To think people who worked while claiming furlough should pay back the furlough money?

[Floogal]

A few days ago the 'cannon fodder' actually resonated with me. I've been working in retail for past few years as well as doing temp work in Hospital bank.
Like many others I had to work through the pandemic and did not benefit from furlough. I accept that as it was an emergency fund. What I resent is people getting 2 incomes by working. Also (yes I am bitter about it) my hours got cut to make way for furlough workers at the shop. As for the Hospital bank, furloughed workers were taking up the slots. Though, I believe nepotism is a big part with the Hospital. If someone on JSA was caught working cash in hand they would have to pay back everything. Students have to repay the student loans. So I think double dippers have to pay back some, if not all of the money.
Also fact that lots of people can afford to go on holiday or buy dogs raises eyebrows.

I agree with you OP. Well, perhaps not that it should be paid back but I believe the rules round it were unfair to start with. I work 3 days in retail and days were cut to 2 as the shop shut one extra day per week. So in effect I was earning 66% of my wages, yet if I had been furloughed like the shop manager I would have got 80% and not had to work at all. The amount of work we had to do doubled due to some staff being furloughed and the shop itself being a lot busier. The owner of the shop benefitted from a big grant, I think £25k, even though we were busier than ever.
My partner works for the NHS so obviously his workload/stressload went up with no additional financial help.
I know numerous tradesmen, plumbers etc who could claim the self employed grant yet still work (as their work is classed as essential). It does seem very unfair.

They didn’t do anything wrong at all. They didn’t furlough themselves, their company chose to do this and most people took a 20% pay cut. It’s money most people just can’t afford to lose so they took on a second job to support themselves, the government actually recommended this.

Jesus Wept. If the government had taken the time to work out all the caveats, people would still be sat now whaving relieved no payment.

Had the government but loads more criteria in such as 'self employed plumbers can't apply' or 'self employed plumbers can apply, but only if they are doing essential work and not just doing someone's bathroom up', applications would have taken even longer (and cost more money) to process.

The government are shit. But people who want all these 'you can do this but not that' adding in from the beginning, are being totally unrealistic.

I wish I could've either been furloughed and enjoyed time off with my family, rather than both trying to work full time with no available childcare for a fair proportion of time, or taken on another full-time job earning 180% of my usual earnings for a year or more.

How would you have got 180% of usual earnings?
Many earn more than the furlough cap, so knock the first 80% down.
If you can't use your skills in your first job, your second job likely to be unskilled & low paid. And its hard to get full-time hours in many sectors, So it's not likely to be 100% of your money either.

The odds of someone getting 180% is extremely low, unless they are already a low paid worker.
If you grudge a furloughed waiter getting a bit extra by taking on a supermarket job then you are a sad individual.

I agree OP. Furlough was fine for a few months but people have been being paid full time wages for no work and either enjoying time off or working for another full time wage for over a year.
Meanwhile others are working for shit money or on UC and trying to get by on £300 a month and the rent of a room in a shared house. Really, really not fair.

As a PP mentioned, your ire is directed at the wrong people. It’s Hancock/Johnson’s mates who have millions through PPE deals etc that are the bastards here, not people that were within the rules and desperate.

Yes YABU.

I was furloughed for 3 months, I did not do a second job as I'm a single parent and no childcare was available then. Good for the people who did, it's a sensible thing to do if your job is in a precarious position.

I went back to work after 3 months, out of the home but not in a KW role. Couldn't care less who is still on furlough and what they're doing. The government shut down these businesses, people need financial support.

People who are bitter about having worked out of the home need to get over it quite frankly. It is what it is, deal with it.

I work in a supermarket I have two colleagues who I think highlight the issue some people have with furlough and second jobs.

Colleague 1: Worked with us for years, claims UC as a top up to low wage.
When we "lost" staff to shielding, he took on extra hours to help out the business.
Obviously as his wages increased his UC was deemed as overpaid and now this year, he's no longer working extra AND his benefits have been reduced to pay back the over payment.

Colleague 2: Had been furloughed from her job in travel, received 100% income as her company topped it up.
Took on temporary supermarket job earning extra money. Has been allowed to keep all the extra money she earned.

