To SCREAM from the rooftops that furlough needs to be extended at least 6 more months

[Marg33t]

Furlough saves jobs and saves people's health. Why is the extension not announced today?

People are losing their jobs at a rapid rate as it's near to the 30-45 days for consultations for redundancies. It needs to be extended or more people will lose their jobs. Other counties are running it until next year and it makes me feel sick that we aren't protecting and saving jobs!

vanillandhoney

Because the govt have given them no choice? 80% of their salary would give them a bit left over to maybe spend, whereas 0% would leave people with absolutely no spending power causing the economy to crash further, leading to more redundancies, leading to a higher benefits bill. I'm a bit confused as to how you can't see the obvious.

I feel desperately sorry for all the millions of workers about to face the world of Universal Credit.

Especially as it will revert down to £73 per week on 6th April.

So furlough isn't sustainable. An extra X million skilled/trained/experienced workers on Universal Credit isn't sustainable.

Unfortunately the government do not have the vision to invent a middle ground.

We simply cannot afford to pay market rate salaries (or a cap) for jobs that no longer exist. It's unrealistic.

I wouldn't be against a subsidy/grant for people to retrain though? That might be a better solution. Furlough payments are now just throwing money into the void. Paying for people to retrain and be employable in a different sector/profession - I can see value in that.

Who will pay the furlough OP?!

I'm confused as to why you think people should be paid 80% of their salary to stay at home indefinitely?

Keep that skilled technician on the books so when things pick up, he/she can go back to work and continue paying tax.... OR lay them off now, let them go on benefits, lose their skills, their house, maybe marriage and then when the economy improves, we can take skilled workers from abroad instead?

Fwiw i was on furlough for 4 months, i m now back at work, paying 40% tax, our company was on its knees, Furlough kept it afloat and when businesses opened we could renew our technical contracts and now we are doing ok.

We lost some staff, not least because we outsourced many functions to Eastern europe but we still employ at least 3000 uk based workers.

they'd all be on the dole now without furlough.

@SerendipityJane, you're right, it was very wrong of me to post that.

The Tory in question talked about stepping over the homeless when you come out of the opera, not on the way to it.

gracetruth.blog/2015/07/04/the-homeless-arent-they-the-people-you-step-over-when-you-came-out-of-the-opera-the-politics-of-rough-sleeping/

It's the possibility of a surge in homelessness that worries me the most. I can remember the utter misery of the huge wave of repossessions in the early 90s, it was beyond tragic. ++

It should be extended but needs to be better targeted at businesses that will be sustainable in the long term including those reliant on a high skilled labour force.

I was hoping it was going to be. Most accountants I know suggested they thought it was going to be.

Keep that skilled technician on the books so when things pick up, he/she can go back to work and continue paying tax.... OR lay them off now, let them go on benefits, lose their skills, their house, maybe marriage and then when the economy improves, we can take skilled workers from abroad instead?

Right, and who's going to pay for them to sit and home indefinitely? And when do you decide that furlough is no longer viable for that person? After six months? Twelve months? Do you keep them on 80% of their salary forever?

Why can't they claim UC like millions of others have had to do?

How would UC for all as pp have said, actually work? Most people in work have mortgages, and other financial responsibilities sustainable on their salaries, so UC as it stands would not be sufficient for many. Which means UC would need to be increased, but then we would be handing out to those previously on UC a big monthly increase, which again wouldn’t be fair. So you would need a tiered UC.

No, it shouldn't.

If the jobs are no longer going to exist then people need to know ASAP so they can start looking for something else

It might have helped you if you had lived through Thatcherism.

Seen this stuff before.

A bit of light relief, UB40 (the band) for those who are too young to know was named after the unemployment card UB40. At that time there was kind of no staggered tiered system of those who were 'better off' on benefits and those who were 'furloughed' etc.

We all knew it was a great injustice taking place. Rat in me kitchen, which was at the time Margaret Thatcher, and now it's Boris and co.

Here's the song. Enjoy.

Employee wages are not the only cost to a business!! Extending furlough will do nothing to cover every other fixed cost with no revenue, it's really not a magic wand for most companies. Sadly a lot will need to close and start afresh if and when they are able to regardless of furlough.

Nope.

PPs were right. This is just the new benefit bashing. Hoardes of posters plopping in, repeating themselves with their "witty" one liners asking OP about magic money trees and is she paying for it. This place is vile these days.

Are you paying for it?

I wonder how many people asked the same of WW2?

What’s your solution, let people starve because you might have to pay a little extra tax?

Luckily, we already have a system to support people who lose their jobs through no fault of the their own. It's Universal Credit. Why is this suddenly not good enough?

No sadly you are mistaken, it's not suddenly not good enough, it has never been good enough.

If the jobs are no longer going to exist then people need to know ASAP so they can start looking for something else

Oh so much stupid in one post.

Where are these magic positions you speak of?

Because we are a nation of individualistic small-minded ignorant cunts who keep electing Tory governments who only care about themselves and their millionaire chums

Like Corbyn, Starmer and many other Labour MPs?

How would UC for all as pp have said, actually work? Most people in work have mortgages, and other financial responsibilities sustainable on their salaries, so UC as it stands would not be sufficient for many

well, you cut your cloth accordingly. It happened to me and many others pre covid. I just had to, like millions of other people, make radical lifestyle changes and give up on a lot of things I took for granted. Should the government have continued to pay my wage instead of carers allowance (£66/week) and a bit of UC for a 70 hours week to fund my quite luxurious life and the financial commitments I made when money was not issue? I think this suggestion is just ridiculous.

Oh so much stupid in one post

.

It's the possibility of a surge in homelessness that worries me the most. I can remember the utter misery of the huge wave of repossessions in the early 90s, it was beyond tragic.

All depends on the society you live in. Spartans didn't want weaklings (much like the current regime it seems) so leaving infant boys out overnight to weed the weak out was the norm.

After all most of us are happy to see a woman starve to death than - heaven forfend - risk someone possibly getting a few quid they might not be entitled to.

How much was that Brexit bill again ? £110 billion and rising. That's getting on for £2000 for every man woman and child in Britain. I'd happily give my whack of that to a homeless womens shelter.

It can’t go in forever. People will lose jobs from the pandemic. (Don’t mean time sound harsh. Just stating a fact). The tax payer will have to pay out for higher benefits anyway as I can’t see all business returning to normal in 6 months even with a vaccine.

There's a rat in me kitchen what am I gonna do, there's a rat in me kitchen what am I gonna do...

I'm gonna fix that rat, that's what I'm gonna do..I'm gonna fix that rat...