Furlough

Alwaysneil said:

PrincessFiona said:

SporadicAddick said:

PrincessFiona said:

SporadicAddick said:

PrincessFiona said:

Some companies seem to using it fraudulently; not for what it is for but to save money

Isn't that exactly what its for - protecting individuals income whilst allowing the employer to offset cost to ensure there is a business to return to in the future?

In theory but being abused by some companies abusing as an option to get the taxpayer to pay their employees. Football clubs, as previously mentioned, for one

Every company, irrespective of size, will be looking at every opportunity to retain cash and offset cost. If the government provides a facility to do the latter through Furlough then its going to get used and I don't see how its possible determine a moral approach to who should and shouldn't access it.  Genuine, question, why shouldn't football clubs access it? I understand the argument, but if its morally wrong for them to use it, where do you draw the line? There will be big "wealthy" companies that many will say shouldn't use it who will go out of business, and there will be many small firms who many will argue Furlough was set up to support who have plenty of cash to see them through but who will be using Furlough and people won't bat an eyelid. And there are many many nuances in between..

Not an easy one I know but this isn't means tested, and nor should it be.

I agree it is difficult but I think there should be some policing of it. I know that would be difficult and of course I wouldn't knowwhere to start. Some are more worthy and it is only fair to determine that  and not a handout to all and sundry

PrincessFiona said:

SporadicAddick said:

PrincessFiona said:

SporadicAddick said:

PrincessFiona said:

Some companies seem to using it fraudulently; not for what it is for but to save money

Isn't that exactly what its for - protecting individuals income whilst allowing the employer to offset cost to ensure there is a business to return to in the future?

In theory but being abused by some companies abusing as an option to get the taxpayer to pay their employees. Football clubs, as previously mentioned, for one

Every company, irrespective of size, will be looking at every opportunity to retain cash and offset cost. If the government provides a facility to do the latter through Furlough then its going to get used and I don't see how its possible determine a moral approach to who should and shouldn't access it.  Genuine, question, why shouldn't football clubs access it? I understand the argument, but if its morally wrong for them to use it, where do you draw the line? There will be big "wealthy" companies that many will say shouldn't use it who will go out of business, and there will be many small firms who many will argue Furlough was set up to support who have plenty of cash to see them through but who will be using Furlough and people won't bat an eyelid. And there are many many nuances in between..

Not an easy one I know but this isn't means tested, and nor should it be.

I agree it is difficult but I think there should be some policing of it. I know that would be difficult and of course I wouldn't knowwhere to start. Some are more worthy and it is only fair to determine that  and not a handout to all and sundry

I agree with your principle, and yes there will be some companies that do not need the solvency that use furlough. 

However, setting up a scheme that delivers immediate cash to employees of those companies that cannot do business or only reduced business in lockdown is one of the most impressive things I’ve seen in my lifetime. 

While some policing or further restrictions, tweaks, whatever you want to call them may be possible in time, it’s not the most important issue and we do not have the systems or resources to deliver a lot of maintenance. 

We are rightly helicoptering in money to keep the mess that will be the recession from this in as much check as possible. 

Unfortunately there will always be takers and that’s why we should keep a personal and public tally of the companies that are takers and those that are givers.

What goes around, comes around and tmoat of the takers will hopefully get called to account. Just not quite yet. 

I agree it is brilliant, in certain circumstances. Just hope there isn't too much abuse as prefer the enormous bill to the taxpayer isn't any more than it needs to be. Maybe the banks could pay for when they were bailed out to set an example!

eaststandmike said:

Spitfire76 said:

Rob7Lee said:

I know companies that are busier than ever, but have still Furloughed staff. It may be a minority but there are companies using it as an opportunity to increase profit, impossible to police though. 

If they are busier than ever how are they coping without the furloughed staff? 

Getting the remaining staff to do more work. The company I contract too are doing it big time.

Then are they not over staffed normally? If less staff can do more work than a full staff then those furloughed staff were lucky to have a job in the first place

So I work in a team of 8 and as we manage when two people are on annual leave that means we are over staffed ? 

MrOneLung said:

So I work in a team of 8 and as we manage when two people are on annual leave that means we are over staffed ? 

No I don’t think you are ,I’m sure all companies hire staff with annual leave in mind  if I need 4 chefs to cover my kitchen then I’m aware that there will be 20/25 weeks holiday to cover each year so will hire 5 but if I was busier than ever than I would need more than my 5 regular chefs so certainly wouldn’t be able to furlough some & still cope with the increased workload 

PrincessFiona said:

Not sure where the dividing line should be but this is an example of what I was getting at when I commented on this process - 

Victoria Beckham furloughs 30 workers at her struggling fashion label at taxpayers' expense - despite family’s £335m fortune

Initial thoughts are it seems unfair to pass on the burden on the taxpayer in the circumstances and that there are far more worthwhile examples that need it to stop business going under and to save jobs

Is she not a taxpayer? 

PrincessFiona said:

suzisausage said:

PrincessFiona said:

Not sure where the dividing line should be but this is an example of what I was getting at when I commented on this process - 

Victoria Beckham furloughs 30 workers at her struggling fashion label at taxpayers' expense - despite family’s £335m fortune

Initial thoughts are it seems unfair to pass on the burden on the taxpayer in the circumstances and that there are far more worthwhile examples that need it to stop business going under and to save jobs

Is she not a taxpayer? 

