To think that furlough at 80% is FAR too generous.....

[loveyouradvice]

I'm just interested about what others think... I think fine to do this for first three months but really do feel it should be down to 60% or 70% maximum by now....

People on 80% of salary, with no travel or expenses related to working away from home, are really not doing badly .... especially since so much less to spend your money on

It is everyone else I think is having a tough time - whether its kids not getting Free School Meals in holidays, or freelancers or those who've lost their jobs....

I would prefer the "pain" to be shared.... so if on furlough, yes lots of free time and yes, having to tighten your belt a bit....

Would it not be better to pay LESS in furlough - I'm thinking around 65% - and MORE to those who don't qualify but are having a very tough time financially..... ?

We have already had two staff members "request" full time furlough. Our business is working full time (allowed to continue trading through lockdown).

We don't need anyone furloughed - in fact we would have to recruit to cover their time off.

They have told us it's essential as "they don't have childcare" even though all childcare is open. Their respective partners can't unfortunately look after their own kids, even 1 day a week, as "their job is too important"

It's a cop out easy option which gives them 4 weeks off at 80% pay. They are very pissed we have said no.

i feel that furlough has saved a lot of jobs though - everyone has returned to the nursery I work at - all 30 staff members - no change to hours or anything and nobody let go or made redundant. none of us had to claim universal credit, none of us lost our houses etc

Furlough is being investigated now - we had an email in saying we will get investigated to ensure our claims were all genuine!

So hopefully this will bring to light anyone who abused the system

I think it's too generous - we do not have the money to be continuing paying furlough like this, we will be paying this back for years and years - even my children who are just babies at the moment will be paying for furlough......

I don't agree that people should be paid to do nothing. I know people who happy being on furlough because even through it's 80% (as most companies have stopped topping up) once you take into account no transport / fuel costs, they are no worth off so are more than happy to be paid to do nothing which really shouldn't be the case.

Also, if you can be furloughed for such a long time, surely your job is redundant - if you aren't needed for that length of time - you just aren't needed at all?!

80% of a really good salary, i.e. enough to pay the bills, could seem too generous, but for those earning a lower amount, it wouldn’t be.

If you feel you’re getting too much money on furlough and feel guilty about it, you could always help out your local food bank to assuage some of that guilt!

@Bakeachocolatecaketoday

We have already had two staff members "request" full time furlough. Our business is working full time (allowed to continue trading through lockdown).

We don't need anyone furloughed - in fact we would have to recruit to cover their time off.

They have told us it's essential as "they don't have childcare" even though all childcare is open. Their respective partners can't unfortunately look after their own kids, even 1 day a week, as "their job is too important"

It's a cop out easy option which gives them 4 weeks off at 80% pay. They are very pissed we have said no.

You were right to say no in this situation.Chancers!

Furlough should be for sectors / workers that genuinely can't operate due to the pandemic.

Hope your business continues to do well.

My uncle applied for furlough for his wife. She is a 'director's but doesn't actually do anything. And this is in a job that is doable from home. (Weirdly, he continues to go into the office...)

I'm in a profession who is not able to work. I'm self employed. I'll get 55% this time round.

There are many flaws. But I don't think they will be going after the ones who took money when they shouldn't have morally. As they all just say "we were entitled to it"

@FrolickingLemon

My uncle applied for furlough for his wife. She is a 'director's but doesn't actually do anything. And this is in a job that is doable from home. (Weirdly, he continues to go into the office...)

I'm in a profession who is not able to work. I'm self employed. I'll get 55% this time round.

There are many flaws. But I don't think they will be going after the ones who took money when they shouldn't have morally. As they all just say "we were entitled to it"

You can't apply for furlough for a director She must have been on the payroll as an employee prior to March 2020. Whether she worked in that capacity is a separate issue.

So if someone who is on 100k. But has 70k worth of outgoings. To someone on 50k. But has 10k of outgoings

You're saying because the 100k is worse off. They should get help?

@Happyheartlovelife

So if someone who is on 100k. But has 70k worth of outgoings. To someone on 50k. But has 10k of outgoings

You're saying because the 100k is worse off. They should get help?

It is capped at £30k- so the employer would get the same contribution from the government and would be obliged only to pay each £30k plus their pension (on 30K) and employers NI (on 30K)

@Bakeachocolatecaketoday

We have already had two staff members "request" full time furlough. Our business is working full time (allowed to continue trading through lockdown).

