Rishi Sunak no more bailouts

[Elpresidente29]

He said government cannot go on like this...

If millions of jobs are lost how will the welfare state be paid for

If everyone gets back to work now. Millions of jobs won’t be lost. There is pent up demand, yes jobs will be lost, but not millions, it will bounce back quickly.

Millions of jobs will only be lost if people don’t get back to work now as they should and recognise they should never have shut in the first place.

A family member runs a small manufacturing plant. When the furlough scheme was announced they continued to work as normal. The nature of running machines is that staff are more than 2 metres apart anyway. They quickly tried to introduce extra measures. One of the owners was in at 4am every morning wiping down all surfaces, hand sanitisers were put all around the factories, peoples temperatures were taken on arrival, masks and goggles issued, memos issued to everyone along with a request that any concerns to speak to management. They basically tried everything to keep everyone in work on full pay. However, some of the office staff weren't happy that they weren't being furloughed despite protests. So what happened? One of them grassed the company up to Health and Safety saying that they weren't taken Covid-19 seriously.

It doesn't seem to pay to do the right thing. They would have been better off shutting the doors and furloughing everyone at the taxpayers expense.

Does anyone know whether McDonald's furloughed their staff?

They did. McDonalds, Burger King, KFC and Greggs furloughed their staff.

I'm not so sure Greggs would have made the decision they did about being too much in demand if they were footing their own bill.

The furlough system obviously isn't sustainable in its current form. I think the Gov will need to get most of us back to work by June & will then hopefully redirect resources to focus on supporting sectors which genuinely can't reopen safely for a bit (restaurants, hotels etc).

Yes McDonald's furloughed their staff. DS's local franchise holder gave them 2 weeks' pay when they initially closed and before the the furlough scheme was announced and has been on 80% since then. Other franchises initially sent them home without pay.

TBH it doesn't sit well with me. He and many of his colleagues are quite literally doing it for pocket money, so I'm not sure why the taxpayer should step in for them but of course they also have colleagues who are single mums etc.

Why?

you know how it seems like a million weeks have passed instead of 6?

I'm actually now confused about who was compulsorily closed down. Example - bookshops - did they have to close?

I thought it was all "non essential businesses" and there was a list of exemptions provided. So the blind manufacturer mentioned upthread - weren't the government telling them they had to close?

I realise this is confusing in the context of "go to work if you can't work from home" but I genuinely thought a lot of businesses were forced to close and now I'm confused.

I am interested that there hasn’t been a discussion on this thread about the transactional nature and value added relationship between the public sector and private sector.

Public services enable private sector work to continue. The children are looked after so the private sector employees can go to work, the children are educated and become private sector employees, the public sector treat, provide medicines to and care for those who return to private sector employment.

I have kept the future generation safe (social worker) for years so that they can turn into contributing adults with mostly good outcomes. There has been a lot of talk about the economy and contributing to the treasury and the value of being an output maker but it is pointless to have a treasury and economic output if you don’t support the thing that creates the economy...people. There would be no economy if people weren’t there creating it, using it, feeding it and maintaining it. The pandemic has been very acute at pointing that out.

There was mass outrage at non essential businesses trying to stay open anyway, so somewhat unfair to blame some businesses for using furlough.

You are right @LilacTree1. There was a list of businesses which were exempt and the rest had to shut.

www.gov.uk/government/publications/further-businesses-and-premises-to-close/further-businesses-and-premises-to-close-guidance

re mass outrage, I remember seeing staff from Waterstones and Holland and Barrett in the media, being furious they still had to work, but this was after furlough was announced.

so would there have been fury without furlough?!

Non essential shops had to close but not non essential businesses Lilac but yes there was outrage when some businesses "people" felt should close tried to keep their businesses going.

McDonalds could have stayed open for takeaway but decided not to (before furlough was announced) because they decided they couldn't keep staff safe. Can't knock them for that.

