Key worker looking after 18 month daughter

mattyprice4004

Gonna-be-debt-free said:

mattyprice4004 said:

Furlough is optional - if she wants to stay at home to look after the kids, she'll likely have to take unpaid leave if they won't use furlough. 

It's important to remember it's also not the employer's fault she has kids - they need staff in to work, and it's unfair to expect them to foot the bill if she can't attend due to childcare issues. 

That's incorrect (and objectionable) on so many levels.
She doesn't "want to" stay home and look after the kids.
The employer won't have to "foot" any bill given that it's a government scheme which has been amended to account for exactly this type of situation.

It's not incorrect - the employer doesn't have to use furlough; they can say no if they choose to. It's their choice. 
Want, need - same thing, the kids need looking after. Her employer isn't making her look after them, so it's her choice / need. 

The employer has to foot the bill until they reclaim it back from the Government, which is likely to be months away yet - so who pays the bill until then? The employer, so yes they are footing it, at least temporarily. 

Gonna-be-debt-free

mattyprice4004 said:

Gonna-be-debt-free said:

mattyprice4004 said:

Furlough is optional - if she wants to stay at home to look after the kids, she'll likely have to take unpaid leave if they won't use furlough. 

It's important to remember it's also not the employer's fault she has kids - they need staff in to work, and it's unfair to expect them to foot the bill if she can't attend due to childcare issues. 

That's incorrect (and objectionable) on so many levels.
She doesn't "want to" stay home and look after the kids.
The employer won't have to "foot" any bill given that it's a government scheme which has been amended to account for exactly this type of situation.

It's not incorrect - the employer doesn't have to use furlough; they can say no if they choose to. It's their choice. 
Want, need - same thing, the kids need looking after. Her employer isn't making her look after them, so it's her choice / need. 

The employer has to foot the bill until they reclaim it back from the Government, which is likely to be months away yet - so who pays the bill until then? The employer, so yes they are footing it, at least temporarily. 

I was answering, not asking

mattyprice4004

Gonna-be-debt-free said:

mattyprice4004 said:

Gonna-be-debt-free said:

mattyprice4004 said:

Furlough is optional - if she wants to stay at home to look after the kids, she'll likely have to take unpaid leave if they won't use furlough. 

It's important to remember it's also not the employer's fault she has kids - they need staff in to work, and it's unfair to expect them to foot the bill if she can't attend due to childcare issues. 

That's incorrect (and objectionable) on so many levels.
She doesn't "want to" stay home and look after the kids.
The employer won't have to "foot" any bill given that it's a government scheme which has been amended to account for exactly this type of situation.

It's not incorrect - the employer doesn't have to use furlough; they can say no if they choose to. It's their choice. 
Want, need - same thing, the kids need looking after. Her employer isn't making her look after them, so it's her choice / need. 

The employer has to foot the bill until they reclaim it back from the Government, which is likely to be months away yet - so who pays the bill until then? The employer, so yes they are footing it, at least temporarily. 

I was answering, not asking

Yes, I noticed that afterwards and have corrected my post - I note you haven't objected to any of the points I raised; you chose to focus on a moot point.
Speaks volumes  

Gonna-be-debt-free

mattyprice4004 said:

Gonna-be-debt-free said:

mattyprice4004 said:

Gonna-be-debt-free said:

mattyprice4004 said:

Furlough is optional - if she wants to stay at home to look after the kids, she'll likely have to take unpaid leave if they won't use furlough. 

It's important to remember it's also not the employer's fault she has kids - they need staff in to work, and it's unfair to expect them to foot the bill if she can't attend due to childcare issues. 

That's incorrect (and objectionable) on so many levels.
She doesn't "want to" stay home and look after the kids.
The employer won't have to "foot" any bill given that it's a government scheme which has been amended to account for exactly this type of situation.

It's not incorrect - the employer doesn't have to use furlough; they can say no if they choose to. It's their choice. 
Want, need - same thing, the kids need looking after. Her employer isn't making her look after them, so it's her choice / need. 

The employer has to foot the bill until they reclaim it back from the Government, which is likely to be months away yet - so who pays the bill until then? The employer, so yes they are footing it, at least temporarily. 

I was answering, not asking

Yes, I noticed that afterwards and have corrected my post - I note you haven't objected to any of the points I raised; you chose to focus on a moot point.
Speaks volumes  

I didn't really think they were worthy of response.  Want is not equal to need.  You changed your mind about the employer footing the bill.  Everyone had already agreed that the employer didn't have to use furlough...  

mattyprice4004

Gonna-be-debt-free said:

mattyprice4004 said:

Gonna-be-debt-free said:

mattyprice4004 said:

Gonna-be-debt-free said:

mattyprice4004 said:

Furlough is optional - if she wants to stay at home to look after the kids, she'll likely have to take unpaid leave if they won't use furlough. 

It's important to remember it's also not the employer's fault she has kids - they need staff in to work, and it's unfair to expect them to foot the bill if she can't attend due to childcare issues. 

That's incorrect (and objectionable) on so many levels.
She doesn't "want to" stay home and look after the kids.
The employer won't have to "foot" any bill given that it's a government scheme which has been amended to account for exactly this type of situation.

It's not incorrect - the employer doesn't have to use furlough; they can say no if they choose to. It's their choice. 
Want, need - same thing, the kids need looking after. Her employer isn't making her look after them, so it's her choice / need. 

