To think furlough is delaying the inevitable for millions?

[jeanjord]

We're half way through the furlough period, but it has to end eventually doesn't it. Then what? So many businesses just won't be viable and then what? Millions more lose their jobs when it ends? Then those in work have to pay higher taxes?

I hope not.

I think you are probably right. It would be good for there to be some clarity on this

The whole point of furlough is to avoid “the inevitable.” The economy has to restart some time. Furlough will help tide businesses through until that point.

(Some businesses won’t survive. Many will.)

I think you're right. Even the firms that don't go under will think do we really need all those staff. It's very worrying

Why would those in work all of a sudden pay higher tax?
You still pay tax a ni while furloughed.

You need to think about local businesses that need your support

Others have done well, finally have a milk delivery! Not seen those in years. I hope it continues.

I tend to agree. I’m furloughed until the end of May. I’m expecting it to then be extended until the end of June. However the company I work for won’t have any work until August/September at the earliest. Without revealing too much it’s a business that can’t operate properly unless things fully open up again so most of our projects have been pushed into next year. I’d be surprised if they keep us all on until then with only one project to work on.

I was unexpectedly furloughed last week, I expect it will extend to end June. When I queried I was told I likely wouldn’t have a job at the end.

My husband is on the senior team at his work. They furloughed 20 people, but now realise that a number of them will be made redundant because you realise you can manage without them and covid means businesses will need to cut costs.

Sadly, many of the people furloughed were those struggling I.e parents, those with caring responsibilities, underlying conditions, mental health issues. They will be disproportionately punished at the end.

No I don't. I think it will do as intended. I think we can expect more big retail names and probably an airline or two to go under, but many were only just hanging on anyway. And yes small and medium businesses that weren't particularly viable anyway.

But if companies were definitely going to make people redundant it makes much more sense to make people redundant now as while on furlough employees are still accruing holiday entitlement and increased service for redundancy calculations.

Most people are just doing their best, including most employers.

My employer can't work in lockdown and may have to work on a limited basis during physical distancing. But it's a good business and will quickly get back to being very busy once it's safe. Without furlough my boss would have had to offer us all unpaid leave and hope he could keep/recruit enough staff to get back up and running quickly.

I have friends working for major spas. They will be on furlough as long as it's available but again once it's safe the business is sound.

I'm furloughed. My employer has reassured us that the company will survive but I'm slightly worried.

YANBU there will be massive unemployment after this.

Although many companies will survive all businesses will be currently looking at their staffing and operational model and making tough decisions for the future.

Don't forget also, that many are worried about more lockdowns in the future and economic instability for some time.

The point of furlough is to try and avoid redundancies. Unfortunately my DHs company are a bit of a nightmare, they regularly make people redundant then cleverly find ways or employing someone new 2 or 3 months later. DH thinks hes next, most employees are furloughed but he is middle management so he reckons they will make him redundant when he returns. Luckily he has been there 8 years and on 3 months notice so he is hoping to be able to get something else

In some cases yes it is delaying the inevitable. If people were made redundant straight out they wouldnt get anlther job for months right now, at least it gives them a chance.

However in other cases it will enable business to keep going after lockdown, and hopefully retain staff. I think most companies are hoping it will be the latter.

I suppose it depends on how long social distancing has to go on for.

I think voluntary reduncies first and if so I will be happily volunteering.

Many furloughed are going to end up unemployed shortly.

Even the businesses that do survive this are going to need less staff as they just aren’t going to have the same customer base for a while.

As for anyone that works in a pub or in mass events they’ve very little chance of getting a full time job back at any point this year

Yeah I think most businesses in the leisure sector will lose staff when they reopen due to social distancing and not needing the same volume of staff.

For some, I think it will prove to be delaying the inevitable as some businesses are going to go bust.

But the furlough means that

• it might save some jobs because the businesses manage to survive
• the job losses do not all happen during the lockdown (which is really a very brief period, even though it feels like it’s taking forever right now)
• it buttresses the likely effectiveness of lockdown/extreme social distancing, because some of the issues are kicked down the road
• because there are just so many damned unknowns about this virus and this pandemic that anything that buys time is going to help

I don’t see your point. Why wouldn’t you want to delay people losing their jobs if possible? Why wouldn’t you want people to keep earning as much as possible for as long as possible? Even if, say 70 -80% of those furloughed do lose their jobs for good, isn’t it better that they were at least given a chance? If you’re furloughed on 80% of your salary and suspect you may lose your job in three months, at least you can get by for a bit; maybe make cutbacks or even look around - not everyone has stopped hiring.

What’s your alternative - scrap the furlough scheme and have those people definitely lose their jobs now? I can’t believe that’s in any way better.

Surely it depends on the sector. Dark clouds hanging over hospitality, retail, aviation. I’m surprised they haven’t already started consulting over large-scale redundancies, as they still have to pay out the wages, even though they get 80% back from HMRC, and furloughed workers are still building up holiday that has to be paid for.

I can definitely see the positives but it is a blunt instrument that will keep alive some businesses that are doomed to fail, while not having the targeted resources to support businesses with a good chance of emerging intact.

I also think there should have been an eligibility test based on wages, turnover and reserves. Eg I can’t believe that some city law firms have furloughed their secretaries instead of putting their hands in their own pockets as partners. Free money should come with a reputational price tag for these businesses imho.

I think any further furlough scheme will need to be much more targeted.
At present a lot of organisations that could easily pay their own staff are taking advantage of it. It surely should have been about covering just businesses like restaurants etc that simply couldn't operate at present, rather than law firms and insurers etc who can still operate remotely

The thing is going to be demand in the future.

Demand for cruises
Demand for restaurants
Pubs
High Street shopping and fashion.

Anywhere where people are crowded - or it becomes too much of a hassle to go and purchase an item will be affected.

As will businesses where people don't really need the items - why waste money?

I'm guessing you don't see yourself as one of the millions, OP.