I agree it looks odd on paper for an extremely well off person to use a government incentive but I’m sure her personal wealth and her business finances are very separate. 

Maybr they are but seems somehow unfair with that signiicant wealth to be effectively passing it on to many who are not. I really don't think I would if I were in those circumstances. I also wouldn't be posting pictures of my luxury surroundings during lockdown  I'm with Ricky Gervias on this

Yeah true. I’m not saying it’s right or wrong but she is entitled to claim, there are thousands of business owners claiming whilst living life of Riley. 

Furloughed as of Friday for two months, hopefully three, as I'll have no job to go back to afterwards. Small company ,eight months in, they decided to have my sixth month probation meeting. Had a two month one in October, all went well, told in December, brilliant, keep going... last week - you've failed your objectives, not passed. Utter bull and very convenient. 

Surely the furlough system is to assist those companies and employees in genuine need.How can someone continually flaunt their wealth(pictures of £20m apartment) give total waste of space mummys boy a £100000 grand birthday party,have 300m in the bank(mostly earned by David I should think as her fashion company loses money)own a 1.5 m handbag collection,and then ask us ro pay her staff wages,makes me sick.This money could be used to give the people on the front line a decent wage for risking their lives every time they go to work.I dont begrudge people doing well for themselves,but VB would now be hard pushed to make a living at anything if she had to fend for her self.

thickandthin63 said:

Surely the furlough system is to assist those companies and employees in genuine need.How can someone continually flaunt their wealth(pictures of £20m apartment) give total waste of space mummys boy a £100000 grand birthday party,have 300m in the bank(mostly earned by David I should think as her fashion company loses money)own a 1.5 m handbag collection,and then ask us ro pay her staff wages,makes me sick.This money could be used to give the people on the front line a decent wage for risking their lives every time they go to work.I dont begrudge people doing well for themselves,but VB would now be hard pushed to make a living at anything if she had to fend for her self.

Not her staff her companies staff

The Red Robin said:

Furloughed as of Friday for two months, hopefully three, as I'll have no job to go back to afterwards. Small company ,eight months in, they decided to have my sixth month probation meeting. Had a two month one in October, all went well, told in December, brilliant, keep going... last week - you've failed your objectives, not passed. Utter bull and very convenient. 

So sorry to hear of your situation,you and I am afraid many others are going to be innocent victims in all  this.Just makes me doubly sick to hear people like the Beckhams,Branson pleading for help with their wage bills,also the photo of Sam Smith crying in his mansion,almost threw up when I saw this,these people have no idea what normality is.

Impossible to design a system that not only pays staff not a part of the HMRC pay as you earn system (which is proving very difficult and will be amazing if it comes off) and also assesses the worth of the of application for furlough.

in time, we will all get to see who has taken the piss and those companies that have, will hopefully suffer economically in the medium to long term. Not every business owner creates an appropriate balance between all their stakeholders (employees, taxes, shareholders) but some do. 

thickandthin63 said:

The Red Robin said:

Furloughed as of Friday for two months, hopefully three, as I'll have no job to go back to afterwards. Small company ,eight months in, they decided to have my sixth month probation meeting. Had a two month one in October, all went well, told in December, brilliant, keep going... last week - you've failed your objectives, not passed. Utter bull and very convenient. 

So sorry to hear of your situation,you and I am afraid many others are going to be innocent victims in all  this.Just makes me doubly sick to hear people like the Beckhams,Branson pleading for help with their wage bills,also the photo of Sam Smith crying in his mansion,almost threw up when I saw this,these people have no idea what normality is.

This

MrOneLung said:

Victoria Beckhams personal wealth has no bearing on the loss making business. 

She was on TV last night gushing about how she appreciated the NHS all the while knowing she was asking tax payers which include the many front line workers who keep us safe,to subsidise her wage bill when she could quite easily dip into her own deep pockets and pay them herself.Especially when she has just paid 100000k for her sons birthday party,and spent £20m on a new apartment.Perhaps sell a few hand bags even.Her business,according to reports has always lost money,not surprised,who wants to pay £120 for a tin of hand cream,unless you are of pipe cleaner proportions and have £2k to spend on a dress,you will not be shopping there.This lady was the weak link in a very successful girl band,and got lucky marrying David,her present wealth is dependant on David propping up her business.There are many small firms that are going skint over this,they are the ones deserving of our help.

Spitfire76 said:

PrincessFiona said:

MrOneLung said:

Victoria Beckhams personal wealth has no bearing on the loss making business. 

Why not? I have read thatthey have had to put personal wealth into it for years as it is not doing well  Described by some as a 'failing vanity project'. I used VB as an example but there are others including Branson and the odious Philip Green who are adding to the burden of the tax payer as the cost of it all has to be paid back when some of these business ovners have vast wealth they could use rather than burdening those who are not so well off

With Branson only owning 20% of some of his companies & the rest investors , pension schemes etc should they all pay too & have a reduction in people’s pension instead of furlough 

Branson and his ilk can easily afford to cover staff wages,but are more than happy not to.When this is all over and the man in the street gets his high tax bill to cover the money,Branson and his mates will still be living in luxury not giving a toss.