Gov to fund furlough scheme at 80% until October!

[caperberries]

Aibu to consider this unsustainable? What is the reasoning behind this?

Should they just be impoverished? Show we reintroduce work houses?

Presumably they are entitled to Universal credit? Interesting that this is suddenly an inadequate solution when middle class workers are involved.

We are in a country whose financial situation was so bad the NHS, education and pretty much everything was severely under-funded. Because there simply wasn't anything to fund them with.

There was money to fund them but the government didn't want to spend it on them.

The alternative would be for masses of people to go onto JSA or UC which costs money anyway, I know you don't get nearly as much; but with furlough there's a chance of those businesses surviving instead of loads of people being forced onto benefits with few to none jobs about. Both cost the country money, one hopefully helps to invest in jobs for the future.

Well they would have to pay that money anyway on benefits, wouldn't they, because companies would simply have to let everyone go.

Interesting that this is suddenly an inadequate solution when middle class workers are involved.

Yes. Yes. So many middle class waitresses, chefs and housekeepers 🙄

the problem is WHERE will the money come from?
We are in a country whose financial situation was so bad the NHS, education and pretty much everything was severely under-funded. Because there simply wasn't anything to fund them with.

The money will be coming from the NHS, Education and pretty much everything for decades to come.

@justthatnaillady I’ve read that hotels will be able to reopen in June or July. Yesterday I received an email from a hotel I stayed at in Paris last year, saying they will be reopening on the 1st of June. France is just a couple of weeks ahead of us.

Businesses need to think proactively about what they can do to get back to work SAFELY and not just sit back and expect to be bankrolled indefinitely.

I can't decide what to make of this. One minute I think they are going to drop it completely, then suggestions of 60%, now extended to October? Wow

In agreement with poster upthread who said about extending it for the sectors still being forced to close and get everyone else back to work.

The detail of how employers will be required to contribute a share of this from 1st August to October hasn't been released yet.

The media is reporting this badly - Rishi Sunak said:

Until the end of July, there will be no changes to the scheme whatsoever

From August to October the scheme will continue, for all sectors and regions of the UK, but with greater flexibility to support the transition back to work.

Employers currently using the scheme will be able to bring furloughed employees back part-time

We will ask employers to start sharing, with the government, the costs of paying people’s salaries

Workers will, through the combined efforts of government and employers, continue to receive the same level of support as they do now, at 80% of their salary, up to £2,500

He's not saying the government will continue to pay 80% of your salary.

He's saying that if employers furlough staff between July & October, those workers must be paid 80% of their salary - but THE EMPLOYER will be responsible for topping up whatever the difference is between what they can claim from government and the employees salary.

Lots will simply mandate people come back to work or make them redundant.

Plainsailing
What is your solution?
People need money coming in. If they can't work because their industry is closed what are they supposed to do?

If they end up unemployed because their companies went under, they would still be requiring money from the Government in the form of benefits. With the double whammy that their companies are now not trading, paying taxes or growing the economy because they have folded.

What's the alternative to paying people's salaries?

This is not - for once - an ideological decision. It's a survival one.

@plainsailing01
There is a lot of truth to it. Who knew that government could/should actually do stuff? Rather than just "get out of the way" and let those less fortunate "take it in the chin"? The private sector can never and will never do what government can, and most of the Tory Party - John Major and before - used to know this. But these extreme right wingers are having the wake up call of their lives as these big companies like Virgin that they lauded for decades as the best of British come pleading - begging - for public money.

@caperberries oh really? Would you be able to give me the link? I really hope that is the case! It would put my mind at ease a bit more than it is right now

Businesses need to think proactively about what they can do to get back to work SAFELY and not just sit back and expect to be bankrolled indefinitely.

Some have been ordered to close. Is it fair on those (mainly low paid) staff to get nothing? It's not their fault, it's not their employers fault either. Many restaurants here have adapted to providing takeaways alone, but they still don't need all of their staff, they are making as much effort as they can but they don't really have a choice aside from applying for furlough or letting people go. No doubt some who didn't need to close, or needed time to put into place safety measures have taken advantage a bit, but for something put into place very quickly it's impressive, albeit unsustainable. And LOL at whoever said about the middle class, many, many, many who are receiving furlough pay are low paid.

@justthatnaillady

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uk-lockdown-pubs-bars-restaurants-reopen-hospitality-industry-a9507656.html%3famp

Before people start celebrating please be clear it will not be 80% of salary funded by Government after July, it will be 80% JOINTLY funded between gov and employees (yet to be announced split). If there is hugely reduced demand for a certain business, hence much more limited staff needed by said company then employers will make redundancies.

Not as many redundancies as if furlough was not extended. Never enough for some people is it.

There was money to fund them but the government didn't want to spend it on them.

The question of whether there is enough money for anything has no simple answer. It's not a question of counting up notes in the safe, government can always print money if it really wants to spend. Whether they think they should spend more is based on predicting what the consequences will be over the next few decades. I do think it is more justifiable to splurge on a one-off emergency than to commit to a regular outgoing that is intended to last forever, at a time when outgoings already exceed income. (Assuming it is a good idea for outgoings not to exceed income, even though you theoretically can just print your own money.)

I think this scheme is going to replace the benefit scroungers scorn on Mumsnet. I personally don't bregrudge people getting help to feed their families and pay their bills while they've been forced out of work for a while.

Think the government are doing the best they can under the circumstances. Don’t think there are any winners in all this. They were never going to please everybody but Boris said very early on that in the 2008 crisis we were upset that they bailed out the banks and not Joe Public. He said this time they were going to help the people.

I agree Caperberries, it’s a big stretch. There will probably be quantitative easing that will push up inflation and lots of debt and higher taxes in future years however they’ve done their best to help most people keep their homes and livelihoods. (Not sure where self employed stand 😔 ).

The government are treading a very fine line and trying to keep a balance between saving lives and saving the economy.

Agree with JustAnotherLurker that this spending is circumstantial in response to the pandemic.

Like Ylvamoon said it’s to support more vulnerable industries. A lot of companies would go to the wall without help.

I'm guessing the money will partly come from the billions of pounds saved now that coronavirus has swept through care homes.

Presumably they are entitled to Universal credit?

I don’t understand this - you think they should still be paid out of government funding, but at the risk of 10,000s of job losses and redundancies, several industries and businesses forced to shut and then no jobs to go back to. Why does that make sense?

For a lot of low paid workers, 80% would be equivalent to UC anyway. For others, dropping to UC could see them losing their homes.

I suspect many employers will not be able to afford it and there will be mass redundancies.

Surely that's been common sense/inevitable right from the start. We're really not going back to mass gatherings, festivals, mass air travel, crowded pubs/clubs/restaurants, football matches with 60,000 cramped together, for several years to come.

There's going to be mass redundancies in lots of "discretionary/leisure" industries that can't social distance.

You can't furlough staff for years until "normality" returns.

Furlough is all about the temporary situation - those working in places that can return to some kind of normality within a few months.

Sorry, but for those working in industries that are going to take years (if ever) to return to normal, redundancy is highly likely.

Have you an alternative?

People still have to pay their bills and buy food, it’s not their fault they were furloughed and I’m sure most would prefer to be at work. The government have a responsibility to ensure people don’t lose their homes and starve to death.