The employer has to foot the bill until they reclaim it back from the Government, which is likely to be months away yet - so who pays the bill until then? The employer, so yes they are footing it, at least temporarily. 

I was answering, not asking

Yes, I noticed that afterwards and have corrected my post - I note you haven't objected to any of the points I raised; you chose to focus on a moot point.
Speaks volumes  

I didn't really think they were worthy of response.  Want is not equal to need.  You changed your mind about the employer footing the bill.  Everyone had already agreed that the employer didn't have to use furlough...  

Sure, okay - if that makes you feel better.

LilElvis

Of course there is a very obvious reason why an employer may choose not to furlough in a situation such as this - because it could open the floodgates to other staff members who feel that their personal situations should entitle them to the same treatment. It could also cause huge resentment in the workplace as there will doubtlessly be other staff members who would prefer to be at home on 80% of salary but can't wave the childcare card.

Furloughing staff does come at a cost to the employer - in addition to footing the upfront cost they also have to administer the scheme, sort out the relevant paperwork, communicate with the affected staff etc. 

Spitfiresteve

elsien said:

She won't  be made redundant because redundancy is where the job role no longer exists. Her job role still exists, the issue is her childcare.

The revised guidance says
 “If you are unable to work, including from home, due to caring responsibilities arising from coronavirus (Covid-19), such as caring for children who are at home as a result of school and childcare facilities closing, or caring for a vulnerable individual in your household, then you should speak to your employer about whether they plan to place staff on furlough.“ It adds that funds will start from the day an employee is placed on furlough, which can be backdated to 1 March 2020.

Furlough status -  details can be found 

However there is no obligation on the employer to actually do this - it is their decision to make. 
Otherwise she has the option of asking to take holiday or unpaid leave. Or see if her child can attend day care for key-workers if this is not possible for any reason. 

Her daughter has only been looked after by us and she wouldn’t be happy in childcare at the moment.  The problem with taking annual leave is that it is likely to be less than this goes on for and unpaid leave would only compound the problem. Why can’t the government force companies in this situation to furlough staff as it doesn’t cost them anything and the government has said that no one should suffer financially from this dreadful virus. 

sharpe106

Spitfiresteve said:

Her daughter has only been looked after by us and she wouldn’t be happy in childcare at the moment.  The problem with taking annual leave is that it is likely to be less than this goes on for and unpaid leave would only compound the problem. Why can’t the government force companies in this situation to furlough staff as it doesn’t cost them anything and the government has said that no one should suffer financially from this dreadful virus. 

Because they created a scheme which basically wants companies that are struggling to survive to administer what has basically become a benefit system, which updates pretty much hourly and given them no incentive or help to do it. Hardly a government that knows what it is doing, 

lincroft1710

Spitfiresteve said:

elsien said:

She won't  be made redundant because redundancy is where the job role no longer exists. Her job role still exists, the issue is her childcare.

The revised guidance says
 “If you are unable to work, including from home, due to caring responsibilities arising from coronavirus (Covid-19), such as caring for children who are at home as a result of school and childcare facilities closing, or caring for a vulnerable individual in your household, then you should speak to your employer about whether they plan to place staff on furlough.“ It adds that funds will start from the day an employee is placed on furlough, which can be backdated to 1 March 2020.

Furlough status -  details can be found 

However there is no obligation on the employer to actually do this - it is their decision to make. 
Otherwise she has the option of asking to take holiday or unpaid leave. Or see if her child can attend day care for key-workers if this is not possible for any reason. 

Why can’t the government force companies in this situation to furlough staff as it doesn’t cost them anything and the government has said that no one should suffer financially from this dreadful virus. 

But it does cost the company until they get it back from the government (and I'd love to know where the government will get all this money from), and then they will have to pay someone else to do her job.

gary83

Spitfiresteve said:

elsien said:

She won't  be made redundant because redundancy is where the job role no longer exists. Her job role still exists, the issue is her childcare.

The revised guidance says
 “If you are unable to work, including from home, due to caring responsibilities arising from coronavirus (Covid-19), such as caring for children who are at home as a result of school and childcare facilities closing, or caring for a vulnerable individual in your household, then you should speak to your employer about whether they plan to place staff on furlough.“ It adds that funds will start from the day an employee is placed on furlough, which can be backdated to 1 March 2020.

Furlough status -  details can be found 

However there is no obligation on the employer to actually do this - it is their decision to make. 
Otherwise she has the option of asking to take holiday or unpaid leave. Or see if her child can attend day care for key-workers if this is not possible for any reason. 

Her daughter has only been looked after by us and she wouldn’t be happy in childcare at the moment.  The problem with taking annual leave is that it is likely to be less than this goes on for and unpaid leave would only compound the problem. Why can’t the government force companies in this situation to furlough staff as it doesn’t cost them anything and the government has said that no one should suffer financially from this dreadful virus. 

Also we’d quickly have hundreds of posts on here & Twitter pointing out that this new positive discrimination was unfair, how would the rest of the workforce (those that don’t have kids) feel when they have to keep going out, doing there work and also picking up the slack and having to cover for those that are now sat at home on 80% of their income, they’d quickly be pointing out that there out there doing all the work for only 20% of the wages?