Unable to work due to child care, employer won't offer furlough

gary83

Ok just playing devils advocate and running through some hypothetical situations, not meaning to be judgemental , 

the company says ok everyone with kids stay at home on 80% salary to look after them, if you don’t have kids keep coming in to handle the same amount of work as now, the people who remain working are then going to feel put out & we’d see more people creating threads saying “why should I work and risk the virus just because I don’t have kids, I’m only working for 20%“ etc. The people with kids are happy though.

the virus is eventually over but the business doesn’t immediately spring back to Pre virus levels & the government withdraws its support, Leading to the company now having to make redundancies, the company would be hard pressed to do anything other than make those redundant who were furloughed first, after all those members !!!!!! staff have already proved they weren’t essential and they would probably want to reward the staff members who kept coming in. The people with childcare issues now complain that actually they were the ones badly done to in this hypothetical scenario.

furlough wasn’t intended as a means to pay for those that need to stay at home to provide childcare, the government weren’t thinking of childcare issues when they dreamt this scheme up, as far as they’re concerned they addressed that problem when they kept some schools open though I appreciate not everyone’s benefiting from that, in just the same way that not everyone is benefiting from furlough.

sharpe106

BBunter said:

g

Unfortunately that is how I read the situation as well, in this particular case Martin Lewis is not helping the situation - I have staff sharing his post on facebook and tagging me in on it.... 

I still do not understand why someone from MSE has not clarified his post. As to me people are misreading what he said. there is 100s of people coming on here with false hope of going back to old employers to get re-employed when it is putting the old employer into the position of being heartless and saying no or potentially making a claim that would  rightly be denied as the rules stand. 

Undervalued

gary83 said:

Ok just playing devils advocate and running through some hypothetical situations, not meaning to be judgemental , 

the company says ok everyone with kids stay at home on 80% salary to look after them, if you don’t have kids keep coming in to handle the same amount of work as now, the people who remain working are then going to feel put out & we’d see more people creating threads saying “why should I work and risk the virus just because I don’t have kids, I’m only working for 20%“ etc. The people with kids are happy though.

the virus is eventually over but the business doesn’t immediately spring back to Pre virus levels & the government withdraws its support, Leading to the company now having to make redundancies, the company would be hard pressed to do anything other than make those redundant who were furloughed first, after all those members !!!!!! staff have already proved they weren’t essential and they would probably want to reward the staff members who kept coming in. The people with childcare issues now complain that actually they were the ones badly done to in this hypothetical scenario.

furlough wasn’t intended as a means to pay for those that need to stay at home to provide childcare, the government weren’t thinking of childcare issues when they dreamt this scheme up, as far as they’re concerned they addressed that problem when they kept some schools open though I appreciate not everyone’s benefiting from that, in just the same way that not everyone is benefiting from furlough.

Exactly, once again!!!

mobilejo

Undervalued said:

mobilejo said:

gary83 said:

mobilejo said:

BBunter said:

However the CBI states : 

If an employee asks to be furloughed because they cannot work due to childcare responsibilities (because of nursery/school closures) can an employer agree to this?  

The guidance does not clarify this question.  

I have staff in this situation but cannot afford to pay them without further clarification from the government

It sounds like you at least are willing to furlough them.

In the OPs case, none of this is relevant if they just don't want to furlough him/her. Whether the scheme allows it won't change the fact that it is the at the employer's discretion and whilst we (and Martin) can ask nicely, some employers have always just been bad people that do not care about their employees, and they won't change.

It’s not about employers being bad people it’s about companies who are going through uncertain times needing to follow the guidance to make sure they can claim the furlough money back from the government, you can’t really blame companies or their HR departments responsible for the rules of a scheme that the government wrote.

Yes sometimes. And in the OP's case, I do not know their motivation.

I was speaking in more general terms - there are some bad employers out there, and I'm simply saying that they won't change because of the current situation.

Indeed. However there are also some "bad" employees out there either trying to milk the situation or, at least, seem the expect every supplier and employer to absorb all of the problem which is no more their fault than it is the individual's fault.

Absolutely. I hope I didn't give the impression that I'm some sort of employee rights warrior, or that I'm trying to tarnish all employers as being bad. I'm merely a cynic of everyone - every group has bad apples.

My only point was that people should know what their boss is about, and if you have one that usually isn't helpful or sympathetic to your needs, don't expect that to change now.