Furlough extended until end of September?

[Thedarksideofthemoon30]

Wtf.. how are we ever going to pay this back? And why have they extended it?!

Depends on why it "right up against the wall". If it's because they're not actually allowed to operate, i.e. pubs, restaurants, hairdressers, non food shops (and their supply chains) then there's no reason at all why they won't bounce back quickly once they're allowed to operate again

I agree completely, but extended furlough is supposed to be for the businesses still struggling rather than everyone who just fancies it

Of course, as ever, the problem will be with the abuse

@Sooverthisyear

I realise it sounds harsh - but many of my friends think exactly the same.

Dangerous activities have been ordered to stop - its not unusual. In most cases these activities are far from essential and have very little productive value - its a luxury to buy a sandwich rather than make one. Its simply a risk people take by being in these industries - no different to farming having a really poor weather season.

Only business that are loaded with debt really have an issue. Pubs have managed to remain in existence for hundreds of years and go through much worse - they only fail now because the businesses are run on a day to day basis and rent premises rather than buy assets. We should not reward businesses that operate this way. Same with the train operators - why shouldn't the foreign governments who take the profits from UK customers in good times be made to pay during this period?

If people save and pay a modest mortgage they wouldn't lose their homes - again buying using too much debt and people want others to bail them out.

We need to get into the habit of making things, saving and then spending what we have. Nothing was learned from the 2008 crisis - and I have no sympathy anymore after then if people have taken on debt.

@Gamefacer

If the government pays you more money than you give back, you've paid nothing. It's fiction to receive money from the government and then pay tax and NI on it for no productive value.

@UmteenthUser

Nothing wrong with extending it for the sectors that need it because they can't open properly or suppliers to businesses that can't open properly but they should be tightening up with the chancers that are just using it to lessen their wage bill

A close family member's employer is fecked. Has been since March 20. Actually, on the rocks prior to that.

Business is coffee machines/vending machines in, predominantly, universities.

He's been furloughed since March on 80%. Company can't afford the rest.

Now, am I right in thinking the companies concerned have to stump up 10% in the next couple of months, then the full 20% later to ongoing furloughed employees?

Please correct me if I'm wrong!

But family member knows his job is fecked, but has in the interim, since Nov, got a 20 hour per week delivery driver job.

He's hanging out for the initial job redundancy payout as he knows they can't afford 10%, let alone 20%.

But. I can't be completely cool with the fact that he didn't, from March to November, lift a finger for work- in fact, had a great summer on no work/80% pay; then with his 20 hour delivery job is now earning more per month than ever before, in his life.

Yes, we an all bring up anecdata, but in that time my hours have compulsorily increased by 33%, I am working my arse off, and am 'Covid facing'. 'Lucky me'.

An element of 'injustice' comes into play, here.

And he's just told me he's now expecting 'the call' from his first job, making him redundant (plus payout) and how it's bloody annoying to have to step up his delivery hours now that 'Spring is just around the corner'.

We can't afford furlough for fecked businesses. It IS two-tier UC.

It's not fair on the lower tier (actual UC claimants) and not fair on those of us who are working and paying to watch others not work on £2000pcm.

@sandandseashores Clearly you have not been affected financially during all of this.

We have a very viable buisness in the live music industry. Overnight shut down a years worth of income gone. We did not choose to not work. It was a legal obligation.

I think it’s important to remember had you been in the shoes of someone who was forced to stop work overnight would you feel the same about furlough, @mijea

I understand the resentment from individuals I do, but honestly it’s not been such a picnic for everyone. The majority in our industry for example are so desperate to get back to work. Mental health is poor. The work is there just waiting for the green light to open.

@Sooverthisyear

I think it’s important to remember had you been in the shoes of someone who was forced to stop work overnight would you feel the same about furlough, *@mijea*

I understand the resentment from individuals I do, but honestly it’s not been such a picnic for everyone. The majority in our industry for example are so desperate to get back to work. Mental health is poor. The work is there just waiting for the green light to open.

Oh, can assure you, my family member was genuinely delighted at the at least 12 week holiday he thought he was being given, at that point!

