gad33

Interesting what people are saying about the UK.

OH works for large international company. In the US and Canada they have implemented a reduction in days worked (with concomitant cut in pay) but they can't do this in the UK office as labor laws won't allow (so they say). They have asked for volunteers to cut their hours and pay in the UK. Funny no takers.

Manc

80% of pay is better than 0% of pay.

Chrissywissy100

As others have said, it is worth checking what his contract says, and check that he is still covered by UK terms and conditions, including organisational policies on changes to hours of work, pay etc.

In the UK, changes to hours of work and pay must be done in consultation with the employees, unions, and once a decision is made by the organisation, reasonable notice must be given to the employees. That said, consulation can just mean asking the employees and the union of their views on the furloughs, and then doing what the organisations wants to do anyway!

Other factor is whether the company sponsored (I presume?) GC now means he is moved to US terms and conditions of employement. Worth reading through anything the organisation gave him once this was completed.

Be mindful that rocking the boat might not be a wise thig to do right now in his position, but like you said, if things go belly up, you have your GC's to fall back on!

AdobePinon

And if he is on a UK contract, the first thing to find out is probably whether that contract is even enforceable. I'm not a lawyer, so I have no idea.

snowbunny

They are a pretty flimsy fall back at this point because it's very difficult for citizens to find employment - and there is unfortunately an anti-immigrant backlash that is causing employers to reject even permanent residents out of hand. The legality of this has been discussed in other threads, but were it me, and I wanted to stay here, I'd take the 80% and if that really wasn't enough to meet my needs, I'd start a new job search on the side.

keira-2007

Research it is then! And lots of it. Things are still not definite so we won't consult any lawyers for the time being. Just scoping out our options.

Many valid points. The last thing he wants to do is marginalize himself. As far as I am aware this is only happening in the US, but at the moment, it is all very unclear. Maybe when things are confirmed we will know more.

He is the only one in our particular location but there are many locations across the US. Makes it all a bit more difficult because he's the boss as well. (At least of this site.)

Well we've only been GC holders for a month. We hadn't considered that we would fall under the US system now. Good thinking Batman!

You got that right. And we are fully aware of it!

Your description of the UK system is how I had understood it to be but I am now finding out otherwise. We obviously need to be fully aware of what his contract does or does not cover. But we most certainly don't want to get that boat rocking. As Manc implied, a lower paid job is better than no job!

How right you are Snowbunny. And that is what he shall do. Keep his head down, find out his rights, and keep an eye on the job section of the broadsheets.

Thanks everyone for your help on this. We do need to find out more info for ourselves, which we shall do. Heck, it's not even definite yet either. Hopefully the company will change their mind and write it off as a bad idea... well, we can but hope, right?

RoadWarriorFromLP

I'm not an attorney, but based upon my knowledge of business law, my guess would be this -

-A contract takes precedence over any employment-at-will laws. The contract should dictate your terms, although it can't be used that violate matters of public policy. (For example, a contract clause that pays a wage below minimum wage would not be enforceable, even if both parties wanted it.)

-I know less about this, but I'm fairly sure that there are precedents to have foreign contracts enforced in US courts if there is activity that involves the parties transacting their relationship in the US. I'd ask a lawyer about this, but I'd bet that the contract is binding, barring any carve outs for terms not permitted in agreements in the US or your state.

-However, as a practical matter, litigation is slow and expensive. The contract probably also has termination-for-cause clauses, which could be used unfairly by an angry employer looking for an excuse to terminate. Those kind of labor disputes become he-said, she-said debates that can be costly and time consuming, although if you have a good, lucrative case, your lawyer should work for you on contingency.

In other words, you may be legally right, but in practical terms, you may not have enough leverage to make it stick and/or the damages may not be high enough that a lawyer working for a percentage would represent you. I don't know your individual circumstances vis-a-vis the employer, but you may want to just go along with the cuts. I'd quantify the losses and expense, and the quality of the job, and figure out from there whether it's worth doing battle or not.

Bob

Probably not in this case, but a lot of contracts in at will states aren't really contracts, or they state that they are not an employment contract somewhere, I know mine did and I know loads of others who have similar things scribbled in theirs...A contract can't violate the law though and anything that would, depending on how it is worded could void either that part of the contract or the entire contract...

scrubbedexpat099

What is his notice period?

He could only delay it by that long.

Giantaxe

Good point. Unless the contract is guaranteed, regardless of the legal position, pushing this too much could risk not only alienating coworkers, but also the employer itself - not a wise move in this economic climate.

What I would do in the circumstances is politely ask HR whether I was affected by the shutdown given my employment contract. Hopefully they'd be proactive enough to research it and conclude I wasn't, but failing that I doubt I'd push it beyond that point.