Fuloughing the housekeeper and gardener

[namechangedforthisverything]

AIBU to think that furloughing the housekeeper and gardener at your own house is wrong? It seems not legally, but morally? Just because the scheme technically allows it aren't we as civilised animals supposed to aspire to do the right thing?

It's Steve Coogan furloughing housekeeper and gardener at his £4m house. It's in the Daily Fail and the Sun and they've contacted him and he's admitted it and said he's done nothing wrong.

I suppose there will always be dreadful people in the world but I just think this is disgusting. AIBU? Or because it's technically legal, is it ok?

The Sun broke the story. Rupert Murdoch, worth £13bn, has had many staff at the Sun and the Times furloughed too at the government's expense, but he's very, very good friends with this Tory government and so possibly, when Dominic Cummings doesn't want the fact that today is the day we find out if our morally reprehensible prime minister has possibly been engaged in something that's possibly rather dodgy, the Sun goes after Steve Coogan. It's all smoke and mirrors.

www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/may/20/police-watchdog-announce-decision-boris-johnson-jennifer-arcuri-inquiry

That doesn't mean to say I don't think Steve Coogan is a twat.

I always Knew he was a cunt

It feels like a lot of nannies are furloughed by their employers, while still working - if not full-time, then a couple of hours to give the parents some respite.

What an arse.

Stories like this tell me exactly the moral compass of someone.

I like Steve Coogan, but not his Alan Partridge character, which many celeb have tried to guess who he took the character from.
Southern snobs just don't like wc northeners doing well, how dare they.

The Daily Mail hates women, loves telling women what to do, how to behave and it hates feminists. It also hates trans people.

So when the DM writes about trans people, it's not writing because it cares about women's rights. It's doing that because it hates trans people.

Because it will sure as hell turn on anyone it doesn't like.

And ignore those who do exactly the same thing as Steve Coogan because they are 'the people they like"

Steve Coogan is one of those people who rarely gets any positive press - possibly for very good reasons, but I doubt this story is being used to bury anything about BJ today. They have run similar stories on Victoria Beckham (who then decided not to furlough her staff) and various Football Clubs (some of whom also changed their stance on it).

Maybe not illegal but not really in keeping with the spirit of the scheme.
Amazing that he did not think this through, surely this is the kind of publicity he can do without !

Like many people on here, I’m continuing topay my cleaner. I can’t understand why a multi millionaire wouldn’t do the same. He seems to be lacking a moral compass.

As I said upthread he is a knob. But it is prob also true that the tabloid press target him due to his legal action/stand against him.

I don't even like the guy but Steve Coogan is probably not even their employer and it may not have been his decision. The article I read was very hazy on that point.

I don't know why people would continue to pay their cleaner. She isn't my employee any other than my hairdresser or the cafe I usually go to. Should I be giving them money while cutting my own hair and making my own sandwiches?

Why should wealthy people bear the cost themselves? I realise it would be the nice thing to do, but I don’t see why it should be expected. These people pay a huge amount in tax, more than the majority of us, why should they be expected to pay into a scheme that they can’t make use of when then time comes?

well a lot of them, dont pay tax (here) so there is going to be outrage, (i dont know SC personal tax paying details so am not commenting on him specifically) and would it kill them to pay their staff to stay home? no it wouldnt - we are spending money we dont have to keep the economy going

Once a twat, always a twat

Having read about how much the furlough scheme has been abused by so many I now wish that there had been more constraints out on it.

I think that companies should have had to demonstrate a loss before being able to use it / or it should only apply to companies who have been forced to close by the government, eg retail / theatres / pubs etc.

I also think it should only have applied to companies that actually generate a profit and tax to the exchequer - to use the example if Victoria Beckham's fashion label, it has apparently never turned a profit and is obviously is just a vanity project for her. But the tax payer should not be propping up these kind of pointless businesses.

I hope soon this furlough sharade is going to be phased out for all other than essential businesses we need to keep afloat but that can't survive in this climate, eg care homes, dentists, vets.

Graciebobcat. I continue to pay my cleaner because she has proven to be reliable, trustworthy and I can afford to. I think Steve Coogan can afford to as well.

same as Victoria Beckham using the scheme

VB was using the scheme for a company that had never made a profit- so not paid tax.

Why should wealthy people bear the cost themselves? I realise it would be the nice thing to do, but I don’t see why it should be expected. These people pay a huge amount in tax, more than the majority of us, why should they be expected to pay into a scheme that they can’t make use of when then time comes?

So you think someone temporarily unemployed with £1 million in the bank should be able to claim universal credit? Because it boils down to the same thing.

He's done nothing illegal, but I would say morally wrong. Typical champagne socialist. Do I as say not as I do
Very true! Never liked him anyway

But I think there is a lot of misuse of furlough. I don't for example think well off CIty law firms should be furlouging their PAs. It was designed for pubs, gyms, retail - industries which have to close during the lockdown, not those who are making a bit less money.

Okay, but when this all started no one had a clue how long it would go on, what the effects would be to businesses, and what the future held.

Better for a business to retain income-generating staff (which a PA is not) to see it out.

Better for the PA to stay home and stay safe, not commute as the PA is non-essential (well, they are essential to their companies, but they’re not key workers according to government).

Better for the PA to be paid something to do nothing than made redundant.

And yes, it should fall to the taxpayer to keep as many companies afloat as long as possible—it won’t be that much longer, realistically—because we all benefit from a thriving economy in one way or another.

Noconcept - I agree. Companies who were almost about to go bust in Jan have been kept going by furlough even though their crisis was caused by something totally unconnected. It is not really at all fair and is costing the nation a small fortune.

I hope it is those who ahve benefited rather than those who got nothing at all in the crisis who end up having the higher taxes

Housekeepers and gardeners have been allowed to work throughout lockdown

Should I be giving them money while cutting my own hair and making my own sandwiches?

But Graciebobcat, you haven't asked us to pay for your cleaner or hairdresser. He would be quite entitled to stop paying them but he is instead asking the taxpayer to furlough them.

hope it is those who ahve benefited rather than those who got nothing at all in the crisis who end up having the higher taxes

It won’t be. We’ll all be paying for this for decades.