We don't need anyone furloughed - in fact we would have to recruit to cover their time off.

They have told us it's essential as "they don't have childcare" even though all childcare is open. Their respective partners can't unfortunately look after their own kids, even 1 day a week, as "their job is too important"

It's a cop out easy option which gives them 4 weeks off at 80% pay. They are very pissed we have said no.

Bloody hell that's awful

@TyroBurningDownTheCloset

I agree; we shouldn't add more people to the poverty cycle that is UC. The way to do this is to sort out UC so it's not a poverty cycle.

This

But apparently it's ok to leave many people struggling (as long as it's The 'undeserving' Others).

Guess what? Many of those on UC or ESA or JSA also suffered a sudden drop in income.

Like I said yesterday, furlough exposed the fact that we no longer have a benefits safety net. But apparently that's ok. As long as the 'deserving' can pay their rent or bills.

It's the new benefits bashing
It's really not. How offensive to The Others...those people who actually are on benefits - people made redundant or ill before the pandemic. Furlough is saying to them loud and clear that they are considered the 'undeserving' poor whereas the furloughed are the 'deserving'.

I'd much rather that than the alternative of thousands struggling
You must be very disappointed to learn that many thousands are struggling. Because they lost their jobs or got ill (through no fault of their own) before Covid. No matter that they too need to pay housing costs and bills.

Heaven forbid that instead of furlough we had actually reinstated the benefits safety net.

@dontdisturbmenow

All those people on UC because they couldn't find work before covid, they're just as incapable of going to work now as the people who've been furloughed. Why are those who were lucky enough to be employed given extra help? It's nothing to with luck. It's to do with having to adapt with a sudden drop of income. Those on UC will either experience no drop, on the opposite, they have received an increase anyway. Those on UC but working, with a drop of income will be able to claim more UC.

Except those on UC did experience a sudden drop in income. Significantly more drastic than furlough. They experienced this drop when they were made redundant (not their fault) or suffered disability or illness (not their fault).

Difference between them and furlough is they weren't allowed enough to properly survive. They're still not. And, for years, not many people cared.

@Happyheartlovelife

So if someone who is on 100k. But has 70k worth of outgoings. To someone on 50k. But has 10k of outgoings

You're saying because the 100k is worse off. They should get help?

No. I'm saying it's naive to think someone who is used to earning a higher amount and therefore has outgoings which reflect their higher salary can all of a sudden go down to NMW or below easily just because some people manage on it.

It's all well and good but in practice, some people's mortgages, bills, other outgoings etc... Will be more than they could afford on NMW because they usually bring more in.

Unless you think people with higher salaries don't ever buy larger homes for example to reflect their wage? And so on...

Perhaps the cap is too generous but I also don't think it's as easy as saying everyone should have just gone onto NMW with no warning. That would have seen people losing homes, unable to pay rent etc... just the same.

@myneighboursarerude

Who the hell spends 30/40% of their wage on travel to work?!

Give your head a wobble, OP. They aren't furloughed because they want to be.

You run a house on 80% of your wage, it's fucking hard and I would have done anything to go back to work.

Give your head a wobble.

Why aren't they on UC or new style JSA/ESA instead of furlough?

Oh that's right. Those benefits often aren't enough to live on. Nevermind for all those people made redundant or ill before the pandemic. Who also have houses to run (if they can afford to keep them).

Why didn't we increase benefits to survivable levels or introduce universal basic income, instead of helping only the 'deserving' claimants/poor aka the furloughed?

@SheepandCow

It's the new benefits bashing It's really not. How offensive to The Others...those people who actually are on benefits - people made redundant or ill before the pandemic. Furlough is saying to them loud and clear that they are considered the 'undeserving' poor whereas the furloughed are the 'deserving'.

I'd much rather that than the alternative of thousands struggling
You must be very disappointed to learn that many thousands are struggling. Because they lost their jobs or got ill (through no fault of their own) before Covid. No matter that they too need to pay housing costs and bills.

Heaven forbid that instead of furlough we had actually reinstated the benefits safety net.

I'm not 'othering' anyone. It's an unprecedented situation which happened fast, therefore a quick 'fix' was needed.

