Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

No wonder why people get annoyed with those on furlough

106 replies

Whatnotwhat · 21/09/2021 18:08

I work in a social club in the evening. I do have a day time job.
Before covid I worked Tuesday, Friday and Saturday.
I have been very grateful that I was paid furlough during lockdown.
At the beginning of September the club finally opened fully.
Glad to be back working missed the company.

This is now my aibu the girl who works on a Monday, Thursday and Saturday
who was paid furlough for those hours has come back and will only work
on the Monday as she doesn't want to work the other days.
Her words 'furlough was money for nothing'. She also has a job during the day.
Our employer isn't allowed to hire anyone else yet until she puts it in writing
that she will only work Mon

W

OP posts:
NamechangeApril21 · 22/09/2021 20:41

Also see you haven't replied to other posters making the same point as me - that for many people, 20% of their wages weren't taken up by those costs.

GoogleyEyes1 · 22/09/2021 21:58

You don't need to explain yourself NameChange to any idiot who can't possibly understand how someone bringing in 20% less every month could end up struggling because they could just save all the money they spend eating at restaurants all the time.

They lost the right to have any sort of debate about this topic when they made such a ridiculous comment imo.

RustyBear · 22/09/2021 22:02

@flippertyop

Those people earning 80 percent also had no transport costs to get to work. Didn't need to drop children off at school saving costs. Couldn't eat out etc etc I can't understand how they can be in debt
People who walked to work, had no children and didn't eat out?
GoogleyEyes1 · 22/09/2021 22:04

Also lol at the idea of kids being off school saving you a load of money. I've never spent so much on utilities and food as when everyone was at home! (Kids and WFH).

HahaAreyouSerious · 22/09/2021 22:49

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

notanothertakeaway · 22/09/2021 22:53

@seaandsandcastles

What’s the problem? She’s decided she values her time more and wants to reduce her days.
Yes that's fine, except that we (taxpayers) have paid her salary since she made that choice, possibly some time ago
GoogleyEyes1 · 23/09/2021 06:57

Yes that's fine, except that we (taxpayers) have paid her salary since she made that choice, possibly some time ago

You've no idea when she made the choice.

Do you resent paying into the benefit pot too?

flippertyop · 23/09/2021 07:10

i worked in the local supermarket depot during lockdown to top up my furlough. There were jobs available if you looked for them - they were just different jobs mainly focused on distribution and delivery. There were pilots driving delivery vans. Of course if you've made a decision to live in the middle of nowhere with no public transport that would be harder. But again that was your choice. I think it's inexcusable to complain about receiving 80 percent of your salary with two of you sitting at home. One of you could have found something if you had looked around Amazon were recruiting like nobodies business. Half the depot were furloughed

ZoBo123 · 23/09/2021 07:54

There were jobs everywhere. Some places were closed while demand in other places soared. Amazon picking and delivering, supermarket in store or deliveries, take away deliveries. All of these increased hugely and needed to recruit staff.

sst1234 · 23/09/2021 07:54

@BrendaBubbles

Of course people will take advantage. The problem was keeping the scamscheme going so long, there has been zero excuse for it since at least June. If you can milk it then fill your boots, your taxes will be going up to pay for it eventually anyway.
Furlough champions forget that it’s not just more taxes they need to pay. Everyone’s moaning about inflation and prices going up. Furlough has a lot to do with it. The economy stated opening back up in April, so the shortage or workers while some were paid to be at home just meant wage increases started pushing prices up. Furlough had a purpose once. It should have ended many months ago.
sst1234 · 23/09/2021 07:56

@flippertyop

i worked in the local supermarket depot during lockdown to top up my furlough. There were jobs available if you looked for them - they were just different jobs mainly focused on distribution and delivery. There were pilots driving delivery vans. Of course if you've made a decision to live in the middle of nowhere with no public transport that would be harder. But again that was your choice. I think it's inexcusable to complain about receiving 80 percent of your salary with two of you sitting at home. One of you could have found something if you had looked around Amazon were recruiting like nobodies business. Half the depot were furloughed
And the fact the some people on furlough have are complaining about their job no longer being there despite knowing that when govt support stops their business will be unviable. Why sit there and wait for this. Change jobs much earlier that furlough stops. It can only be because they didn’t want to give up the free paid time off.
JustLyra · 23/09/2021 07:58

Of course if you've made a decision to live in the middle of nowhere with no public transport that would be harder. But again that was your choice

Yes, all those people should have considered future global pandemic when they made their choice of where to live…

flippertyop · 23/09/2021 08:11

Well or considered what they would do if that job no longer existed. Many people who live in the sticks take long commutes into work. Some people just list excuses why they can't do things that others are prepared to do. Then they complain they are worse off

DottyHarmer · 23/09/2021 08:13

There are always people who see an opportunity.

