Employed & shielding have no legal protection

[YorkshireTeacake]

Can't believe this. Am fuming. There is no legal protection in place for the shielding who are employed.

The 50 page guidelines just some best practice tips for employers, but none of it is mandatory.

So you could legally sack someone who is shielding.

Unbelievable.

The Givernment is hardly asking that many people to go into total, enduring isolation (even from family within same house) on a whim. Especially when this total seclusion could go in for months.

They should not push those people into penury as well - theyndidn't choose thus, they are not actively unwell/unfit for work - they are doing their bit (as we are all in this together) by removing themselves from society. There is nothing that can be done about the hit to mental health, but they need not lose all their income as well.

Just as you can employ someone as maternity cover, employers should be able to take in a new hire as shield cover. Shielded people (who cannot WFH) should have a goverment paid furlough, and right of return.

I read on guardian live update yesterday that HMG plan to amend the clinical conditions that require shielding, ie. certain people currently classed as needing shielding will shortly no longer be in that category and presumably able to return to work. Will try find link and post..

@NoNamesNoPackDrillHere he went back to his employer with all the furlough process and recommendations and asked them to reconsider the decision but they stated no they were sticking with the original ssp

Shielded people (who cannot WFH) should have a goverment paid furlough, and right of return.

Agree. It seems like the only reasonable solution.

yorkshirejo I’d be interested in seeing that if you can find it. There have been some muttering about ‘smarter shielding’ plus recognition that it is quite unwieldy to treat a group which contains as many perfectly healthy (but dependent on quite hostile drugs to keep them that way) people as it does frail people

And of course there are now far too many of us. It was expected to be a group of about 1.5m, but it’s now over 2.1m and rising. So on top of everything else, we’re expensive. Because they have also been muttering about additional support (but I have no idea what they’re thinking of - anyone know?)

For extra support, in one of the briefings they talked about setting up an emotional support line.

This is already in place through the local council, NHS responders, a charity connected to the condition I have and my GP surgery have rang a couple of times checking up on me.

I don't need another phone line I can ring for support. I need to be furloughed so I can stay off work and get through this financially.

For extra support, in one of the briefings they talked about setting up an emotional support line.
Not much use for people who soon won't have any money to pay the phone bill.

@iVampire still looking (!) for that guardian link, probs hard to find now as will be buried somewhere in their live feed blog from yesterday. Might have a screenshot tho and will post if can find it.

Meantime guardian linked to this about 'Smarter Shielding' :
www.gponline.com/government-plan-smarter-shielding-will-relax-advice-at-risk-patients/article/1682854

I am certain this amendment is to encourage currently existing shielded peeps to return to work to reduce gov. cost of shielding/furlough costs. I sincerely hope, however, that lives are put first here when taking what first and foremost has to be clinical decision alone. Added uncertainty too of so much emerging knowledge on how this virus operates and on longer term health implications of an infection.

”But I would also ask you the same question. What the alternative is?
For all shielding to end up on SSP, which is not enough to live off, or face going to work and possibly getting very sick, and overwhelming the NHS for everyone?”

People have to leave their jobs through no fault of their own every day. It’s awful and sad but sometimes it can’t be avoided.

”Shielded people (who cannot WFH) should have a goverment paid furlough, and right of return.”

For how long?

*”Shielded people (who cannot WFH) should have a goverment paid furlough, and right of return.”

For how long?*

I'd be happy with until October as was announced today, then reassess if things then. Hopefully it will be safer to have more contact and work will be possible for shielders by then.

People have to leave their jobs through no fault of their own every day. It’s awful and sad but sometimes it can’t be avoided.

Do you not agree with furlough pay either then?

Do you not agree with maternity pay either @Flowery?

Surely people who are otherwise healthy and capable of work should receive government support for as long as it is the government's restriction that is telling them to stay at home?

For by avoiding ending up in ICU in large numbers, they are doing their bit in the national,effort, and giving up more than most to protect the NHS

The idea of having the ability to employ someone as cover until a shielded employee returns is a really interesting one. I could see how that might work.