Yes people have lost jobs and are struggling regardless of furlough. I've never suggested otherwise. But it would have been a huge number more without it. As I said in my previous post, it's not either or. I'm not saying furlough makes up for the government's failings in other areas or let's them off the hook. But its nonsensical to blame furloughed workers, the same way it is to shame people claiming benefits.

People like the OP who think everyone is just having the best time on furlough and not struggling at all are naive to the majority of people's situations. I'm not saying people don't have it worse, I didn't think it was a competition? Just saying it isn't as easy as these people, like OP, try to imply.

For many people (and sheepandcow ignored most people who said it) not adding even more people to the poverty cycle that UC causes).

No I didn't ignore that. I disagreed with the idea - of leaving those already suffering to keep on suffering, and to help only The Deserving.

I disagree with that approach. I would've instead increased benefits - UC, ESA, JSA - to ensure that they no longer cause a poverty cycle. For everybody - including those made redundant or ill before the pandemic.

*Except those on UC did experience a sudden drop in income. Significantly more drastic than furlough. They experienced this drop when they were made redundant (not their fault) or suffered disability or illness (not their fault)"
If it wasn't for furlough, all those people would have been made redundant, so you think all should be punished through no fault of theirs.

Of course those made redundant just before Covid in an industry that was halted are the worse off, but I don't see how putting everyone in that situation the best for the nation.

No idea what people suffering from disabilities got anything to do with the discussion about fulough payments.

@SheepandCow

For many people (and sheepandcow ignored most people who said it) not adding even more people to the poverty cycle that UC causes).

No I didn't ignore that. I disagreed with the idea - of leaving those already suffering to keep on suffering, and to help only The Deserving.

I disagree with that approach. I would've instead increased benefits - UC, ESA, JSA - to ensure that they no longer cause a poverty cycle. For everybody - including those made redundant or ill before the pandemic.

I don't think anyone is suggesting we should leave people to suffer because they are unimportant. I'd love to see an increase in benefits. If that had happened instead of furlough then that would have been fantastic.

It still doesn't make sense to blame/accuse/bash furloughed workers though like many seem to want to do.

@YarToTheNar
Increasing benefits and/or implementating universal basic income would've be as quick a fix as furlough.

Who's blaming furloughed workers?
It's obviously the government that decided how to spend tax money. Some of the furloughed are justifying furlough (instead of increased benefits) saying they need to pay rent, bills, etc. Pointing out to them that so do people on benefits isn't blame.

Bore off. And it won't always be the same people.

[quote SheepandCow]@YarToTheNar
Increasing benefits and/or implementating universal basic income would've be as quick a fix as furlough.

Who's blaming furloughed workers?
It's obviously the government that decided how to spend tax money. Some of the furloughed are justifying furlough (instead of increased benefits) saying they need to pay rent, bills, etc. Pointing out to them that so do people on benefits isn't blame.[/quote]
I think people would have been happy with any means to pay bills whether that had come in the form of benefits or furlough.

What people get defensive against is people implying it's been a paid holiday and everyone's had a lovely old time on furlough or that they should be responsible for paying it back in tax etc etc...

Assuming you'd also see why that's not okay if people said the same about those on benefits?

I agree with @sheepandcow. According to my Mum its not 'right' that my brother only gets 80% of his wage whilst furloughed (despite him constantly telling me how great it was as they saved more than they lost, plus I assume his top up benefits increased to cover the shortfall). Whilst my benefits have stayed the same. I did point out that I didn't choose to have a mental breakdown, which ultimately led to me loosing my job, and then my partner walk out on me which halved our household income. And I have the temerity to claim fsm, and therefore the vouchers over the summer which he isn't entitled to.

I'm glad the furlough scheme exists, and I'm not in any way saying furloughed workers should be struggling just because I am. But some people definitely see benefit claimants and furloughed workers differently.

Alternative is pay everyone a basic universal income.

Those who need it, keep it. Those who don’t opt out. Yes some who don’t need it will not opt out 🤷🏻‍♀️

@SheepandCow

For many people (and sheepandcow ignored most people who said it) not adding even more people to the poverty cycle that UC causes).

No I didn't ignore that. I disagreed with the idea - of leaving those already suffering to keep on suffering, and to help only The Deserving.

I disagree with that approach. I would've instead increased benefits - UC, ESA, JSA - to ensure that they no longer cause a poverty cycle. For everybody - including those made redundant or ill before the pandemic.

I said you ignored people. Which you did