they are in an accident. Possibly more things I cannot list on the top of my head.

    It's alright not to be an employer that doesn't go that extra mile, but those who do will get the best employees. That's just life. You can't be bitter about it. It's time to move on.

    • Trying2SaveABuck on 26/05/2020 - 21:17
      +6

      This bloke understands business

    • smpantsonfire on 27/05/2020 - 09:43

      AFAIK, If the employee is casual and they abandon their shifts, they left on their own part and won't get job seeker backdated. They will have to wait the x amount of weeks before being eligible.

      • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 28/05/2020 - 12:33
        +1

        Incorrect. Not under the current process since covid.

    • JoBevo on 27/05/2020 - 17:24
      +1

      He understands people. Is this person human?

  • SuperMid on 26/05/2020 - 18:50
    +3

    Surely with large numbers of people being unemployed it shouldnt be hard to find a new employee relatively quickly?

  • victorheaven on 26/05/2020 - 19:56

    What kind of small business are we talking about here?

    Is it so niche that looking for a replacement takes a long time? We have 1 million (?) people that's unemployed and looking for a new job at the moment.

    • netjock on 26/05/2020 - 21:40

      What kind of small business are we talking about here?

      The kind that existing staff doesn't want to go back to and is scrambling / struggling to find new staff even when there is almost a million people unemployed.

      Jury is out but the above sentence is obvious.

  • Budju on 26/05/2020 - 20:36
    +3

    At the end of the day it's an additional $400 a fortnight to work 70 hours vs no work at all. That's $5.71 an hour. I can see why some people cannot be bothered with it, given how generous the dole allowance has become.

    I can sympathise with the person trying to run a business.

  • Trying2SaveABuck on 26/05/2020 - 20:59
    +7

    This is part of owning a business staff come and go there has been literal cases where a hold department have 'syndicate' won the lotto and walked out on a company all at once. If you fail to understand that or take that personally that is more a problem with your management style…

    Ill admit from what your have said it sounds like the worker is a bit of a 'flog' but really you havent given enough information and there are 2-sides to every story so im siding with the worker because you sound like a bit of a nutter and i wouldnt want to work for someone who calls my reasons for not coming into work 'Bullshit' chances are you are boss who pays sh!t wages, wanting people to slave there life away then you reap max profits in your business, so you can live it up, drive a Merc and go on World holidays and live in a nice house with a fat bank account…

    My only advice is if you wanna make big money you gotta put up with big headaches in life and if you cant do that you shouldn't be in business

    • sakurashu on 27/05/2020 - 13:47
      +1

      Your last line is spot on - and not just for business

  • mrvaluepack on 26/05/2020 - 21:07
    +3

    Thats the risk that business owners take. Bad luck.

    Want less stress? Go find a job and work for someone. Some people cant stand it though because they want to be in control.

  • orson on 26/05/2020 - 21:35

    In good faith? Do employers get a choice whether to apply for the scheme (if they were reducing hours)?

  • netjock on 26/05/2020 - 21:42
    +4

    I have now learnt that they have been studying a completed unrelated course during the shutdown and never intended to return to work.

    Smart move on their part. Good luck to them, probably a good stroke of good luck to you too. I wouldn't have burnt my bridges just yet. But if your employees want to burn their bridges then I'd have a good think about what would drive people to do such a thing.

  • [Deactivated] on 26/05/2020 - 22:42

    The chances your business will be extremely busy are minuscule.

    • cainen on 27/05/2020 - 16:25
      +2

      We are already fully booked out and generally this is a walk-in business.

  • OzCheapo on 27/05/2020 - 00:52
    -2

    I think OP should put up a poll -

    r/AITA

    • Yes
    • No
    • More information needed
    • Punda on 28/05/2020 - 01:13
      -1

      It is till he meets his obligations and gets repaid.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join