btw, MSM is pretentiously tossing "lay off" and "furlough" into UI claims advice. Of course, there's no such employment status as furlough in US private sector (It's a civilian gov and mil term of art) and no bill offers incentive to maintain employment at full or reduced salary. Anyone still employed is encouraged to telecommute, if practicable, in "self-isolation" whether or not infected. Consumer/entertainment traffic is grinding to a halt. So 6.6M is rude indicator of the size of non-transferable service economy yet to collapse. atm, 20M is the magic number including complementary sectors, I suppose. DJT has left states' governors to hedge deadline closures and definition of "essential" commerce while test kits are in short supply.

Dissonance appears in a UK.gov preface to instructions for claimants, dependent on employer application for grants.

What is a 'furloughed worker'?

'Furloughed worker' is not a recognised term in UK employment law, although it is commonly used [!] in the USA. Government guidance says someone is furloughed if they remain employed but are not undertaking work (in the UK [!] the legal term would be 'laid off'). Importantly, this suggests that the scheme does not cover employees who have agreed to work reduced hours.

Employees generally have the right to be paid their full wages if they are willing and able to work, even if their employer cannot provide them with any. Some employers will have a contractual right to lay off workers without pay but this is rare in practice.

As a result, most employers will need the consent of their employees if they are to put them on furlough with reduced pay. To do so unilaterally could be a breach of contract and an unlawful deduction from wages. However, as the alternative will likely be redundancy, obtaining the employee's agreement may not be difficult.

There is some uncertainty as to how this will apply to those on zero-hours contracts, as an employer may seek to simply reduce their hours....