OV9

Marv wrote: Wed May 27, 2020 8:25 am

Ascender wrote: Tue May 26, 2020 9:45 am I wish there was a way for someone, anyone to call for a snap general election this week. No time for campaigning and bullshit, just a straightforward winner takes all general election (postal vote obvs).

I'm guessing there's going to be a backlash at the current government at some point?

To most of the population it’s a battle of the Furlough scheme Vs Cummings (still) being a twat at the moment. DC will be forgotten in a week or so.

Rich B wrote: Wed May 27, 2020 8:45 am To most of the population it’s a battle of the Furlough scheme Vs Cummings (still) being a twat at the moment. DC will be forgotten in a week or so.

Interesting. Do you think the majority of the population see furlough as an act of government generosity?

Obviously a whole lotta people would be totally back 'n' fronted without it, but do people really see the direct link back to central government, or do they see it as support for their employer?

Furlough could arguably be described as the worlds most expensive unemployment benefit, but then I am not a cunt.

It’s not really, it ultimately benefits the companies using it who would either have to sack and rehire all their staff or pay them their full wages.

Nefarious wrote: Wed May 27, 2020 8:54 am

Rich B wrote: Wed May 27, 2020 8:45 am To most of the population it’s a battle of the Furlough scheme Vs Cummings (still) being a twat at the moment. DC will be forgotten in a week or so.

Interesting. Do you think the majority of the population see furlough as an act of government generosity?

Obviously a whole lotta people would be totally back 'n' fronted without it, but do people really see the direct link back to central government, or do they see it as support for their employer?

i think pretty much everyone sees it as a government thing.

Rich B wrote: Wed May 27, 2020 9:12 am

Nefarious wrote: Wed May 27, 2020 8:54 am

Rich B wrote: Wed May 27, 2020 8:45 am To most of the population it’s a battle of the Furlough scheme Vs Cummings (still) being a twat at the moment. DC will be forgotten in a week or so.

Interesting. Do you think the majority of the population see furlough as an act of government generosity?

Obviously a whole lotta people would be totally back 'n' fronted without it, but do people really see the direct link back to central government, or do they see it as support for their employer?

i think pretty much everyone sees it as a government thing.

Fair enough - was a genuine question, as I haven't really seen any great outpouring of gratitude to the government for it. I see people for whom the scheme is working feeling neutral to the government and perhaps thankful to their employer for doing the right thing, and people for whom it isn't working (i.e. on reduced salaries, having payments delayed, worried about redundancy) feeling hard done by.

ZedLeg wrote: Wed May 27, 2020 9:03 am It’s not really, it ultimately benefits the companies using it who would either have to sack and rehire all their staff or pay them their full wages.

I think that analysis is wrong - maybe this opinion is swayed by me now being an employer. Furloughing was surely introduced to prevent employers making a knee-jerk reaction to make vast numbers of employees redundant back in March. I have a good number of furloughed friends and many of them fear that it just delayed redundancy, so they don't particularly feel like it's protecting them.

Jobbo wrote: Wed May 27, 2020 9:43 am

ZedLeg wrote: Wed May 27, 2020 9:03 am It’s not really, it ultimately benefits the companies using it who would either have to sack and rehire all their staff or pay them their full wages.

I think that analysis is wrong - maybe this opinion is swayed by me now being an employer. Furloughing was surely introduced to prevent employers making a knee-jerk reaction to make vast numbers of employees redundant back in March. I have a good number of furloughed friends and many of them fear that it just delayed redundancy, so they don't particularly feel like it's protecting them.

well the furlough scheme can’t magic up new business or provide any guarantees of company survival, all it can do is give companies a chance to ride out the storm, the same way it helps the employees ride out the storm.

I think most people on it remember Rishi Sunaks original announcement for the scheme and associate it with the government.

IMO it still ultimately benefits the employer. When it comes to reopen they wouldn’t be in a position to do so if they’d made all their staff redundant and in the meantime they’ve had a vastly reduced wage bill.

This is purely from my perspective working for an online brand. We furloughed about a quarter of our staff, it was fair enough as it was mostly people who couldn’t work from home and couldn’t safely travel to work.

However we’ve been as busy as ever, we’ve had a reduced wage bill and we’ll be in a position to be fully staffed again as soon as it’s possible.

