I don't know how many times this has to be explained but the choice was either: a) mass redundancies in March/April (considering there are 9m furloughed staff I think several million is a safe bet) or b) the Government steps in to prevent mass redundancies by covering the wages of the staff for whom employers have nothing to do. Further, again, it is not the choice of those on furlough to be placed in such a position that is the choice of the employer. If an employer wants to furlough a staff member who is keen to keep working then tough that staff member has no choice but to go home. If the employer wants to end furlough for a staff member who doesn't want to come back then tough come back or lose their job through misconduct.
Can we please move away from the nonsense that those on furlough are somehow lazy, are just having a "jolly" at our expense or should be be manning litter pickers collecting rubbish from the side of the road?
If we hadn't bothered with furlough or had ended it in May/June the net result would have simply been mass layoffs and all those people would be claiming Universal Credit instead. As it stands, considering the number of jobs that are still going and the rumbles about jobs losses as the scheme winds down we will probably find many more people are going to lose their jobs and be on Universal Credit anyway before this is done.
But to blame those who, through no fault of their own and have no choice in the matter, for not sitting at home being dour faced is frankly ridiculous and smacks of jealously. Plus weren't we complaining that too many people were sitting at home when they needed to be out and spending money? Can't have it both ways surely?
I'm not even sure where to begin with the suggestion that some of it should have been in the form of loan especially if the suggestion is that the people who are on furlough, something they have no choice in, are the ones who should be paying it back.
The trouble is that there *are* people who are doing everything possible to keep this all going.
My place is an example. We have four shielded, who were placed on furlough. Remember that despite their underlying conditions they are deemed to be 100% fit to carry out their regular work but for the risk of contracting Covid. So they could quite happily have been set up to undertake some useful work at home, lessening the burden on others who have had to pick up their workload. My understanding is all four pretty much point-blank refused, and with the ability for their wages to be offloaded onto the furlough scheme there was little incentive to put pressure on them to do anything productive. Essentially furlough allowed them to be put to one side and quietly forgotten, whilst there was meaningful work which they could have carried out (their normal workplace was fully operational throughout).
As if that’s not enough, it’s no coincidence that we’re now hearing from the self-same people about how terrible the virus is, how “I’ve been watching TV and it’s really really bad you know”, such that even now we only have two back, still only performing a skeleton of their normal workload, and with reduced hours having been negotiated. Needless to say all this lot are utterly hell-bent on taking accrued leave as well.
Meanwhile, another, selected for furlough as role considered non-core. When asked to come back again point-blank refused to do so, citing childcare issues. Again the can has been kicked down the road with furlough available until October.
I find it pretty remiss that we have a vast amount of taxpayers money being used in this way, in my first example effectively encouraging five months (and in some cases and counting) of completely zero productive work, and has effectively incentivised the situation to the detriment of others.
There’s no such thing as a free lunch, and somewhere along the line we all have to pick up the tab for this.
I really don’t think any of this is helpful. As has been intimated here many times, the longer furloughing goes on for the more chance there is that people won’t have a job to return to. The priority really needs to be to try and get as many people back to their pre-March position as possible. Sitting around for month after month isn’t good for mental health either. I think furlough has served as a disincentive to return to normality, and in some cases has served as a way of prolonging something which we really don’t want to be prolonging.
