Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Covid

Mumsnet doesn't verify the qualifications of users. If you have medical concerns, please consult a healthcare professional.

Original poster

TUC saying parents should be furloughed if schools are off

208 replies

BubblyBarbara · 04/01/2021 02:09

www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-55522104

Maybe this is more AIBU territory but I feel that while this advice is good intentioned, it's actually very dangerous for parents! While it will work for many people, there are others whose employers will put furloughed employees at the front of the queue for potential future redundancies or might even find they continue to operate fine without the employee. Parents who don't need to take furlough and are OK working from home with children present might also feel pressure to be furloughed they wouldn't otherwise. Is TUC being reasonable with this "advice" to employers?

OP posts:
MrsMiaWallis · 04/01/2021 09:43

@OldAndWornOut

No, I don't have the luxury of a partner, obviously. Confused
Well then, you do you. If you can cope without a job then lucky you.
finkking · 04/01/2021 09:44

I have a 3yo & 6yo

OldAndWornOut · 04/01/2021 09:44

Yes.
And you carry on doing you. Smile

Gobbolino7825 · 04/01/2021 09:47

People seem to be missing the point that furlough was mostly created for businesses that had to close during lockdown to the pandemic, to avoid mass job losses.

If businesses are able to run they need their employees working. If they didn't, the job would be redundant anyway! I can't just be furloughed as I am needed to do the job I am paid for!

MadameBlobby · 04/01/2021 09:49

@TheKeatingFive

I would be extremely worried about leaving a 13 year old on their own all day. I would have thought any responsible parent would be.

It’s only now that it’s suddenly deemed to be an acceptable thing to do.

I agree

13 year olds are still children. Of course (SN or disability excepted perhaps) they should be able to be left alone safely but it’s hardly ideal that they should be left alone 8/9 hours a week with no other company and entirely responsible for their own education .

GoldenOmber · 04/01/2021 09:52

People seem to be missing the point that furlough was mostly created for businesses that had to close during lockdown to the pandemic, to avoid mass job losses.

There are other permitted reasons to request for furlough. You are eligible to be furloughed if you can’t work for covid-related caring responsibilities, or if you are shielding and it’s not safe for you to go to work. You aren’t entitled to have your employer grant that request, but those are specific things which make you eligible.

finkking · 04/01/2021 09:57

Is it ok for workers who are shielding to be let go if they can't do all their work?

secretchocolatecupboard · 04/01/2021 09:57

Legislation to protect parents should be introduced specifically for the coronavirus situations.
Or furlough vulnerable teachers and put more pressure on adults ensuring less mixing is going on so dc don't have to go without an education.

GoldenOmber · 04/01/2021 10:04

Yeah I think a lot of employers mean well and say that but then don't put it into practice. Some stuff obviously is urgent and has to be dealt with immediately, but I do think that other things can be pushed back on.

Mine did a ‘prioritisation exercise’ and told us to come up with things that could be deprioritised, and then every single thing we suggested management went “well not THAT, we need to keep doing that.”

Saylethewayles · 04/01/2021 10:11

Mine did a ‘prioritisation exercise’ and told us to come up with things that could be deprioritised, and then every single thing we suggested management went “well not THAT, we need to keep doing that.”

Ugh, I can well imagine. Luckily our CEO is very good at that.

TheKeatingFive · 04/01/2021 10:13

Legislation to ‘protect’ working parents will achieve fuck all,

Everyone knows that.

Plus, I’m not even sure it’s fair on businesses. As redundancies have to be made, are we actually saying they need to prioritise the people who can only work 4 hours over the ones totally available during office hours?

It makes no sense.

The whole system collapses without adequate childcare. That’s the bottom line.

Dugee · 04/01/2021 10:14

@finkking

Have you ever considered using clearly defined paragraphs? That would help clear up any confusion.

Dugee · 04/01/2021 10:16

People also seem to be forgetting that we have a Tory government, so what the TUC wants is probably irrelevant. The Tories are not beholden to trade unions.

finkking · 04/01/2021 10:17

@Dugee have you anything of note to add to this thread?

finkking · 04/01/2021 10:19

I don't understand why are you confused by my use of some. Like I said I'm sorry you were confused. What else do you want me to say?

Dugee · 04/01/2021 10:20

@finkking

See my posts below. Just because you disagree with my posts doesn't mean that my posts are irrelevant.

GoldenOmber · 04/01/2021 10:25

@Dugee

People also seem to be forgetting that we have a Tory government, so what the TUC wants is probably irrelevant. The Tories are not beholden to trade unions.
They’re not ‘beholden’, no, but it is in the government’s interests to avoid a lot of people becoming unemployed all at once and also to enable children to stay at home (rather than being posted round a selection of friends and elderly relatives).

That said, plenty of other things would have been in their interests and yet didn’t happen either, so I don’t have high hopes.

Dugee · 04/01/2021 10:30

They’re not ‘beholden’, no, but it is in the government’s interests to avoid a lot of people becoming unemployed all at once

Like the mass unemployment in the 1980s?

Mousehole10 · 04/01/2021 10:30

@finkking

Is it ok for workers who are shielding to be let go if they can't do all their work?
No of course it’s not ok, none of this is ok, but it’s what’s going to happen unfortunately. If you can’t do your job you can’t do your job. Companies can’t just keep people on indefinitely who can’t work, and lots of companies have no reserves left so haven’t got much flex to give.
Dugee · 04/01/2021 10:33

@finkking

So you've never heard of people being dismissed, perfectly legally, on grounds of ill health? Their employer has the right to do this, subject to process, if an employee is not fit to complete the duties they are contracted to do.

GoldenOmber · 04/01/2021 10:33

@Dugee

They’re not ‘beholden’, no, but it is in the government’s interests to avoid a lot of people becoming unemployed all at once

Like the mass unemployment in the 1980s?

Yes, like that.

Even from a solely political point of view, I’m sure you can think of some reasons why the current Tory government might want to limit another 80’s-style wave of mass unemployment leading to seats becoming safe Labour for the next 25 years...

Dugee · 04/01/2021 10:48

@GoldenOmber

I can think of plenty of reasons. Until furlough etc I thought we had one of the hardest right governments we'd had for years. So who knows, in these turbulent times.

GoldenOmber · 04/01/2021 10:51

Yes, I’m still amazed that this Tory government introduced furlough so fast at the start of this. Everyone loves Rishi now, though, so it’s worked out ok there...

Skylor · 04/01/2021 10:51

There are so many sectors not covered by trade unions, maybe, if the entire country was hired by the state, like in a communist regimes.

These people don't understand businesses are not labour unions nor charities. The commonly cited 'furlough, unpaid leave or flexible working' options = shown the door sooner or later. There isn't any employment protection for the vast majority of people.

Dugee · 04/01/2021 10:56

@GoldenOmber

Rishi has a credit card bill to pay - he's not going to be popular when the cuts and tax rises start...