Who are all these people that will suddenly back at work this week?....

[Derbygerbil]

.... and why weren’t they at work before?
.... and will there be enough work for them to do?

I thought most employers furloughed their staff if lockdown meant there was very little, if any, business, irrespective of whether they had to close.

This helped those businesses massively by effectively paying their salary bill. If the Government are saying they expect people to be back working at those businesses, it implies the furlough is being phased out, for those businesses at least. However, those businesses won’t magically be able to operate as they did before, or even close to it. Aren’t there going to be a load of firms who could survive over the lockdown, but will now go to the wall now they need to be back in business. I can see it might be necessary, but it’s going to be tough.

Many many companies shut down that simply didn’t need to.

One shudders to think how much higher the death rate may have been had a lot of these companies stayed opened (& what may happen if they all rush back now).

My cleaner will be coming back at the end of the month. We can safely social distance in the house whilst she works. Her agency chose to suspend work on government advice (no mixing households), though the reality is that we have always been able to maintain SD measures and I don’t think I’ve been less than 2m from her on more than a couple of occasions as she has a key and just comes in and gets on with it.

My cleaning agency suspended services, not because of ‘no mixing households’ but because of the risk to. their cleaners travelling on public transport

Loads of firms sit up shop immediately when they weren't told to. Others then shut as they couldn't get raw materials they needed. We have work that needs doing outside but the builders can't get the stuff they need to do it.

@GreenTeaMug My partner’s employers have done the same sort of thing, furloughed the majority of the employees, drastically reduced their product range and continued to run on skeleton staff presumably working longer days and definitely doing tasks that wouldn’t normally be a part of their job role. Unfortunately the company has decided that it can continue to work like this and has therefore put a number of staff (including my partner) at risk of redundancy. Hopefully the fact that you haven’t been furloughed during this period will mean that you’re not put in this position

thank you @TorysSuckRevokeArticle50

Ours shut because it wasn't possible to stick to the 2m rule. I don't know when they intend to be up and running again as space is limited and some of the big machinery we use cannot be moved anywhere else. I haven't heard a thing from them since the end of April so who knows when I'll be back to work.

The construction companies. The company my oh works for had 3000 employees. They closed the week after lockdown due to pressure/employees refusing to come in. I expect they’ll be back in this week

The initial guidelines were that only "essential" businesses should remain open which is why a lot of businesses closed. Now non-essential businesses can open as long as they can open safely. It's quite straightforward really.

Didn't businesses close because they couldn't provide suitable working arrangements that allow for 2 metres distancing etc. Only businesses that can provide safe working should reopen.

I thought the givernment is very clear that only essential businesses stay open...hence why so many shut. Furniture stores etc = not essential.

@whatatimetobealive

The business closed under law such as clothing retail, libraries, leisure are still closed.

www.gov.uk/government/publications/further-businesses-and-premises-to-close/further-businesses-and-premises-to-close-guidance#businesses-and-venues-that-must-remain-closed-to-members-of-the-public

The plan stipulated that they hoped to reopen retail from 1st June and Hospitality/leisure from 1st July.

And weren't people only allowed to use public transport if they were doing essential work?

@friendlyflicka No that was never a rule. Public transport was to be used where needed to conduct essential activities such as go to work, go food shopping, collect medicine, attend medical appointments......

My cleaning agency suspended services, not because of ‘no mixing households’ but because of the risk to. their cleaners travelling on public transport

I am worried about this for my cleaner too- on the other hand, when is this going to change? In a year? At some point people will have to decide if going on public transport is so risky they would rather lose their jobs. This part of Boris' message was really unclear- try not to use public transport, surely no-one who could easily get there another way takes horrible slow buses or the Tube anyway?

absolutely lots of businesses closed when they didn't need to or have to but were put under pressure to do so by staff/customers/media. Now, the pressure has relaxed somewhat so they can get going again.

The new message from the govt is the correct one imho - albeit could have been delivered a little more clearly.

And weren't people only allowed to use public transport if they were doing essential work?

No, that was never a rule. It was another media reporting foul up. The media made a lot of mistakes in the early days re it's reporting. What the news presenters were saying and the actual rules were VERY different. The London Mayor made a suggestion about only essential workers using the Tube and the media turned it into the rules for all. Just like the media widely reported a police chief's comment about travel for exercise as fact/law when the actual laws said nothing of the kind.

also - the closure of businesses was related to the impact on the member of the public. So, if you own a factory, or a warehouse or some sort of light industrial unit etc you never had to close it unless it was open to members of the public. But lots of businesses just shut down regardless.

surely no-one who could easily get there another way takes horrible slow buses or the Tube anyway?

London life may be different, but for the vast majority of workers - those who don't live/work in London, there isn't the same reliance on public transport and cars, bikes or walking IS a viable alternative.

Most of our local hospital workers now drive to work. Previously, due to there being very little staff parking, many would get the bus. Now, the visitors car parks are for staff only and the council have reallocated a couple of council town centre car parks for hospital use only, so most staff now drive to work.

People need to remember that London really isn't the centre of the universe.

the guidance about work was that you should only travel to work 'if it is essential for you to do so'

lots of people (especially the media) took this as meaning only travel if your work is essential

but what it actually meant was 'if you have to go to work and and it is essential that you travel in order to carry out that work, then you can do so'

The rule was never that only essential businesses could stay open. Any business could stay open as long as it could not be done from home and social distancing could be applied: mobile dog groomers, upholsterers, manufacturers of novelty gifts, you name it, and travel to get to your work was permitted regardless of how trivial that work might be.

The exceptions were the businesses which were specifically ordered to close: gyms, eat-in restaurants and bars, cinemas, theatres, hair and beauty and non-essential shops.

The problem is that social distancing is hard to apply in most workplaces. If you work in a factory, the machines dictate where people work and I don't think that can be changed easily. If you work in a restaurant, the kitchen is only a certain size so social distancing becomes a problem. And that was why a lot of places felt they needed to shut down - they couldn't make it work.

And now government wants these places to reopen. In theory, I'm 100% behind this. But the underlying problems with social distancing in these workplaces remains and I'm not sure we've seen any sense of how this might be better managed.

The initial guidelines were that only "essential" businesses should remain open which is why a lot of businesses closed.

No that was never the rule. It was work from home if you can. There were a small number of business types forced to close such as pubs and restaurants etc. The "essential" was a media fabrication as they misunderstood the rules. The words "essential" and "key" were in relation to schools and London public transport and taken widely out of context by the media.

The initial guidelines were that only "essential" businesses should remain open which is why a lot of businesses closed.

No it wasnt. That was never the case. They said if you CANT work from home then you are allowed to continue going to work.

And now government wants these places to reopen. In theory, I'm 100% behind this. But the underlying problems with social distancing in these workplaces remains and I'm not sure we've seen any sense of how this might be better managed.

It's up to the business owners/managers to work out how they can "social distance". You really can't expect the Government to micro manage every single business. All they can do is produce guidelines, which is what they've done. It's then up to the business owners/managers how to comply or adapt. Just like it's always been whenever there've been new laws, such as health & safety, disability access, discrimination laws, etc. Loads of businesses made changes to the way they operate very quickly and many look very different today to how they looked 3 months ago - such as food wholesales who used to deliver only to hotels etc now providing domestic food deliveries to private homes etc. Adapt or die I'm afraid.

@Kazzyhoward Exactly the bloody media with their shit incorrect reporting have a lot to answer for. Gov.uk was where the facts were and where I directed people if they had queries.