I know one person who was furloughed from a small hotel, took another job whilst furloughed, then went off sick when the hotel reopened. She resigned when it started to be investigated why she could be signed off sick from one job but not the other…

user1497207191 · 23/09/2021 09:55

@GoogleyEyes1

You don't need to explain yourself NameChange to any idiot who can't possibly understand how someone bringing in 20% less every month could end up struggling because they could just save all the money they spend eating at restaurants all the time.

They lost the right to have any sort of debate about this topic when they made such a ridiculous comment imo.

Unless they were working part time and earning below the NIC threshold, it's not a 20% cut, as their deductions (NIC, tax, student loans, workplace pensions, etc) will have reduced too.
NamechangeApril21 · 23/09/2021 10:57

@flippertyop

i worked in the local supermarket depot during lockdown to top up my furlough. There were jobs available if you looked for them - they were just different jobs mainly focused on distribution and delivery. There were pilots driving delivery vans. Of course if you've made a decision to live in the middle of nowhere with no public transport that would be harder. But again that was your choice. I think it's inexcusable to complain about receiving 80 percent of your salary with two of you sitting at home. One of you could have found something if you had looked around Amazon were recruiting like nobodies business. Half the depot were furloughed
For the last god damn time, we are not complaining! I was highlighting how a 20% in wages could easily tip many families over the edge! We had savings, we were fine! You have never once gone back to address your original comment and how tone deaf it was.

Obviously, if that situation became permanent we would have made changes! We didn't base our not having a car or where we live on the possibility of a global pandemic shutting down half of the economy!

Obviously if my husband was out of work, and there were no job opportunities on an ongoing basis we would make changes to address that. While my children are young, it is more cost effective to have a parent at home and us not have to run a car. Sorry that makes you so bitter - maybe make some of the changes I suggested in my previous post to you too can be home with your kids!

One of us finding something for those 3 months would have meant handing a load of money out up front for a car or moving house, which has its own costs and would take longer than the 3 months he was actually furlougued for - not to mention the fact everything was bloody closed so we couldn't have done either of those things anyway! - how was that bloody realistic? I'll say it again, it was an unprecedented situation caused by a global pandemic, it is not our normal circumstances.

Your solution that no one should ever live in the countryside ever just in case a pandemic should happen is much more sensible 🙄

It honestly beggars belief that you cannot imagine how anyone's situation is different than your own. We live within our means, without any benefits, under our set up in normal times, and had a contingency of savings for emergencies. But I recognise we are lucky in that. A great many people don't have that luxury and are trapped by circumstance. Its not a matter of "just moving house" - what an over simplified, condescending solution that just highlights how out of touch and narrow minded you are.

Congratulations that you found a solution for yourself during lockdown - many wouldn't have been able to due to differing circumstances, a concept that clearly escapes you.

And there's many on here who believe that if you were able to work elsewhere during lockdown, you shouldn't have been entitled to furlough because you could still bring in a wage. Furlough was for those who couldn't work anywhere else or were shielding. So while people were losing jobs, businesses, homes and livelihoods, you were actually profiting from the tax payers pocket. Maybe if you had picked a career that wasn't so fragile or unnecessary, your job would have been safe through all this and you wouldn't have needed to be furloughed at all! Much like we chose where we live, which was suitable and viable before lockdown, you chose a job that was suitable and viable before lockdown. Why didn't you use your crystal ball when career picking?

NamechangeApril21 · 23/09/2021 11:02

@user1497207191 for us that was still an £80 a week cut in take home pay. We were OK, but for many families that could be devastating. For some people, that could be absorbed by their cost to get to work, or cutting down on lifestyle choices, but for many many others that put them on the breadline. I'm sure pointing out that that £80 isn't actually a full 20% of their take home pay is really helpful though.

a8mint · 23/09/2021 11:10

I'm struggling to see what your beef is?

NamechangeApril21 · 23/09/2021 11:12

@flippertyop

Well or considered what they would do if that job no longer existed. Many people who live in the sticks take long commutes into work. Some people just list excuses why they can't do things that others are prepared to do. Then they complain they are worse off
If my husbands job no longer exists, he has many other opportunities for another one as he has a good reputation in his industry. Should his industry no longer exist because of covid (which it does, it only closed for 3 months) then I go back to work (again without needing the use of a car), and he switches back to being the SAHP.

