What do you think is likely 'end game' for furlough employees?

[pandarific]

This is total thinking (worrying) out loud, I am claiming no expertise here.

I work in a skilled role in a company (mention this as my salary isn't eg minimum wage so our mortgage, outgoings etc are in line with this). We expect them to make some announcements next week about potentially redeploying some employees to different parts of the business, furloughing others, perhaps some taking pay cuts etc.

If I was given a choice, personally furlough would be my last, as to me it's most uncertain about what happens if lockdown rolls on long-term, if recovery is slow and the business doesn't need you back soon? I wouldn't put it past this government to cut it payments from 80 to 50% of your salary, or less if it came to it.

Or, say you were furloughed but came up as immune on the testing which will be rolled out over the next few months - then I could see you potentially being required to take up a completely different necessary role, but I'd imagine your new salary would be that of the new role rather than what it was - so eg healthcare assistant/delivery driver salary.

So, has anyone any thoughts on the above? Am I being massively paranoid? It's more worries about the mortgage than anything else and trying to plan - yes I know there are payment holidays but those won't be extended indefinitely?

It’s the company’s decision to furlough staff members, not the staff choosing it

A LOT are putting pressure on their employer to close though even where they haven’t been instructed by the government. I see it daily at my own work and you only need to have a quick look at the Martin Lewis Facebook page and employees basically expecting to ask for it and get it.

I suppose if we are made redundant you can say it’s all our own fault then?

I wouldn’t say it was all staff’s own fault, but if the business wanted to remain open and trading, put safety and distancing measures in place, but still had to close because staff were refusing to come to work, and those staff are later made redundant because the business folds due to not being able to trade, the staff might need to think about whether if they’d stayed at work it would have happened.

And I’m not “othering” furloughed workers. My husband is one but his workplace was instructed to close. If it was still open, he’d be going to work, not pressuring his workplace to close.

*Why offer it e.g. to accountants who can WFH"

Well maybe for a very simple reason that there's not enough work for them right now, temporarily. Just because someone can wfh doesn't mean they have work to do.

I've got 2 businesses, both closed, all staff furloughed. We are really up in the air as to what to do, 1 business will definitely be open as soon as we're able but we're looking at whether the other is feasible ongoing. All we can do is take each day as it comes and make a decision further down the line

I work in a gift shop. We’ve all been furloughed but who knows if the company itself will survive. They were already cutting hours to save money.

I am convinced there will be redundancies after furlough and the businesses will be quick to get rid of those who they knew weren't necessary in the first place, and the pisstakers. There simply won't be enough money for everyone and certainly not for them. My concern is that they'll take a step further depending on their financial position and cut it to the bone only leaving skeleton staff effectively. This would mean that some really good people would be made redundant too. That's a big worry, I worry about my colleagues who I very much respect and also about myself. No one knows what's coming next week these days.

My job is mercifully very safe. However, DS and DD have both been furloughed on 80%

In their cases, although very different, their jobs are very safe and very likely to be reinvigorated within seconds of the restrictions being removed. This may sound batshit but if I told you what their roles are you would agree with me - their businesses are temporarily closed due to covid.

However, I do know of some businesses who have probably been struggling anyway and they will continue to struggle. I think this pandemic has exposed a lot of "Business on the brink" and many will go under, making employees redundant

Yes, I see furlough as a 'soft exit' too - next step redundancy if the business needs it. Best bet for me imo is to cling on to actually working for my company as long as possible, whether that's redeployment, pay cut or whatever.

And lol at having a 'cushion' because of not being a MW worker - alas, no. Maternity leave and house move with badly timed renovations mean we have some debt rather than savings. Oh well!

In my sector it’s front of house staff that are furloughed while the doors are shut to the public with back office continuing from home.

When we reopen we will absolutely need those Operational people back. No doubt, we can’t do our thing without them.
So no, in our area it’s not a step to redundancy. It’s an attempt to avoid going bust - which still might happen and is becoming more likely.

*I wouldn’t say it was all staff’s own fault, but if the business wanted to remain open and trading, put safety and distancing measures in place, but still had to close because staff were refusing to come to work, and those staff are later made redundant because the business folds due to not being able to trade, the staff might need to think about whether if they’d stayed at work it would have happened.

And I’m not “othering” furloughed workers. My husband is one but his workplace was instructed to close. If it was still open, he’d be going to work, not pressuring his workplace to close.*

I’ve not seen many on here asking to be furloughed, or pressuring bosses to do so. Most posters are very worried about their employment status. The only example of staff wanting to be furloughed are the Mike Ashley/Sports Direct/Weatherspoons businesses who at first considered themselves above the rules or some kind of an exception to them due to their “essential” status, or Amazon warehouses where social distancing is impossible. It’s not unreasonable to want to be safe. Already on this thread a poster has said furlough followed by redundancy gets rid of pisstakers, so now furloughed staff are considered lazy pisstakers while being told to stay at home. We can’t win.

I didn't ask to be furloughed. There's just not enough orders coming in. My company had to close 2 days after I was furloughed so all the staff are off now.

Given the choice I would much rather be at work and the business doing well.

I can’t see 80% being paid any longer than the original committed 3m from the start of March. Surveys suggest the take up is just too big. So what then? Maybe a reduced payment? Ideally some motivation to get people back working, even if FT not required. The current scheme encourages full shut down.

