Furloughed Colleagues

[Steelworker 10]

You're spot on mrcharlie.

 

Some will say they would rather work than furlough, in which case the employer should ask for volunteers, who wants to work and who wants to stay home on 80% pay.

 

The furlough scheme has a minimum of 3 weeks and with you talking about July, they could do a rota  to make it fairer. Half the workforce works the next 4 weeks and then the other half works the following 4 weeks.

 

Your point about the different tax code for those receiving  furlough seems reasonable. Those working through this with no choice and receiving no help from the government, shouldn't have to pay for this when taxes go up.

[tinfoilhat 11]

5 minutes ago, Steelworker said:

You're spot on mrcharlie.

 

Some will say they would rather work than furlough, in which case the employer should ask for volunteers, who wants to work and who wants to stay home on 80% pay.

 

The furlough scheme has a minimum of 3 weeks and with you talking about July, they could do a rota  to make it fairer. Half the workforce works the next 4 weeks and then the other half works the following 4 weeks.

 

Your point about the different tax code for those receiving  furlough seems reasonable. Those working through this with no choice and receiving no help from the government, shouldn't have to pay for this when taxes go up.

Those furloughing had no choice either. So they take a 20% pay cut - through no fault of their own - then get to pay more taxes because they arent sat in dark room wearing a hair shirt? 

[Arnold_Lane 0]

14 minutes ago, Steelworker said:

You're spot on mrcharlie.

 

Some will say they would rather work than furlough, in which case the employer should ask for volunteers, who wants to work and who wants to stay home on 80% pay.

 

The furlough scheme has a minimum of 3 weeks and with you talking about July, they could do a rota  to make it fairer. Half the workforce works the next 4 weeks and then the other half works the following 4 weeks.

Furlough has to be done in 3 week chunks.  You are correct, they could alternate employees that are furloughed.

 

Those working through this "with no choice" is a bit rich.  They could quit.  Find a job in a supermarket instead.  I don't think many supermarkets have furloughed their staff so you'd all be in the same boat.  Those on furlough don't have a choice to be furloughed.

 

MrCharlie says he earns nothing like £2500 per month.  So assume he earns £1500 a month.  That means his tax contribution for a whole year is about £1000.  He is barely a tax contributor anyway.  No offence, but the rant is misplaced.

6 minutes ago, tinfoilhat said:

Those furloughing had no choice either. So they take a 20% pay cut - through no fault of their own - then get to pay more taxes because they arent sat in dark room wearing a hair shirt? 

Why don't they suggest the company pays more corporation tax instead?  They are getting government money, not the furloughed staff.  Because it's easier to pick on people who are seemingly getting something for nothing is my guess.

 

Also, as an aside, worth pointing out that redundancy money is tax free up to £30k.  To repeat, furlough pay is not.

Edited May 22, 2020 by Arnold_Lane

[Arnold_Lane 0]

12 minutes ago, Steelworker said:

Some will say they would rather work than furlough, in which case the employer should ask for volunteers, who wants to work and who wants to stay home on 80% pay.

What about those companies that have furloughed most staff?  Pubs, for example.  Do they have to pay more tax when this is over even though they couldn't even be given a choice about being furloughed or carrying on working?

[Steelworker 10]

1 minute ago, tinfoilhat said:

Those furloughing had no choice either. So they take a 20% pay cut - through no fault of their own - then get to pay more taxes because they arent sat in dark room wearing a hair shirt? 

I had no idea those on furlough weren't happy with it, if that's the case we should scrap it.  This money obviously has to be paid back by someone, if not those that are receiving the money then it means everyone paying it back. It's clearly unfair for those working through this to pay for those that aren't. 

 

It keeps getting repeated that those furloughed had no choice but many employees pressured employers into furloughing.  Next warehouse tried to stay open and offered an extra 20% pay to get people to come in, but they had to furlough because the staff refused. What realistic alternative did they have. Lots of other places have offered premiums to keep people coming in, otherwise closure and furlough looks the alternative.

[Arnold_Lane 0]

1 hour ago, West 77 said:

Many workers who are furloughed at the moment will not be returning to work after the furloughed scheme is ended because of the economic consequences from the coronavirus.  If I was in your shoes I'd be happy I was asked back to work because if there are redundancies at your place of work then it's more likely that the ones who haven't been asked to return to work yet will be chosen to be made redundant.

That, strictly speaking, is discriminatory and would be grounds for formal complaint.

 

However, they way I see it, and what you might be implying is, if not furloughing everyone, companies are furloughing staff that they feel they can cope without during this period.  In manufacturing, for example, if things don't return to pre-virus production levels before the scheme ends and the company has to make redundancies it will pick the ones it feels it can do without.  I.e. the same people who were furloughed.