And people who live in "the sticks" who can take long commutes into work clearly have jobs that make it financially viable to do so. Why would we commute miles away, to do the same job in the big smoke, for the same or similar money but hand out a fortune for travel, when we can walk for free and bring home 100% of our wage. I really hope your job doesn't involve maths.

user1497207191 · 23/09/2021 11:39

[quote NamechangeApril21]@user1497207191 for us that was still an £80 a week cut in take home pay. We were OK, but for many families that could be devastating. For some people, that could be absorbed by their cost to get to work, or cutting down on lifestyle choices, but for many many others that put them on the breadline. I'm sure pointing out that that £80 isn't actually a full 20% of their take home pay is really helpful though.[/quote]
But still a hell of a lot better than a lot of self employed/freelancers who got nothing because they fell through the cracks in the support schemes.

80% furlough is a very good substitute during a pandemic and better than redundancy which would have been the alternative for many.

sst1234 · 23/09/2021 11:45

Anyone moaning about getting 80% pay is frankly going to not get a sympathetic response. The world did not shut down, only some sectors did. If you chose to sit at home and not top up your own pay, who is to blame?

GoogleyEyes1 · 23/09/2021 11:52

Unless they were working part time and earning below the NIC threshold, it's not a 20% cut, as their deductions (NIC, tax, student loans, workplace pensions, etc) will have reduced too.

The point still stands that it's idiotic to "not understand" how anyone on furlough could have ended up in debt and was not pocketing a load of saved money.

GoogleyEyes1 · 23/09/2021 11:53

@sst1234

Anyone moaning about getting 80% pay is frankly going to not get a sympathetic response. The world did not shut down, only some sectors did. If you chose to sit at home and not top up your own pay, who is to blame?
And how exactly do you expect people with kids at home who weren't allowed to go to school to do that?

It's not even my situation, I worked throughout. But it doesn't take that much of a stretch of the imagination. Jesus.

Antsinyourpanta · 23/09/2021 12:11

Those people earning 80 percent also had no transport costs to get to work. Didn't need to drop children off at school saving costs. Couldn't eat out etc etc I can't understand how they can be in debt

But not everyone has those expenses!
The people that had money in the first place to eat out, go to concerts and festivals, have multiple foreign holidays etc will have saved a fortune (even though they obviously had a decent amount of disposable income in the first place) and those who couldnt afford to in the first place ...will still not be able to afford to on 80% wages.

NamechangeApril21 · 23/09/2021 12:14

@user1497207191 the point I'm trying to make was in opposition to the comment made that no one could possibly facing financial hardship by having a 20% drop in wages because they'd no longer be paying childcare or commuting costs and couldn't eat out because places were shut. Completely overlooking the fact that many people don't pay these costs, and often structure their lives to not have these costs to make working minimum wage jobs financially viable, and certainly don't spend 20% of their income on eating out, so they really did feel the pinch of that drop.

Many people were furloughed for health reasons and couldn't work elsewhere due to shielding themselves or vulnerable relatives, and many were furloughed because schools and childcare places were closed so they had to be home with their children and take on the homeschooling. Particularly during those first 3 months when key worker places were much more strict. Many were furloughed because their jobs couldn't be done from home.

And yes many places were hiring, but what if you don't live near them? What if you'd no solution re child care? What if you have a disability that your normal job could accommodate, but the only ones available during lockdown couldn't? What if the only jobs available near you required skills or abilities you didn't possess, like a certain level of strength or fitness, or a driving license?

To then be blasted that well when you bought your house 20 years ago that was a choice you made, you should have never lived in the countryside just in case there was an unprecedented and unpredictable global pandemic. What nonsense.

I'm fully supportive of the furlough scheme - it's saved many jobs and industries and kept many families afloat, and I'm not at all complaining about people being paid 80% of their wages, which I've been very clear about throughout despite the twisting. What I do take issue with, is people not being capable of understanding that many people do what they can to cut the cost of working, and that are living paycheck to paycheck, and while 80% is very generous, that last 20% will greatly affect many families more than others. I also take issues with this "oh asda/tesco/Morrisons/Asda/amazon were hiring loads so you've no excuse" - that's all well and good if you live near one, have means of transport, are healthy, have childcare still open, have a driving license etc.

And yes, some self employed people did fall through the cracks, that's terrible too. But echoing the same stance as previous posters have aimed at me for daring to live rurally, it was their choice to be self employed, they should have picked a more secure career and sure amazon was hiring so they're fine. Not very helpful is it and is ridiculously over simplistic.

Swipe left for the next trending thread