DH is furloughed, a combination of very little he can do at home plus business volume plummeting. He is contemplating offering to go PT when it ends to hopefully reduce the risk of being made redundant.

The furlough scheme will need to end after 3months to shake businesses out of their malaise. The malaise isn’t their fault but I think a lot of staff really do feel entitled to stay home and do nothing. Those staff need to do something. Businesses need to make decisions and redeploy staff if at all possible.

I don't want to sound all doom and gloom, but I do think we need to be realistic. It's a bit naive to think that businesses will definitely "need" certain people working particular jobs back as soon as the lockdown is over. It all depends on the sector. Clearly if such jobs are in sectors that depend on people having disposable income to spend, the only possible consideration right now is that these people will have jobs to go back to if the business survives in the first place. This certainly isn't a guarantee because we will enter a recession, without a doubt.

OP, I understand what you're saying, I would have been in a similar place to you right now, with house renovation loan and on maternity, but sadly the latter didn't work out for me. I did actually think what would have happened now had my pregnancy gone as planned, and tbh I'd still would much rather have my baby even if things would get difficult financially. You know you'll overcome this, you're obviously capable.

@Tootletum am truly staggered that the govt thought take up would be only 10%

Where I work they have furloughed all non essential (at the moment) staff eg sales, admin not because those roles won't ever be needed but because it's a quick way of getting cash - the govt are paying the 80% wages so the salary costs can instantly be saved.

Its free money for the company basically.

I don't anticipate those roles going permanently - it's just a short term fix for us. Deciding to make a role redundant is a very different decision

@devildeepbluesea they will just have looked at % workers in non food retail and hospitality, I assume. Although still a bit odd, as that must be more than 10%. Meh, they're not exactly the most competent government ever, are they. I hated Gordon Brown at the time, but he would shine in this situation, I think.

It's scary that everyone's lives and finances are depending on the competence of a few human beings who are in charge.

My local paper's lead stories this week are about factories which the workers want shut down so they can be furloughed. I bet they wouldn't want the same if they would not be paid. I understand why the workers might want this and that they may be genuinely scared but that will be why the uptake might be higher than expected. Human nature- a lot of us would rather get 80% of pay for doing nothing than 100% for working and feeling exposed - of course.

I agree you might feel more at risk of redundancy if you are furloughed and have colleagues still working but selection for redundancy is supposed to be fair. If staff with health problems have been furloughed or those with no childcare at the moment it might be seen as unfair to use furlough in selection criteria.

I think I will be furloughed next week, they've told us they will guarantee our wages for the next 3 months. I have savings already to last me 6 months, so hopefully I'm covered until at least the end of the year. Maybe more if I can squirrel away a couple more grand in the next few months. Hopefully even if I don't have a job to go back to this buffer will be enough for me to find something else.

My company only furloughed staff because the staff refused to come into work, despite being a company that could continue to operate under the lockdown and could work within the government guidelines, none of them would be refusing to come in if it meant no money in their pay packet, it really could mean the end of the business, due to them not working we can’t complete our orders so will get no money coming in, they are in for a huge shock if they think after 3 months things will continue as they did before, i don’t think the business will survive. In my opinion the Chancellor made a huge mistake, they should only have paid for businesses ordered to close.

I wouldn’t say it was all staff’s own fault, but if the business wanted to remain open and trading, put safety and distancing measures in place, but still had to close because staff were refusing to come to work, and those staff are later made redundant because the business folds due to not being able to trade, the staff might need to think about whether if they’d stayed at work it would have happened.

It's not just staff putting the pressure on though, there's a variety of reasons. Before telling hospitality etc to close the advice was to stay away from places like that, which led to a drop in income when people did - most in those sectors are 0 hours contracts so their hours were cancelled straight away, with the salaried staff working what there was to get hours in. Then once closed the uncertainty, for example we were told to wait before getting another job until they knew if they could furlough us - for me 80% of my wages is still more (and also leaves me a bit more secure in terms of having a job to do after all this is over) than I could have earned taking up short term care or retail work with fluctuating hours and lower pay. When this does finally end had I done that I'd have lost a full time salaried management position, and would likely lose the care/retail hours I had moved over to - they were all temporary contracts.

Then you have the public pressure and opinion of non essential places staying open. During that first weekend a place that I think could still legally be open now for takeaway, did an absolutely roaring trade as people flocked to the seaside in droves. Locals were absolutely furious and ripped the business to shreds for being irresponsible on social media. They are now closed.

I did wonder how long before the finger pointing started at furloughed workers, especially those at the bottom of the heap like hospitality that no one has any respect for anyway. Guess we're just a little bit away from 'free money' comments as well. Not thinking the poster I have quoted does actually think that, but there's definitely an undercurrent going on generally with that theme. Being furloughed is the best way to try and protect your job for the future for now while you're ordered to not trade. For my own part I'm volunteering with a local group helping the elderly/vulnerable and have volunteered with the NHS. However there must be a lot like me, with experience to offer (care, cleaning, catering) that could (and in my case would) give their skills on the wards, as porters, as receptionists in hospitals desperate for extra staff - but I can't without ending the furlough and taking it as a paid position. It seems there's no mechanism for that to happen, to do those roles as a volunteer because the government are already paying me, and it'd save the NHS some cash, and I'd still have a job to go back to (if the business existed still)