I'm in.

Who else?

12 minutes ago, DazBob said:

Quite a few like that at our place too.  Some had also started in the first week of March so they got paid up to the end of the month and then let go.  Poor fuckers.

Have they asked their old place to take them back on then furlough them?

Believe it’s possible, though not sure what the incentive is for the old company.

Just now, QFPants said:

Have they asked their old place to take them back on then furlough them?

Believe it’s possible, though not sure what the incentive is for the old company.

No idea.  Hope something got sorted for them though.

We had one lad who was working his notice and was due to leave on the Friday that it turned out was the day pubs and that were told to close. At the start of that week he got told his new job no longer existed and it was decided we would keep him on (wasn't a universally popular decision). He ended up getting furloughed which was good for him but could look like we are taking advantage of the 80% which wasn't the case.

Edited April 9, 20206 yr by ErnestTurnip

15 minutes ago, Casino said:

Mounts point is that you shouldn't be able to

Why not though? 
 

just because a company is profitable doesn’t mean it won’t have a varying need for head count and all this scheme is designed to do is to even that out and stop firms reacting to that and laying folk off. Companies are taking advantage of this rather than have some very difficult decisions. To make. And some are just taking advantage of course but that’s human nature 

I'd say a company making billions and furloughing staff is taking the piss

But it's a universal system (imo intended to protect emoyees not employers) and there'll always be businesses that take the piss

Just have to hope we hear who they are and can decide if we want to use them on the other side

 

29 minutes ago, Casino said:

I'd say a company making billions and furloughing staff is taking the piss

But it's a universal system (imo intended to protect emoyees not employers) and there'll always be businesses that take the piss

Just have to hope we hear who they are and can decide if we want to use them on the other side

 

What they made last year is irrelevant that’s my entire point and is highlighting your own lack of understanding in what than scheme is and in the financials of a business  

and taking the piss?

tell you what you explain to the hundreds of my colleagues who have been furloughed that they are instead being made redundant And can claim universal credit instead and are welcome to apply for jobs again when business picks up? How does that sound?

there is no work for them  if the scheme wasn’t there they would have been made redundant  

Oh and I’m terms of the name and shame

same Company that’s donated now 500 vehicles to the nhs foc that’s about 300k a month we are giving up as well as plenty of other stuff which is well publicized in the media. So aye crack on. No sure we are your sort of company anyway maybe a tad stylish ☺️

Edited April 9, 20206 yr by Escobarp

Just because a company "makes billions" doesn't mean it has billions in the bank.

But I'm pretty sure Casino knew that.

Just now, DazBob said:

Just because a company "makes billions" doesn't mean it has billions in the bank.

But I'm pretty sure Casino knew that.

I do

I'm actually not overly sure where mounts was going cos I know he doesn't work for some global powerhouse

 

I do still feel uncomfortable with companies taking the money if they don't need it

Bit need is a hard thing to define 

2 minutes ago, Casino said:

I do

I'm actually not overly sure where mounts was going cos I know he doesn't work for some global powerhouse

 

I do still feel uncomfortable with companies taking the money if they don't need it

Bit need is a hard thing to define 

It’s not about money in the bank.  It’s about the here and Now and the business being fit for purpose now and suitably staffed. Simple as that. A business is ran for it shareholders  and to continue to have double the amount of staff on the payroll than you need for example is no way to run a Business this simply allows them to keep folk on  

by the sounds of it mounts employer is wanting to take the piss and send folk home on 80% and get them to still do some work as there is work there. And if he could get away with it he would take the 80% and keep them working full time. But I might have read the situation wrong 
 

my employer is keeping me and my team on because we have enough work for us all. If we didn’t then we would have been furloughed too.

We'll also want companies to invest when this is all over.

They were holding back pending brexit being sorted and just as investment was expected to start growing a bit more, this all hit.

I suppose if they've being paying for folk not to work, this would eat into subsequent investment.

Anyway, I'm sure Rishi knows what he's doing.

