Key worker looking after 18 month daughter

sharpe106

Not to mention the ones with kids, who don't have childcare issues but would then claim they did to stay at home and still get paid. 

Spitfiresteve

gary83 said:

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?

The same could be said for those working from home who are basically and on furlough but only getting 80% of their wages but this is going off of this topic

Spitfiresteve

sharpe106 said:

Not to mention the ones with kids, who don't have childcare issues but would then claim they did to stay at home and still get paid. 

Her employers are not a small business but the shop has only 4 staff (1 who is the manager who has resigned as her husband refuses to let her work). They only have an average of 10 customers a day but are staying open as their rivals are.They have also not instigated any safe distancing measures and are one company I definitely think are all about profit and more profit !!. Maybe the only option would be to take her daughter to work on the bus(she doesn’t drive) and hope they don’t catch the virus.

LilElvis

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. 

Why should taxpayers - because they're the ones who are going to ultimately foot the bill for all this - subsidise your daughter's family simply because she is disinclined to use a childcare provider? They're good enough for hundreds of thousands of children after all - including the children of the healthcare workers we are all relying on.

sharpe106

Spitfiresteve said:

They have also not instigated any safe distancing measures and are one company I definitely think are all about profit and more profit !!. 

How do people think they are going to have jobs to go back to if all the companies just shut fully. Maybe she cold put safe distancing measures in place?

elsien

LilElvis said:

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. 

Why should taxpayers - because they're the ones who are going to ultimately foot the bill for all this - subsidise your daughter's family simply because she is disinclined to use a childcare provider? They're good enough for hundreds of thousands of children after all - including the children of the healthcare workers we are all relying on.

Taking annual leave allows her to still  be paid and look after her child. Taking unpaid leave will be a financial burden but it allows her to keep her job. 
 It may not be her preference, but there's a lot of us having to do things we would prefer not to at the moment. 
How long has she worked there for - she is not in a redundancy situation but it's not beyond the realms of possibility that she could just be let go if she's not willing or able to take the necessary steps to get into work. There's what's perceived to be fair and there's what's legal. This may be one of those situations where the two are poles apart. 

richieOrich

My daughter has a similar problem. She is a supermarket key worker. Her youngest daughter is of school age and has a place at an infant school if required, but her son who is only 3 yrs has no school place until september, so nowhere to go. All childminders have closed down, so that's that. Her 'wonderful' supermarket employer beginning with 'A' are being completely unhelpful and refusing to pay her or furlough her. Everytime she speaks to HR she gets a different story/answer. She has had to go on unpaid leave, and inform Universal Credit. Fingers crossed they will make it up in some way. Until then she calls on the bank of Dad.

gary83

richieOrich said:

My daughter has a similar problem. She is a supermarket key worker. Her youngest daughter is of school age and has a place at an infant school if required, but her son who is only 3 yrs has no school place until september, so nowhere to go. All childminders have closed down, so that's that. Her 'wonderful' supermarket employer beginning with 'A' are being completely unhelpful and refusing to pay her or furlough her. Everytime she speaks to HR she gets a different story/answer. She has had to go on unpaid leave, and inform Universal Credit. Fingers crossed they will make it up in some way. Until then she calls on the bank of Dad.

Your daughter works for a supermarket that over the last few weeks will have been unexpectedly extremely busy, it’s an unexpected event and one that none of us have planned for. They probably have had massive sales and certainly won’t be making anyone redundant as a result of Corona virus - remember that was the point of the furlough scheme, it wasn’t designed as a makeshift childcare benefit there’s not much point blaming the supermarket, from their point of view your daughter is refusing to go to work, so they’re entirely within their rights to refuse to pay her.

Gonna-be-debt-free

Thankfully the government was more enlightened that some of the people posting, in that it changed the scheme to allow employers to furlough employees who had Covid-related childcare issues.  Let's hope employers catch up with that change!

sharpe106

Gonna-be-debt-free said:

Thankfully the government was more enlightened that some of the people posting, in that it changed the scheme to allow employers to furlough employees who had Covid-related childcare issues.  Let's hope employers catch up with that change!

The posters here had nothing to do with being enlightened or not, just what the current rules said and as the rules changes the answers will change. I still do not see where it says childcare by itself is a criteria. So could you either post a link to it or copy the relevent part thanks.