@sandandseashores clearly those furloughed are net takers but given the 80% is subject to tax and NI it’s still a lesser amount in the employee’s pocket. I just hope you never need any support from the public purse in exceptional circumstances like these. I also hope you enjoy footing the bill for this because you almost certainly will be.

Hard to save for a rainy day on nmw - or indeed to support other family members when you are on nmw.

"Our children should not have to repay this debt - the people who received the support should be obliged to take it on"

Interesting - is the correct economic analysis of what is happening, in substance, that today's children and those as yet unborn will effectively be paying for the current population to have had better healthcare in the past year than it otherwise would (as a result of lockdown ensuring that NHS was not overwhelmed etc)?

@Sooverthisyear

Of course I've been affected financially, who hasn't? Although my income has gone down, I haven't received any support from anyone, worked all the time, and with reduced costs and prudent choices in the past have made ends meet.

That right - it was an obligation - do something else. We don't usually compensate people for making things illegal because they are a danger to society? Will the government pay petrol pump attendants when they phase out petrol cars?

Not sure why you should be paid for doing nothing. It was a risk you took being in the live events industry. You can always start again when it becomes legal. You haven't lost anything, as you haven't done the work.

Why do you deserve to be paid greater amounts than someone else who lost their job a year earlier?

*Now, am I right in thinking the companies concerned have to stump up 10% in the next couple of months, then the full 20% later to ongoing furloughed employees?

Please correct me if I'm wrong!*

This is correct. My mum has her own small business and has had to furlough staff so is facing having to contribute to that soon. Except she is not getting paid by her contracts that she places her staff in.... so she is going to have to make them redundant.

"Dangerous activities have been ordered to stop - its not unusual. In most cases these activities are far from essential and have very little productive value - its a luxury to buy a sandwich rather than make one. Its simply a risk people take by being in these industries - no different to farming having a really poor weather season."

Isn't the difference though that to the heroin dealer (the previous example) it's fairly obvious that the activity is dangerous (in fact it's illegal!) so s/he's aware of the risk of being put out of business. And the farmer knows that poor weather seasons come with the job. Whereas in no way could the sandwich shop ever have guessed that it would be forced to close because it would suddenly become dangerous to sell sandwiches. Whatever people say now about how obviously it was going to happen sometime, I think anyone who in December 2019 had cited that risk would have been considered, extremely strange.

@sandandseashores I’m sorry that you are feeling so resentful of those on furlough.

I do not see how our business was a risk working in live music. It’s a thriving industry even during recessions its performed well. We’ve been trading for years now, pay substantial amounts of taxes etc every year. But by your logic we should shut our very viable business down and so should every other in the industry. Then what we all reopen them again early 2022 when things are likely to be normal again. Sounds expensive and a bit daft. If all the workers moved into other jobs then where are the specialists for this field. I’m so confused ?

@Gamefacer

I do understand that it will be people like me who always have too pay for those who live beyond their means - what would be the issue in the government providing loans to people instead of giving money away and then taxing those who did continue to work? It works for student loans, why not furlough loans?

It's just basic justice that everyone out of work, past or present receive the same; and those working should not pay for those doing nothing.

I find it particularly insulting that at the same time as paying people to not to work, the government then paid more people to perform tasks such as contact tracing and delivering food parcels.

@Youhavetoquitwhileyoureahead

Many businesses take out some level of insurance for notifiable diseases - so yes, they are aware of such risks.

If a fire broke out and burned down half a city, we would tell people that they needed insurance. We do tell people when floods occur they should have insurance or pay themselves - why is this any different?

@@sandandseashores

I'm not saying you should shut your business down - I'm saying others should not be paying to keep employees tied to it. If they take other roles, there isn't an issue. If they haven't, then they are available to you.

People can always choose to change jobs again if you offer them one.

On the other hand, if your business isn't viable - we've wasted huge quantities of public money supporting people in non-jobs.

In 10 years time and a fire destroys a music venue, should the public pay to restore this viable business - and pay a premium to those unemployed during the renovations? Why?