Both people earned more than usual due to covid. One by working over time that was only available due to shielding creating staff shortages and the other by taking a second job that they were only able to do due to furlough. One is paying back the government money from UC the other is keeping the government money from furlough.

I'm not sure which way the right thing to happen but I do think the situations should be treated the same.

I get you OP.

It is annoying when you come across people who saw furlough as a way to capitalise.

Having said that, I am not sure how the govt could have done it differently. A 20% pay cut for some people really would have been severe and might have meant they needed to make up the shortfall to meet their expenses. Others may have felt that their original job was doomed so wanted to try gaining experience elsewhere. Some may have felt that they needed a job to get them through lockdown (I was on maternity leave and struggled; I was so jealous of my husband who was going out to work).

@thisisnotwhatisignedupfor the issue there is Colleague 1 and UC, something wrong with the benefits in this country when people end up better off doing less hours because if they do more then they end up working for nothing.
I don't know how the solve that but that has to be a issue.

@User7458

It's not as bad as those grants for £50k that people were claiming and all the fraud that went on there

Yep I know 2 people who have managed to get themselves on the property ladder through these grants and they carried on working cash in hand . I can't even bring myself to speak to them anymore . I've worked through our and still saving for my home .

I know a couple of people who were were furloughed and I felt really bad for them because they hated it. Each lockdown day just dragged and dragged for them. Constantly having to find ways to stay busy - they were desperate to get back to work.

I WFH throughout - we were (and still are) incredibly busy. It has been very stressful- especially the parts where I’ve had to juggle WFH with looking after a small child. But I would still rather be in my position. I was always too busy and stressed to ruminate on what was going on in the world and the days just flew by!

@Lockdownbear I agree with you work should all pay more than benefits. I don't know how to solve that long term as many employers have become accustomed to the taxpayer making up for low wages.
Maybe in the short term it could have been agreed that an increase in wages last year would not need to be paid back to bring UC inline with furlough.

You are absolutely unreasonable. It didn't affect you how others survided. People did what they had to, to get by.
I wasn't furloughed, I worked 70hr weeks from home whilst my husband who was furloughed, took charge of the kids and house.
For some, the 80% wage wasn't enough to get by, especially for those struggling befor furlough was even introduced.

It needs to be a long time solution to the benefits issue, years ago I knew a young single mum, she had no qualifications at all, got a job in a sandwich shop. I thought great a bit of work experience might help her get out the rut.
She got her boss to lay her off after 3 weeks when she realised she was 50p a week worse of by the time she paid bus fair than she was not working at all.

@thisisnotwhatisignedupfor

I work in a supermarket I have two colleagues who I think highlight the issue some people have with furlough and second jobs.

Colleague 1: Worked with us for years, claims UC as a top up to low wage.
When we "lost" staff to shielding, he took on extra hours to help out the business.
Obviously as his wages increased his UC was deemed as overpaid and now this year, he's no longer working extra AND his benefits have been reduced to pay back the over payment.

Colleague 2: Had been furloughed from her job in travel, received 100% income as her company topped it up.
Took on temporary supermarket job earning extra money. Has been allowed to keep all the extra money she earned.

Both people earned more than usual due to covid. One by working over time that was only available due to shielding creating staff shortages and the other by taking a second job that they were only able to do due to furlough. One is paying back the government money from UC the other is keeping the government money from furlough.

I'm not sure which way the right thing to happen but I do think the situations should be treated the same.

It's not the same situation though.

Universal credit isn't taxable - salaries are. Colleague two would have paid tax on all their earning from the second job. The issue here isn't furlough it's universal credit.

Individuals didn't claim furlough. They were not in receipt of government money, not directly. Their employer claims it. Their employer were the ones who needed to meet the conditions, not the employees. If it was not claimed correctly or any Overpayment was received it's the employer who has to repay it not the employee.

Furlough saved thousands of jobs, if not more and not only the jobs of these who were furloughed. Many firms would have went under in April/may last year. The government have undoubtedly got many things wrong in the pandemic- furlough wasn't one of them. They could have made sure rules were tight etc but that takes time - instead they introduced a system quickly that got help out there quickly.

