Job protection plans / Furlough scheme....

StroudGrecian

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
Mar 27, 2007
Messages
13,288
Location
nibbled to death by an okapi
Stroudy, you say very few businesses will be able to pay staff in a month, I think that is a rather extreme view.
I said few businesses will be able to afford to retain furloughed staff from October - they will have to continue paying them until they are no longer employees. Many will be starting redundancy procedures now (if they haven't already), the consultation process for this will take at least a month to work through, and many skilled workers will have 2 or 3 month redundancy notice periods, so it could easily be Christmas before staff being notified today of threat of redundancy are actually off the books.
 

Alistair20000

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
May 5, 2009
Messages
32,608
Location
Hunkered down
I said few businesses will be able to afford to retain furloughed staff from October - they will have to continue paying them until they are no longer employees. Many will be starting redundancy procedures now (if they haven't already), the consultation process for this will take at least a month to work through, and many skilled workers will have 2 or 3 month redundancy notice periods, so it could easily be Christmas before staff being notified today of threat of redundancy are actually off the books.
I think your post to which Chap and I replied may have unusually lacked a little specificity/particularity oh wise one.
 

angelic upstart

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
Jul 8, 2004
Messages
22,232
Because the assistance that businesses need is in retaining skilled employees on the payroll, so when 'normality returns' they can ramp up production as painlessly as possible. Your assertion that those no longer needed during the height of a pandemic can just go on the dole until its all over doesn't take into account the huge cost and disruption that redundancy brings, to both employers (redundancy procedures & costs, subsequent recruitment uncertainties, costs and delays) and to (former) employees (loss of livelihood, financial hardship, potential loss of home) not to mention the impact on health and wellbeing - and that's assuming they don't catch Covid. Taking away livelihoods also means huge reduction in tax receipts as people earn less and spend less.

The issue with the UK Gov's furlough scheme is that it was really poorly planned and implemented - fuelled by their brexit-mindset inability to look across the channel and see how our Europeans neighbours were managing. Both France and Germany were able to extend existing schemes to help businesses in exceptional and time-limited difficulties - the key to which was encouraging part-time working as much as possible. The UK decision to ignore this and go it alone with a furlough scheme that actually banned part-time working for 4 months meant that our scheme has ended up being twice as costly as the French and Germans, who can now afford to continue supporting businesses through the winter while we're looking at some half-baked revised support scheme that no employer in their right mind is going to touch.
I’m merely saying I don’t understand why there’s a two tier benefit system for people not in work. I gladly accept that business needs assistance in certain cases.
 

StroudGrecian

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
Mar 27, 2007
Messages
13,288
Location
nibbled to death by an okapi
I’m merely saying I don’t understand why there’s a two tier benefit system for people not in work. I gladly accept that business needs assistance in certain cases.
People on furlough are considered to be in work - just resting. The government support is for employers so they can continue to pay their employees. It doesn't go straight to the furloughed, so in that sense it's not part of the benefit system.
 

angelic upstart

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
Jul 8, 2004
Messages
22,232
People on furlough are considered to be in work - just resting. The government support is for employers so they can continue to pay their employees. It doesn't go straight to the furloughed, so in that sense it's not part of the benefit system.
Of course, they are in employment (I’ll try not to post whilst giving a baby a bottle in future)
What I mean is there’s 750,000 people in work and on UC. What I don’t understand is why UC isn’t the default option for those furloughed. I’m not suggesting they should be seeking alternative employment. I simply don’t like, nor understand a two tiered system.
 

Alistair20000

Very well known Exeweb poster
Joined
May 5, 2009
Messages
32,608
Location
Hunkered down
Having looked at his holding company, I have observed that the Stroudmeister bestrides a diverse business empire. All built on the original business of distributing Rooibos and Tartex.
 
Top