Advanced search

'UK will ask employers 'to pay 20-30 per cent' of furlough wages.'

(16 Posts)
DreamChaser23 Sat 23-May-20 19:38:28

Out of the 8 million on furlough if this happened, how many do you think will be made before August? More than half at least?

OP’s posts: |
DreamChaser23 Sat 23-May-20 19:38:55

Made redundant

OP’s posts: |
AhGoGo Sat 23-May-20 19:45:37

Depends on the business. If they ask this of retail/leisure that’s hardly opened up by August (if at all) entire workforce’s will be made redundant.

There’s a lot more costs that labour.

Isotope456 Sat 23-May-20 19:52:40

In the sectors that can't open (or can't open fully) by that time, and who have little or no income, I'd imagine pretty much everyone.

Mum2jenny Sat 23-May-20 19:54:45

Very difficult for business owners who don’t know when they can expect any real income. Feel very sorry for them. I’m guessing lots will close/ go bankrupt.

StrawberryBlondeStar Sat 23-May-20 20:04:00

Worse case analysis were predicting 5 million - so 2/3. I think that’s probably a bit pessimistic. I also can see (as shown by a lot of threads) a large number of women leaving work (so wouldn’t show up on unemployment figures) because of lack of childcare. I think half is probably about right.

The problem is many businesses (especially retail) will be thinking about trying to proof themselves against a 2nd spike. So lots of takeaway/deliveries. Online ordering before you arrive. So massive loss of front of house staff.

MereDintofPandiculation Sat 23-May-20 20:36:25

Everyone who works in an airport food outlet, I should imagine. No scope for the food outlets to do takeaway, and even when flights start again, passenger numbers will be well down.

PicsInRed Sat 23-May-20 21:14:14

If enough women have to drop out of the workforce, before and after school clubs will close (or not reopen) due to lack of demand. Possibly holiday clubs also.

Without after school care, unless my employer agree to me wfh half the work day they wont I will be forced out of work. There will be many other women like me.

The effects will snowball.

Username164 Sat 23-May-20 21:23:07

Such a mess. I don't understand why the approach was so indiscriminate. Some businesses can open up, why aren't they allowed? Why aren't the army coming in to help with some things?

StrawberryBlondeStar Sun 24-May-20 08:15:01

@PicsInRed sorry to hear that. I am so angry that it’s women and children who are going to be worse hit in then long run by this. Which is ironic given we are actually the groups who are least likely to be ill/die from the actual disease. I am just hoping the government sees sense and does something about this issue (opening schools/allowing bubbles so people can get friends/family to help with childcare).

Alex50 Sun 24-May-20 08:42:01

Wow it’s going to be bad, i’m guessing at least 3 million unemployed

puffinandkoala Sun 24-May-20 08:47:43

Some businesses can open up, why aren't they allowed

They are allowed, they choose not to. Presumably because it's cheaper to have their staff on furlough than provide a limited service.

An independent hardware store has just reopened in my town this week but it was allowed to be open the whole time.

Robert Dyas could be open and isn't.

WH Smith could be open and isn't.

A dry cleaners could be open and isn't.

Only explanation is it's cheaper to let the taxpayer subside wages, take the business rate holiday etc.

Not what furlough was for in my view. I thought it was to keep businesses afloat that were not allowed to open like non-essential shops, hospitality etc.

And yes women are being thrown under the bus to protect men. What's new.

PicsInRed Sun 24-May-20 08:48:53

PicsInRedsorry to hear that. I am so angry that it’s women and children who are going to be worse hit in then long run by this

Thanks - it makes me so angry too, always women who take one for the team. hmm

I'm just not thinking about the childcare until The Conversation happens with work. Maybe there will be so many out of work childcarers that I'll be able to hire a nanny. But on a macroeconomic level, that a depressing thought in itself.

StrawberryBlondeStar Sun 24-May-20 08:51:11

@puffinandkoala the main reason furlough was brought in to protect employees not employers. The problem is they government could have tried to limit it to business that could not open, but it would have been impossible to administer and also companies would have still got rid of people. Take WHSmith - most stores in stations. If station footfall is through the floor it probably costs more to open the shop then can be made. So they would have just made stuff redundant.

Alex50 Sun 24-May-20 09:25:13

I can see riots on the streets when people start loosing their jobs because of lockdown

user1487194234 Sun 24-May-20 09:34:38

I think the furlough scheme was well intentioned
But am not convinced it has worked
Lots of employers will not be willing /able to pay part of furlough so people will be paid off
Lots of businesses would not have shut without the furlough scheme
And the abusers of the system...,,

Join the discussion

Registering is free, quick, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Get started »