@Youhavetoquitwhileyoureahead

The children and unborn are paying for their parents generation to have taken a gap year.

@Thedarksideofthemoon30

Wtf.. how are we ever going to pay this back? And why have they extended it?!

How are 'we' going to pay it back. Don't worry, it feels like dh and I will be paying it back singlehandedly with the hike in corporation tax

Many businesses take out some level of insurance for notifiable diseases - so yes, they are aware of such risks.

Fair point!
i wonder if it's still possible to get such insurance - and what period insurers will cover.

It would be interesting to know if the government ever considered trying to enable/encourage those on furlough to do other productive things - maybe the contact tracing work, as an example? Not compulsorily, but I think many would have been happy to do that if asked . It was obviously simpler just to pay furlough, but I do see the point on a macro level that it would have been better to have people productively employed.

I think they are banking on uptake for it tailing off from July and so that when we next lock down in Dec 2021/Jan 2022 they can say that the scheme had a finite lifetime and is now finished. Weren’t we a great govt for extending it so long.

It then becomes survival of the fittest and no more pay outs in subsequent lockdowns.

"The children and unborn are paying for their parents generation to have taken a gap year."

I suppose one conceivable argument is that the as yet unborn, and certainly today's children, will have benefited from the fact that society didn't collapse into total chaos - UK society has been maintained on an even keel for their future use. (Though afaik the apocalypse scenario of no electricity, gas, police, refuse collection etc that some people say lockdown avoided has not in fact really happened anywhere.) That still doesn't address the question as to whether there were more creative solutions than furlough, which would have used some of the immense amount of talent/capability/willingness to help, on the part of those furloughed.

Most insurances do not cover pandemics. There was quite a lot in the news about this in the last year.

www.independent.co.uk/news/business/covid-business-insurance-claim-supreme-court-b1787776.html

I'm not familiar with the details, but looks from the above as though some policies do provide some coverage.

[quote sandandseashores]@Youhavetoquitwhileyoureahead

The children and unborn are paying for their parents generation to have taken a gap year.[/quote]
A gap year! Are you fucking serious? My best friend committed suicide last month as she lost her home after being furloughed. This was a busy hair stylist who worked all her life yet still only made just over minimum wage and bought the cheapest house she could. Hardly living beyond her means.
Glad you and you friends all think the same, I think you and your friends are massive wankers

Firstly, the furlough scheme is not a benefit paid to employees. It's paid to companies.

Secondly, The government aren't doing this to be nice, or to be fair. And they're not doing it because they want to get into debt. The furlough scheme will cost less in the long run than allowing millions to become unemployed and rely on benefits. The economy will recover faster with the furlough scheme than by allowing millions to become unemployed and tens of thousands of businesses to fail. Without the furlough scheme, if people were put on UC for example, imagine the house price crash with so many foreclosures? That would affect every house owner. With mass unemployment, there would be less spending in the country. If you can be bothered, google the ripple effect. By giving someone £100 they can spend, it generates far more than £100 in terms of gdp. Not to mention the burden of repaying dept would rest of fewer people, with fewer people being employed.

The furlough scheme has saved my business. I was forced to close on March 20 last year, with 8 staff. I was allowed to reopen in July, which we did, and everyone came back from furlough. We were forced to partially close in January (it's a childcare business, and we've only been allowed to open for key worker children) so we've been able to keep going and flexi furlough so we didn't need to lose our staff. Looks like we can re-open fully next Monday. We're a viable business usually, but even if we'd been able to keep afloat for those months we were forced to close without furlough, our staff wouldn't have been able to wait around with no pay. They'd have been looking for other jobs and I'd have lost my experienced abs qualified staff. Next week I'm able to open fully with 2 weeks notice because my staff haven't had to go and find work elsewhere. If not for the furlough scheme, I'd have either gone bankrupt last year, or not been able to re-open because I had no staff left and 2 weeks in which to recruit, dbs check and train new staff. We've worked (and paid tax and NI and corp tax) through the last year more than we've been furloughed, and hopefully as of next Monday can continue to contribute to the economy (as well as provide and essential service to our community).