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!

I think that other benefits need to be increased. i havent thought hard about it but it seems unfair that those who are made redundant get very low benefits but other companies could run as ghost ships for a long time. But i dont think people will agree with raising benefits and id rather be on furlough than have no job.

Why is the extension not announced today
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.

Because, sad as it is that people will lose their jobs, we simply don't need a lot of the businesses that the people who are furloughed work in.

Endless city centre coffee and lunch shops when WFH is very much going to be a thing going forwards.

City centre shops that no-one visits as they all now shop online.

Support staff in offices that no-one goes to or visits as everyone WFH and meets virtually.

Unfortunately a lot of people are going to have to face retraining and looking in a different direction rather than being paid by the taxpayer to sit at home for months on end while the can that is the collapse of their unsustainable and propped up by cheap debt employer is kicked down the road.

... a lot of businesses that still need to furlough staff from end October won’t have jobs for those staff in 6 months time anyway. I know a few small businesses which are just using furlough to help employees out, knowing that there won’t be jobs for them to come back to.

Arguably businesses that are not allowed to open yet AND are employing people who are “in short supply” (due to needing very specific skills, experience, qualifications etc) could be helped.
But ones that are allowed to open but furlough due to a lack customers/ clients/ etc? Particularly if the jobs are fairly generic ... difficult to see why today’s 20-something’s should be footing that tax bill in years to come.

Our labour market and economy isn’t great: a huge divergence from best paid and worst paid jobs, for example. Extending furlough doesn’t really improve that. Maybe it should have been capped at £2000 dropping to £1000.

I’m currently still on furlough - I don’t have a job to go back to in October, it’s just prolonged the inevitable.

I would support a scheme to help businesses that aren’t allowed to open, but all other businesses should have adapted by now or they will close anyway. We can’t keep paying for jobs that won’t be there in the future anyway.

Mrs Thatcher’s lie that national finances work just the same as household ones really got ingrained didn’t it?
Funny how there is always plenty of cash for the already rich, regardless of the economy.

If those jobs no longer exist, people will simply have no jobs and no way of getting one. What do we then do, let them starve?

We already do.

www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/uk-news/mum-living-extreme-poverty-found-18826385

YABVU.

At this stage, all it's doing is prolonging the inevitable. We can't afford to pay people their wages to sit at home forever. Either their job is no longer necessary - in which case they need to be made redundant so that they're either free to find a new job or claim UC, or they can go back to work.

We need a new scheme for short working like Germany, where the government pays some of the salary and the employer pays some - it needs to be shared.

Furlough only works where there is an end point and return to normal. It is clear that won’t happen and many, many of these jobs are gone forever. But if employers still believe there is work for an employee then yes, governments should help businesses in certain sectors retain that employee.

I mean to add - if industries are not allowed to open, then of course those people should receive support of some sort, but otherwise it's just not financially viable anymore. How long do you think furlough should go on for? Six months? A year? Two years?

Good point, SerendipityJane. What a depressing thought - that people would rather not pay more tax in future, rather than make the reality of that poor woman a possibility for even more people.

(I understand completely that the Government has to play ball too - but if there's widespread disagreement with more borrowing to ensure people's welfare, it makes it a much less attractive prospect for those in power)

if those jobs no longer exist, people will simply have no jobs and no way of getting one. What do we then do, let them starve?

there is UC if you don't have savings or are you suggesting we keep paying people's wages forever without them working?

What furlough scheme are you actually asking for, then, OP?

My husband got 80% of his wages at first. Low paid, so the cap was no issue. The 20% that he lost was all in any case spent on tax, petrol and car parking.

And how about the people furloughed from companies that were still operating and making a profit? Or had assets from previous years of profit making?

I was in favour of furlough, and I think there’ll always be winners and losers, so don’t take my comment as anti-furlough. Just interested in what scheme you’re screaming for, exactly?

How long do you think furlough should go on for? Six months? A year? Two years?

Other European countries (Germany, I think) are extending it for 21 months.

We need a new scheme for short working like Germany, where the government pays some of the salary and the employer pays some - it needs to be shared.

it also enables employees to work a certain percentage of the hours. Here furlough is means not working at all (we know now that this has not happened either on many cases).

there is UC if you don't have savings or are you suggesting we keep paying people's wages forever without them working?

But what if, due to enormous collapses in plenty of historically poorly paid industries like hospitality - in which workers are therefore less likely to have savings or financial security nets - there are simply not enough jobs to go around? Then what, do you begrudge supporting those people? Because that's entirely possible.

Other European countries (Germany, I think) are extending it for 21 months.

the German Kurzarbeit system is very different though. you are comparing apples with pears.

Then what, do you begrudge supporting those people? Because that's entirely possible.

I said there is UC. They would not starve. Or do you suggest it is right the taxpayer pays someone's wage for not doing a job for years (at a rate way above state benefits)? Esp if these are industries that will collaps anyways? What is your solution?

Universal Income instead.

Hingeandbracket, would that be Schrodinger's magic money tree. When Mrs May was the custodian, it only existed as a political weapon to criticise Labour until her decisions required increased funding to NI/Unionists? I won't even mention Brexit costs, contracts for ferry firms...

What is your solution?

Put down the hammer that makes every problem look like a nail, and be bold, farsighted and ...

Oh hang on, just remembered where we are. Sorry.

As you were.

I won't even mention Brexit costs

I will - over £110 billion (or half a Bezos) so far - and climbing.

The first one has nearly bankrupted us, no way can we afford an extension. YABU.

Jobs are not saved at all, it just an expensive delay.

It's financially not sustainable. The tax bill is going to be huge, it already went on for far too long.