OV9

GG. wrote: ↑Wed May 27, 2020 10:02 am 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.

Hi Frank, nice to meet you.

Employers get the money from Government allowing them to make decisions about their employees' future. Employees who think they've had a nice 3 month holiday are going to suffer a bit of a volte-face when they realise what the world looks like afterwards. Doing 3 days a week for 60% pay would have been a more valuable contribution, for instance.

Jobbo wrote: ↑Wed May 27, 2020 10:03 am

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.

I think Rich is getting a bit bored in lockdown, he seems to be trying to get a rise out of me lately.

ZedLeg wrote: ↑Wed May 27, 2020 10:07 am

Jobbo wrote: ↑Wed May 27, 2020 10:03 am

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.

I think Rich is getting a bit bored in lockdown, he seems to be trying to get a rise out of me lately.

you agreed!!!

Jobbo wrote: ↑Wed May 27, 2020 10:06 am

GG. wrote: ↑Wed May 27, 2020 10:02 am 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.

Hi Frank, nice to meet you.

Employers get the money from Government allowing them to make decisions about their employees' future. Employees who think they've had a nice 3 month holiday are going to suffer a bit of a volte-face when they realise what the world looks like afterwards. Doing 3 days a week for 60% pay would have been a more valuable contribution, for instance.

How would someone who works in retail which has been completely shut do a 3 day week for 60% pay?

Even in an area of the economy where there was reduced, rather than no demand, how would you have explained to all employees that they are seeing a 40% cut in their pay to work a 3 day week (which is a level that will likely trigger defaults on mortgages, credit card payments, etc.) to share around the work rather than furloughing a percentage on 80% pay with the rest on full pay working normally?

As ever, its very easy to mouth off that this or that scheme is crap... right until you try and devise something better.

I don’t think anyone has said the scheme is crap

Rich B wrote: ↑Wed May 27, 2020 10:09 am

ZedLeg wrote: ↑Wed May 27, 2020 10:07 am

Jobbo wrote: ↑Wed May 27, 2020 10:03 am
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.

I think Rich is getting a bit bored in lockdown, he seems to be trying to get a rise out of me lately.

you agreed!!!

I’m nothing if not contradictory

My Mrs went back to work for one day yesterday in posh furniture sales. As you can imagine they have had to shut up shop and are due to reopen 15th June. They paid the extra 20 percent and have been brilliant.

Guess not all employers are terrible.

The majority of people I know who are on it are very happy to have been paid most of their wages whilst having a nice 8week holiday sorting out their houses and gardens knowing that it's given them a much better chance of having a job to go back to once this is all over.

What's this localised lockdown idea all about?

I’m having problems bringing some of my staff back as there’s only enough work for about half of them (4 vs 8). I’m having grumblings from the staff I’ve invited back that they’ll only getting 20% more than the staff that are remaining on furlough and are sitting at home on 80% pay.

Has anyone else come across this attitude?

Without Furlough, my other half would have been made redundant - She's in Office Management working as a service provider to the office 'owner'. With an empty office, there's nothing for her to do. In the absence of Furlough and with no clear idea in March of how long the office would be closed, the only thing her employer could have done is make her redundant.

revsRus wrote: ↑Wed May 27, 2020 10:52 am I’m having problems bringing some of my staff back as there’s only enough work for about half of them (4 vs 8). I’m having grumblings from the staff I’ve invited back that they’ll only getting 20% more than the staff that are remaining on furlough and are sitting at home on 80% pay.

Has anyone else come across this attitude?

Yes. It’s just tough shit, and be thankful they still have a job to go back to.

To add, we’re on 50% furlough but topping up to 100% pay and that’s the situation for at least the next six weeks. I’m one of the ones still working full time.

revsRus wrote: ↑Wed May 27, 2020 10:52 am I’m having problems bringing some of my staff back as there’s only enough work for about half of them (4 vs 8). I’m having grumblings from the staff I’ve invited back that they’ll only getting 20% more than the staff that are remaining on furlough and are sitting at home on 80% pay.

Has anyone else come across this attitude?

I saw someone else on Twitter highlighting the same frustration Pete. Can’t find it now of course.

revsRus wrote: ↑Wed May 27, 2020 10:52 am I’m having problems bringing some of my staff back as there’s only enough work for about half of them (4 vs 8). I’m having grumblings from the staff I’ve invited back that they’ll only getting 20% more than the staff that are remaining on furlough and are sitting at home on 80% pay.

Has anyone else come across this attitude?

What wording was in your letter announcing intention to furlough staff? Mine had:

“This situation will remain in place as long as we are all advised across the country to stay at home.
The Prime Minister has stated that the situation will continue to be reviewed and will be relaxed as
soon as it is prudent to do so. At that time when restrictions on working are lifted, we will soon
afterwards return you to your normal positions and your previous contractual conditions and pay will
be in place. You will of course be expected to return to your normal working hours when requested
to do so.”

If you have similar you can point out that they are requested to return to normal working hours and signed a document agreeing to this when initially furloughed

Yep, check the paperwork.

It should have been made clear that by accepting the terms of the furlough agreement they would remain employees of the company and would be expected to return to work when asked to do so.

Or alternatively state that of no one volunteers to come back then they all come back part time and receive 50% wage instead

Those grumbling loudest would be top of my list to go should there be any redundancies in the future.

indeed...

integrale_evo wrote: ↑Wed May 27, 2020 12:05 pm Those grumbling loudest would be top of my list to go should there be any redundancies in the future.

It’s different everywhere but I’m very much in a situation where those not on furlough or coming back off of furlough first are the furthest away from the door. Being on furlough isn’t necessarily a good thing, especially with the news about other companies in the same industry making redundancies

I can feel an order going in...


https://www.brewdog.com/uk/barnard-castle-eye-test