”Do you not agree with furlough pay either then?”

Why would you think that? I do, however I’m just realistic that it cannot go on forever and companies cannot hold jobs open forever. There has to come a point, same as with someone who is off long term sick or something. There comes a point where there is not a realistic prospect of them returning in the medium-term and a decision has to be made. No one’s fault.

”Do you not agree with maternity pay either Flowery?”

Eh? What? What are you on about?

”Surely people who are otherwise healthy and capable of work should receive government support for as long as it is the government's restriction that is telling them to stay at home?”

That’s really a slightly different point. I agree with that, although what that support looks like financially would be heavily dependent on affordability. Long term, why should someone who can’t work because a global pandemic is endangering their health get a higher level of government support than the myriad other categories of people who can’t work? Carers, for example? People with disabilities who can’t work? At what point should the higher level of government support offered by furlough rather than universal credit stop? I don’t know the answer, I’m not an economist, but if this goes on for months and months, or even years, that change will have to come.

And that’s separate to the question of legal protection in terms of having one’s job kept open for months and months. At the moment there is no legislation to protect those jobs for a specific length of time- it may well be that this happens later, I don’t know. But whether it does or doesn’t, it will not be reasonable to expect an employer to hold a job open indefinitely. Whether it’s exploring reasonableness through unfair dismissal case law or whether it’s legislation preventing dismissal for a certain period, it won’t be indefinite.

@flowery

The point is not how long furlough is going on for.

The point is employers are refusing to put shielding employees on furlough now even though help is available until October.

How is it fair that I've lost 65% of my household income (wages v benefits I'm now claiming) while others have 80% of their salary coming in?

The shielded are the only ones who are being told not to work. irrespective of type of work and whether or not it has been interrupted by the pandemic.

They are different because they are uniquely being directed by the government not to work - or do anything else - outside their home got an indefinite period.

If the government told you not to work, even though you are day to day fit and healthy and your job still exists, would you expect ongoing support to the level offered to a much wider pool of workers?

Would you follow the direction at the cost of going down to UC? When you could be working. Really? We should take the enormous wellbeing hit of being totally inside for months, plus lose income too, with no realistic chance of alternative employment - for who is going to take on a shielded person now?

It might be tough for other job hunters, but that’s nothing like how tough it is for the shielded

The government is (vaguely) talking about (unspecified) additional support for the shielded, I hope they make their position clear soon

”The point is not how long furlough is going on for.

The point is employers are refusing to put shielding employees on furlough now even though help is available until October.

How is it fair that I've lost 65% of my household income (wages v benefits I'm now claiming) while others have 80% of their salary coming in?”

That’s a whole new point. There has been a discussion above about legal protection and dismissing people who are shielding. Whether employers should be forced to furlough people who are shielding while the scheme is available is a different point and a very valid one.

Making furlough a legal entitlement would require detailed legislation. At the moment furlough is funding available to employers, it is not a leave entitlement of any kind and implementing that would be quite a significant change. Furlough currently is HMRC chucking some money at an employer who meets certain conditions.

I would imagine they have considered carefully whether it should be a statutory leave entitlement instead and have decided against it, probably because the scheme is only very temporary.

That’s a whole new point

Not really. It’s where the thread started, and it expanded from there

But the underlying point is the same for all: ‘should the government be able to direct people to remain totally within their homes, for the public good, and provide no recompense for loss of income that may follow?’

People aren’t shielded for the public good. It’s for their own protection.

”Not really. It’s where the thread started, and it expanded from there”

The thread started with the question of whether shielding employees can be sacked, not whether an employer should be compelled to furlough them.

”But the underlying point is the same for all: ‘should the government be able to direct people to remain totally within their homes, for the public good, and provide no recompense for loss of income that may follow?”

People are being advised to shield for their own protection not for the public good. Measures like social distancing and restricting everyone’s movements are for the public good. Shielding is for the protection of those individuals’ health.

Really? Not often shocked but that does it.

People aren’t shielded for the public good. It’s for their own protection.
Partly, but it's also to save NHS resources being used on them, so other people have access.