If you need it, take it

Just don't take the piss, whether large or small

The bill for this is going to be horrendous

21 minutes ago, Casino said:

If you need it, take it

Just don't take the piss, whether large or small

The bill for this is going to be horrendous

Agreed. It’s not free money. I’m already tightening up for what I think this will cost my family after all this.

2 hours ago, tomski said:

Agreed. It’s not free money. I’m already tightening up for what I think this will cost my family after all this.

Very prudent.

This money will have to be clawed back somehow.

1 minute ago, Traf said:

Very prudent.

This money will have to be clawed back somehow.

To my mind it makes sense that if a business has claimed under this scheme or any scheme it should be subject to an additional levy of corporation tax or some other taxation that way the business only repays it if it’s profitable and meets a certain threshold  

Bit like the student loan scheme and mechanism for repayment of that 
 

 

 

I think income tax will have to be raised across the board.

 

But should it in reality? Genuine question that

ive personally Not, and my household won’t be drawing a single penny from any scheme that’s available and I’m very fortunate to be in that position. But should I have my income tax raised to pay? I fail to see why that should be the case. 
 

Should I pay something extra towards the additional nhs costs and the like? Of course. But that should be a separate line 

i just don’t see why My household should be held liable for funding other people’s furlough payments retrospectively.
 

in reality I know it won’t work out like that  

Edited April 9, 20206 yr by Escobarp

I didn't say it was right, but that's what will happen. The whole nation will have to contribute to the burden incurred.

Agreed but should that be equal across the board? Absolutely not 

I’ve no benefit from these payments but I agree they had to be made. and I applied the government for coming up with the scheme to support people and business. It was critical. 
But I don’t see why I should have to make any contribution Above and beyond my already sizeable tax and ni payments each year. 
 

 

8 minutes ago, Escobarp said:

Agreed but should that be equal across the board? Absolutely not 

I’ve no benefit from these payments but I agree they had to be made. and I applied the government for coming up with the scheme to support people and business. It was critical. 
But I don’t see why I should have to make any contribution Above and beyond my already sizeable tax and ni payments each year. 
 

 

If folk weren't furloughed and went on universal credit after losing their jobs, the state would pay for that and taxes contribute to that.

I see what you're saying, but whatever way they approach it, tax payers money will be involved somewhere.

 

4 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

If folk weren't furloughed and went on universal credit after losing their jobs, the state would pay for that and taxes contribute to that.

I see what you're saying, but whatever way they approach it, tax payers money will be involved somewhere.

 

Aye agreed and it’s why we pay into the lot I get that but UC would be a lot less than furlough income. 
I just think the government have to look at it fairly 

should a nurse have their income tax increased after this to pay the deficit created by furlough? What’s your view on that?

19 minutes ago, Escobarp said:

should a nurse have their income tax increased after this to pay the deficit created by furlough? What’s your view on that?

Sadly, yes.

1 hour ago, Escobarp said:

Agreed but should that be equal across the board? Absolutely not 

I’ve no benefit from these payments but I agree they had to be made. and I applied the government for coming up with the scheme to support people and business. It was critical. 
But I don’t see why I should have to make any contribution Above and beyond my already sizeable tax and ni payments each year. 
 

 

Fucking hell. Is this a serious post?

There's plenty of stuff my tax and NI pays for that doesn't benefit me or any other person who gets up and goes to work all their adult lives.

Just now, DazBob said:

Fucking hell. Is this a serious post?

There's plenty of stuff my tax and NI pays for that doesn't benefit me or any other person who gets up and goes to work all their adult lives.

Absolutely it’s a serious post 

its my opinion and I begrudge paying additional tax when I’ve not claimed under the scheme in this case 

obviously there are lots of things we pay for that We don’t use. But in this instance I think a different approach is needed. Deal with it 

"Deal with it" roflbrothel.

You do realise that us who have been furloughed aren't "claiming" anything.

I’m not begrudging anything anyone is getting paid. Far from it. I think it’s necessary and a very good move.

when it’s said and done it needs paying for as we all know. I just don’t see why everybody should pay 

and technically you’re claiming nothing. But the benefit it there. Irrespective of who is technically claiming it. The end user benefiting from it are those furloughed simple as that.