Am I missing something but will working one day per week ( out of 5 normally ) satisfy the 20% of usual hours for the month requirement , if we have to compute the usual hours for the month as instructed in the CJRS ?

That is say work every Wednesday (4th) from 1.11.20 at 7.5 hours , total 30 for the month of claim.

Usual hours for the month are 161 , so not 20% .

## Replies (14)

## Please login or register to join the discussion.

It should be at least 20% of your usual hours.

I think you maybe mixing up two different calculations

Per the guidance issued to date, normal hours from 1-30 November will be 161, and as OP has stated, worked hours will only be 30 in that period. This would appear to fall short of the requirement according to the current guidance. If the normal hours were calculated from 3 November (first working day under the arrangement), the criteria would be satisfied, but whether that's correct I'm not sure.

This is the calendar problem of spreading work hours evenly

But ZERO sympathy if people try to go for exact minimum.

OP going for an exact % not best solution. Always build in a margin for error

Hi . There is no intention of only going for a minimum...........I am just pointing out that the 1 day per week intimated in the example by the Chancellor may not satisfy the 20% rule. Just not wanting to tell clients 1 day per week is OK , when it might not be.

You see it may be rejected if and when we are asked to input usual hours for the month and hours worked. If the latter is less than 20% of the usual hours , the claims portal may not let you proceed . That's the issue

Yes

See my 14.33 post below

I agree with you. 2 different calculations.

The first calculation to do is hours worked ( 20% of contracted hours for fixed contract in march then compare to September bla bla bla)

The second calculation is the pay for hours not worked. The usual hours only comes in the calculation of pay for hours not worked ( and not hours worked)

The 3rd ( and final calculation) is the claim itself.

So, is there no leniency for employers who pay weekly? I get that claims have to be made monthly, which is a bit of a nuisance for weeks spanning calendar months, which all will do, but for weekly employees, so long as they work each week 20% of their usual hours is that not OK?

We've a guy on a payroll who can't work a full week due to restrictions about going into people's houses. He usually worked 5 days Monday to Friday, but can now manage one day a week. Is that not OK? It's 20% of his usual weekly hours.

Give him some admin to do for at least 4 hours a month, based on Op figures

A weekly paid employee can be assessed weekly - surely. It was an "example" that first came out of HMRC on September 23rd. And I have done an example on a spreadsheet using an HMRC example. Weekly paid. Weekly assessed. Monthly claim

Yes, I would agree. Many employees are paid on a weekly basis, the hospitality industry which is a big one, and many retail workers. I've been basing my calculations on, so long as an employee works at least 8 hours if he/she normally works 40 hours a week, then JSS can be claimed for the remaining 2/3 of the 32 hours not worked.

Realistically, people are going to be working a reduced number of days per week.

If one day per week does not satisfy the 20% requirement then I give up with these stupid schemes.

Surely we are not going to be recommending working 2 days per week 'just to be sure' we meet the 20% rule?

I agree, Tom. That's the problem with shoehorning weekly and fotnitly paid employees into a monthly system.

Rishi says 20% is enough. If you spread that over a three month agreement, one day out of a (5 day, Mon-Fri) week will be grand.

But if you do it month by month, it won't. Or, at least, it won't for two months out of three.

If you want to cut it so fine, it might be worth sticking an extra half hour onto each working day.

If the fella works Wednesdays in November, normal day 8 hours, his normal hours would be 168. 20% of that is 33.6.

4 days at 8 hours a day is 32.

4 days at 8½ hours a day is 34.

It'd be a shame to lose a substantial wedge for the sake of 96 minutes work.

Unless ........ we get some proper, definitive guidance.

I'm not holding my breath.

Like all these "schemes" the examples are based on the "straightforward". Mr Sunak would not have a clue what you are talking about if you asked fo his help. This comes back to "doing your best" & being able to "justify it". This scheme starts next week and one is supposed to have it all in agreement and writing by Monday. Get real. The initial advice says that what to put in the letter will be forthcomimg (Friday night I expect) & the scheme starts 48 hours later.