Key worker looking after 18 month daughter

richieOrich

I heard this as well. My understanding is that the furlough scheme is there for the employer to decide who they want to put on it. So if the employer was decent and willing to help, then they could put employees on it who had childcare issues. This is why I’m so annoyed at my daughters employer. They are making it up as they go along. Their latest excuse is that the furlough scheme is only for companies that are closing down. Unbelievable!

mac.d

Wasn't the furlough scheme intended to be used for people that would otherwise lose their jobs? 
Edit, was that the very early original intention but now its to be used for just helping to support people. So isn't child care a justifiable reason?

elsien

richieOrich said:

I heard this as well. My understanding is that the furlough scheme is there for the employer to decide who they want to put on it. So if the employer was decent and willing to help, then they could put employees on it who had childcare issues. This is why I’m so annoyed at my daughters employer. They are making it up as they go along. Their latest excuse is that the furlough scheme is only for companies that are closing down. Unbelievable!

Is there any reason why those with children should take precedence over those caring for older relatives who are more at risk from the virus being brought into the home?
You have to remember that the scheme was set up to save people losing their jobs where they'd be laid off otherwise from lack of work. And although those goalposts have now shifted, the number of people coming up with reasons to be furloughed due to health reasons, childcare, other caring responsibilities etc there is still a finite number of people that employers can afford to lose and still keep going.
From a selfish point of view I would be extremely miffed if a colleague was furloughed because they didn't want to use the childcare on offer, while I had to go in and do their work while being the only support for an 80 year old isolating parent but not eligible because we have separate households. 

Gonna-be-debt-free

sharpe106 said:

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.

See links and quotes in posts 8 & 9 on this thread 😊

Gonna-be-debt-free

elsien said:

richieOrich said:

I heard this as well. My understanding is that the furlough scheme is there for the employer to decide who they want to put on it. So if the employer was decent and willing to help, then they could put employees on it who had childcare issues. This is why I’m so annoyed at my daughters employer. They are making it up as they go along. Their latest excuse is that the furlough scheme is only for companies that are closing down. Unbelievable!

Is there any reason why those with children should take precedence over those caring for older relatives who are more at risk from the virus being brought into the home?
You have to remember that the scheme was set up to save people losing their jobs where they'd be laid off otherwise from lack of work. And although those goalposts have now shifted, the number of people coming up with reasons to be furloughed due to health reasons, childcare, other caring responsibilities etc there is still a finite number of people that employers can afford to lose and still keep going.
From a selfish point of view I would be extremely miffed if a colleague was furloughed because they didn't want to use the childcare on offer, while I had to go in and do their work while being the only support for an 80 year old isolating parent but not eligible because we have separate households. 

You will be happy to know that no, there is no reason at all why people with childcare responsibilities have precidence over people with other caring responsibilities.  In the same way as someone can be furloughed due to a need to take care of their 18 month old daughter, someone can also be furloughed due to a need to take care of their 80 year old mother. 

Of course the circumstances would have to be similar, there would need to be a specific need for care, and the care normally in place would have had to be interrupted due to COVID-19 measures.  eg for a child the nursery shuts, or older relatives can not took after child.  eg for other caring responsibilities care home shuts, or person who is the normal carer needs to shield.
So if you are actually a “carer” for your 80 year old parent, or their normal care has been directly impacted, then you may have a case.

sharpe106

The original part of the document still says 
If you cannot maintain your current workforce because your operations have been severely affected by coronavirus (COVID-19), you can furlough employees and apply for a grant that covers 80% of their usual monthly wage costs, up to £2,500 a month, plus the associated Employer National Insurance contributions and pension contributions (up to the level of the minimum automatic enrolment employer pension contribution) on that subsidised furlough pay.

Then it goes on to list who a company can furlough, so to my reading you still have to meet the original criteria.