What probably needs to stop is the amount of people on furlough working a second job as a 'key worker'. It is great they are doing that but they are now getting 2 wages and that isn't sustainable.
I know quite a few people doing this inc door staff from clubs who are now working on shop doors getting a higher wage than before and their 80% furlough pay.
I know I'm sounding harsh but the current situation isn't sustainable so we need to start looking at the fairer cutbacks

Kortnee

thank you.

so the example of a blind supplier given above would have been allowed to continue under home supplies. And actually home supplies would include companies like Argos...

my local Homebase and Robert Dyas closed, which surprised me.

I didn't know if I was being harsh, but the minute furlough was announced I thought some companies would want to close rather than deal with business in a climate of fear.

Some businesses were "allowed" to continue but saw their trade disappear overnight, furlough was legitimately for them too. E.g. the nice small business running a coffee stall on our station suddenly had no customers when everyone was working from home

Rosie "I know quite a few people doing this inc door staff from clubs who are now working on shop doors getting a higher wage than before and their 80% furlough pay."

is that legal?

I'm so confused right now. I'm waiting on something for being self employed - just started pre pandemic - and a neighbour has told me I'm entitled to Universal Credit. I didn't think 2 sets of payments from the government was allowed.

There was mass outrage at non essential businesses trying to stay open anyway, so somewhat unfair to blame some businesses for using furlough.

I agree with this. It does seem like a million years ago, so it's hard to remember clearly but people went mad when some businesses wanted to stay open. For example Sports Direct and Evans cycles and were forced to shut

In one of the most high-profile examples, Mike Ashley’s Sports Direct retail chain had intended to remain open but was forced to backtrack after a public outcry.

Frances O’Grady, the director general of the TUC, said the government needed to crack down on non-essential companies making staff attend work, telling ministers they needed to directly intervene if employers flouted the rules.

“Companies like Sports Direct shouldn’t be putting their profits before people’s lives. No one in non-essential services should be forced to go to work. And no one should be sacked for following official instructions and staying home,” she said.

www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/business/2020/mar/25/businesses-ask-for-clarity-confusion-uk-lockdown-open-staff

People seem to be changing their mind like the wind.

Yes it is legal to be furloughed from one job and work and get paid by another one.

‘I'm so confused right now. I'm waiting on something for being self employed - just started pre pandemic - and a neighbour has told me I'm entitled to Universal Credit. I didn't think 2 sets of payments from the government was allowed.’

Universal credit varies each month, so it will take into account other payments.

It is legal to work a second job when furloughed. Some people were also furloughed from one job but not another, as they already had multiple jobs.

I know a lot of teenagers who are still receiving pay from their part time jobs, even though their families don't depend on it. Even more strange is that two of them were getting very few hours since Christmas (restaurant work) but were shocked and surprised at the end of April to receive a generous salary. What a waste of taxpayers' money.

I’ve just seen that Crawley near Gatwick will be hard hit. It’s not the just the airline crew that suffer it’s the whole supply chain. Warehouses, drivers, retail shops and food distribution etc.
Apparently the airlines don’t think they’ll be back to normal for up to three years. @
Air travel is popular partly because you can go to places like Egypt for a week all inclusive cheaper thank a UK holiday.

The problem is they haven’t made furlough undesirable for either the employer or the employee. Losing 20% of salary isn’t a huge loss, people are actually asking to be furloughed because it’s basically a free holiday. And it costs the employer nothing so they might as well close down for a bit while business isn’t great (even if they don’t need to), give the staff a free holiday and have them return refreshed. Furlough should be a last resort to save the business, not a freebie.

I can’t believe all the hand wringing on this thread. Being deprived of work and income at no notice is what people working in the gig economy face all the time. Welcome to their world.

Lilac was wrong, and korntree just posted the link to prove it, whilst saying she was correct, This is the list of companies to shut and the exceptions to that category, The rest, if not mentioned to remain open. The government was very clear. As such, yes the blind company should have remained open,

www.gov.uk/government/publications/further-businesses-and-premises-to-close/further-businesses-and-premises-to-close-guidance

‘re mass outrage, I remember seeing staff from Waterstones and Holland and Barrett in the media, being furious they still had to work, but this was after furlough was announced.

so would there have been fury without furlough?!’

They’re retail jobs. 80% of the wages of almost all of their staff will be less than benefits, so it doesn’t actually make any difference to most of them whether they get furlough pay or not.