Furlough was imperfect, and I could list many reasons why and the way it was not amended or developed, in my opinion, shows the lack of understanding by the government of the real world economy.

What I would focus on and want money from are those companies who have profited in any way from the pandemic, especially those who were mates of government ministers or Tory donors.

It was always going to cause resentment though. Not so much for retail and hospitality - it’s a great thing for them.

But I worked in a law firm. Sent home from work last March (tech was utter crap and not geared for home working at all). They furloughed LOADS and kept a skeleton legal staff.

We were flat out busy. Flat out. The work never really died off, some sectors were even busier than before. Only now we had no staff. We had small children at home. People were working on slow laptops on their beds with boards across their legs because they didn’t have desks.

It was a horrendous time that would seriously have been a lot easier had they not furloughed a huge amount of our staff.

Now logically of course it’s not the fault of the furloughed individuals. Of course it’s not. It wasn’t their choice. And looking back on it it was unfair for us to feel angry and resentful towards them. But at the time, when we were right in the thick of it while they were bragging on Facebook about their sunbathing and decorating and “it’s lovely to have some proper time with the kids”

• yeah, there was anger and resentment.

@KikoLemons

I agree OP. Furlough was fine for a few months but people have been being paid full time wages for no work and either enjoying time off or working for another full time wage for over a year. Meanwhile others are working for shit money or on UC and trying to get by on £300 a month and the rent of a room in a shared house. Really, really not fair.

Furlough was up to 80%, not every company made up the wages, those relying on over time, tips, bonuses lost this additional income. It put a lot of individuals into financial difficulties, not to mention the lack of stimulation and routine putting pressure on their mental health. People working for “shit money” is a separate issue, an increase in minimum wage is obviously needed. Sadly this is nothing new, it is not a result of furlough. If people who were furloughed were able to go and get “second jobs” then clearly there were jobs needing filled, and I know people on UC can/ do also work, but they could have applied for these jobs as well…

+If people who were furloughed were able to go and get “second jobs” then clearly there were jobs needing filled, and I know people on UC can/ do also work, but they could have applied for these jobs as well.

That is a very very good point. 👍

I agree with you OP. Probably because I was not furloughed. My work load doubled, I saw my kids even less.

My neighbours both sides were all furloughed and took on extra jobs, albeit part time I think. One side has had an extension built, the other has a massive once in a life time holiday planned for next year and both got dogs as well as spending more time with their kids etc during lockdown. Both sides have discussed how much they effectively benefitted from it all and enabled them to do things they would otherwise not have been able to afford.

The idea of the scheme was very good, but people took advantage massively.

@Lockdownbear

+If people who were furloughed were able to go and get “second jobs” then clearly there were jobs needing filled, and I know people on UC can/ do also work, but they could have applied for these jobs as well.

That is a very very good point. 👍

What makes you think the people on UC/benefits were not applying for jobs? The fact is these people were competing for limited jobs during a pandemic economic shut down with people who were looking to not only top up their furlough pay but double their usual income. How is that fair? It’s not and to say that this competition did not exist because the people on benefits were not applying for jobs is ridiculous prejudice.

I agree with you, OP. I worked throughout the pandemic and personally know of people who were receiving furlough pay (mostly hotel and bar jobs) whilst working full time elsewhere. Many of those furloughed will never return to their original roles.

Absolutely doesn't reflect badly on those receiving the furlough - they are rightly claiming what they're entitled to. It's our useless government that have failed us on this. We'll all have to pay for it eventually but it seems very unfair that some have benefitted financially from the pandemic and others, like myself, have not had the opportunity.

People don't claim furlough. Companies do. Also it was perfectly legal to be furloughed from regular job then take on a second job. At one point the govt were encouraging people to take second jobs as delivery drivers etc

I understand those who had to work being peeved but the resentment towards those furloughed is ridiculous. I was furloughed during the first lockdown and it was 3 months of worry about my employment and going insane with boredom, I'd have rather been at work. Those who took second jobs likely did so to make their pay up to 100% or possibly to help their mental health in uncertain times.