 

To my mind, if your company (hospitality aside) has had to furlough people it has done so because it has cash-flow issues.  Reduced staff means reduced production, which they will ordinarily want to maximum capacity.  Therefore, if you haven't been furloughed, there is a good chance you will still have a job to come back to when this is all over.

 

Those that are furloughed do not have the same comfort.  So maybe they gloat about enjoying the sun, but inside they are very worried.

[tinfoilhat 11]

Just now, Steelworker said:

I had no idea those on furlough weren't happy with it, if that's the case we should scrap it.  This money obviously has to be paid back by someone, if not those that are receiving the money then it means everyone paying it back. It's clearly unfair for those working through this to pay for those that aren't. 

 

It keeps getting repeated that those furloughed had no choice but many employees pressured employers into furloughing.  Next warehouse tried to stay open and offered an extra 20% pay to get people to come in, but they had to furlough because the staff refused. What realistic alternative did they have. Lots of other places have offered premiums to keep people coming in, otherwise closure and furlough looks the alternative.

The employees cannot dictate whether they get furloughed or not. As far as I can see, employees, rightly, can object to unsafe working practices, but if its safe to do so and the work is their employers would want them in and after 2 months of being 20% short in their pay packet employees would want to come back.

 

Some will need to stay if because of health reasons, some will swing the lead, but you'll always have lazy sods 

 

But given the huge numbers of newly unemployed, I'd be surprised if many warehouses need to offer extra cash.

 

I'm furloughed. I want to work. My clients - all of them - are closed.

[Arnold_Lane 0]

7 minutes ago, tinfoilhat said:

The employees cannot dictate whether they get furloughed or not. As far as I can see, employees, rightly, can object to unsafe working practices, but if its safe to do so and the work is their employers would want them in and after 2 months of being 20% short in their pay packet employees would want to come back.

 

Some will need to stay if because of health reasons, some will swing the lead, but you'll always have lazy sods 

 

But given the huge numbers of newly unemployed, I'd be surprised if many warehouses need to offer extra cash.

 

I'm furloughed. I want to work. My clients - all of them - are closed.

You have no right to be asked to be furloughed even if you have health problems.  A company can try and accommodate you, but is not obliged to furlough you if you do not feel safe returning to work (assuming they have taken the reasonable steps to provide a safe working environment). 

 

Such people shouldn't even be mentioned in the same thread.  It's a different discussion.

 

 

Edited May 22, 2020 by Arnold_Lane

[willman 10]

Many people are ok with furlough for a couple of reasons - they don't want to go to work and risk infection/infecting or they don't want to go to work and get paid 80% of their salary for doing sod all. But that isn't everyone, many are desperate to get back to work.

 

In discussions with my client base lots of them expect at least  a 25% reduction in competitor businesses when this is over, and in some food service industries even more than that.

[Arnold_Lane 0]

1 minute ago, willman said:

Many people are ok with furlough for a couple of reasons - they don't want to go to work and risk infection/infecting or they don't want to go to work and get paid 80% of their salary for doing sod all. But that isn't everyone, many are desperate to get back to work.

 

In discussions with my client base lots of them expect at least  a 25% reduction in competitor businesses when this is over, and in some food service industries even more than that.

Why do you assume no-one earns more than £30k?  Many people who earn quite a lot more are furloughed as well.  They are receiving less than 80% of their salary.

[tinfoilhat 11]

1 minute ago, West 77 said:

I agree with your logical analysis. Given the choice I'd rather be in mrcharlie's shoes at the moment rather than his former work colleagues still being furloughed.

But then you havent got to hear mrcharlie going on and on and on all day every day. I've worked at places like that and it's hard work!

[Arnold_Lane 0]

11 minutes ago, tinfoilhat said:

But then you havent got to hear mrcharlie going on and on and on all day every day. I've worked at places like that and it's hard work!

The language is all wrong.  "I'm being forced to work whilst others are not."  They aren't, they can quit.  They are no-more forced to work now at this job than before anyone had heard of Covid-19.

 

Oh, but I can't quit - I've got bills to pay!  Yeah, well, so have the furloughed staff and they are doing it on 80% of their usual pay! Or less.

 

I'd add though - there probably are companies that are not practicing safe working according to the new guidance and staff do feel they have to work.  But nowhere has MrCharlie made that argument in this thread so it's moot.

 

Still not sure how his company managed to furlough half it's staff for 4 weeks when it must be done in 3 week chunks.  One must deduce the company recalled some staff back from furlough and is not in fact making a claim for the 4th week.  Because it can't.  Or, the whole thing is made up and this is really a general rant about the whole furlough scheme hidden behind bogus claims of gloating staff to make it more emotive.

Edited May 22, 2020 by Arnold_Lane