Its must be a bit tedious looking through everything with a lens of anti-capitalism (or give you meaning in life, who knows).

There's no reason why the furlough scheme can't benefit employers (by allowing them to retain workers in readiness for re-commencing work post lockdown) and also benefit employees by stopping them immediately being laid off and having to rely on a much, much lower level of support via Universal Credit, in pretty much equal proportions.

Clearly some of the credit for 'making a good decision' is eroded by the fact that it was absolutely essential that they government rolled out such a scheme to avoid economic catastrophe (well, greater economic catastrophe). Not clear who you could sensibly argue that they should have been more generous or that they are doing it merely to help business owners (which they could have done simply with the business loans schemes).

I see your point about delayed redundancy - that is a risk but if that does happen, surely ensuring they have 80% to 100% if their pay during a massive social upheaval (when they couldn’t actually find another job due to lockdown) is a degree of protection?

Its a massive degree of immediate protection for the interim period where if made redundant you could not reasonably hope to find another job.

These schemes (across multiple countries) are the biggest safety nets ever proffered by nation states, full stop.

ZedLeg wrote: Wed May 27, 2020 9:52 am IMO it still ultimately benefits the employer. When it comes to reopen they wouldn’t be in a position to do so if they’d made all their staff redundant and in the meantime they’ve had a vastly reduced wage bill.

This is purely from my perspective working for an online brand. We furloughed about a quarter of our staff, it was fair enough as it was mostly people who couldn’t work from home and couldn’t safely travel to work.

However we’ve been as busy as ever, we’ve had a reduced wage bill and we’ll be in a position to be fully staffed again as soon as it’s possible.

You clearly work for a shady employer who has just needlessly taken advantage of the situation/scheme. This does explain a few things!

It’s very obviously to everyone’s benefit, including the government.

ZedLeg wrote: Wed May 27, 2020 9:52 am IMO it still ultimately benefits the employer. When it comes to reopen they wouldn’t be in a position to do so if they’d made all their staff redundant and in the meantime they’ve had a vastly reduced wage bill.

This is purely from my perspective working for an online brand. We furloughed about a quarter of our staff, it was fair enough as it was mostly people who couldn’t work from home and couldn’t safely travel to work.

However we’ve been as busy as ever, we’ve had a reduced wage bill and we’ll be in a position to be fully staffed again as soon as it’s possible.

Sorry, I misinterpreted your post - I thought you were saying it was seen by employees as something which the government has done for them. It obviously benefits the employer, yes; it gives employers the chance not to get rid of people until later.

Which obviously benefits employees in the here and now. It's totally inseparable mutual advantage.

The argument it doesn't offer protection from redundancy after this is all over is not an argument for it benefiting primarily businesses. How could it offer protection indefinitely?

To be frank this discussion is all a bit silly.

Rich B wrote: Wed May 27, 2020 9:58 am

ZedLeg wrote: Wed May 27, 2020 9:52 am IMO it still ultimately benefits the employer. When it comes to reopen they wouldn’t be in a position to do so if they’d made all their staff redundant and in the meantime they’ve had a vastly reduced wage bill.

This is purely from my perspective working for an online brand. We furloughed about a quarter of our staff, it was fair enough as it was mostly people who couldn’t work from home and couldn’t safely travel to work.

However we’ve been as busy as ever, we’ve had a reduced wage bill and we’ll be in a position to be fully staffed again as soon as it’s possible.

You clearly work for a shady employer who has just needlessly taken advantage of the situation/scheme. This does explain a few things!

Show me an employer in the service/retail industry that doesn’t do shady shit .

I don’t like it but it was the job I could find when I needed one and everyone has to pay their bills. Unless you’re a multi billion pound company

Rich B wrote: Wed May 27, 2020 9:58 am You clearly work for a shady employer who has just needlessly taken advantage of the situation/scheme. This does explain a few things!

That's a bit harsh - the scheme wasn't subject to any particular requirements to qualify to use it. If Zed's colleagues couldn't get to work then it's perfectly reasonable to furlough them. I don't get the rabble-rousing criticism of people (such as Steve Coogan) using these schemes which were deliberately set up to be completely undiscriminating.

To be clear, I’m not saying that the furlough system wasn’t good for people. I was just expressing my opinion in answer to Nef’s question.