Nursery closed so can't work

Undervalued

BrassicWoman said:

JReacher1 said:

BrassicWoman said:

I am heavily involved in implementing furloughing. It’s not there for any job; the employer has to be in financial dire straights. If she’s a key worker (logistics, food) she can ask the council to help her find childcare.

otherwise, benefits, I am afraid.

This isn’t correct. The employer does not have to be in financial dire straights to furlough staff. 

It casts doubts on whether you are “heavily involved” if you think this is one of the criteria. 

"If you cannot maintain your current workforce because your operations have been severely affected by coronavirus (COVID-19), you can furlough employees "

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/claim-for-wage-costs-through-the-coronavirus-job-retention-scheme

However. I cannot be arsed arguing. As ever, I hope posters will do their own reading and not rely on random internet bods.

If you read the UPDATES to the document you linked you will read.......

Employees with caring responsibilities

Employees who are unable to work because they have caring responsibilities resulting from coronavirus (COVID-19) can be furloughed. For example, employees that need to look after children can be furloughed.

BrassicWoman

Here's the issue: there is zero case law for this. Even my legal counsel is guessing.

However the page placement supports a reading of, If your company is eligible to furlough (ie has operational impact) then among the people they can furlough, are people with caring responsibility. An employer who chooses to read that the other way is taking the risk that they get none of the money back. 

Andy_L

BrassicWoman said:

I am heavily involved in implementing furloughing. It’s not there for any job; the employer has to be in financial dire straights. If she’s a key worker (logistics, food) she can ask the council to help her find childcare.

otherwise, benefits, I am afraid.

Do you have a link to that? AFAIK the criteria is having no work for them ("your operations have been severely affected by coronavirus") not that you can't absorb the financial hit through your reserves 

Comms69

BrassicWoman said:

JReacher1 said:

BrassicWoman said:

I am heavily involved in implementing furloughing. It’s not there for any job; the employer has to be in financial dire straights. If she’s a key worker (logistics, food) she can ask the council to help her find childcare.

otherwise, benefits, I am afraid.

This isn’t correct. The employer does not have to be in financial dire straights to furlough staff. 

It casts doubts on whether you are “heavily involved” if you think this is one of the criteria. 

"If you cannot maintain your current workforce because your operations have been severely affected by coronavirus (COVID-19), you can furlough employees "

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/claim-for-wage-costs-through-the-coronavirus-job-retention-scheme

However. I cannot be arsed arguing. As ever, I hope posters will do their own reading and not rely on random internet bods.

Come on, i expected better. This is open to everyone, seriously multinationals are furloughing people, even if you havent read the full guidance (and i'd hope you had) it would be obvious

BrassicWoman

Comms69 said:

BrassicWoman said:

JReacher1 said:

BrassicWoman said:

I am heavily involved in implementing furloughing. It’s not there for any job; the employer has to be in financial dire straights. If she’s a key worker (logistics, food) she can ask the council to help her find childcare.

otherwise, benefits, I am afraid.

This isn’t correct. The employer does not have to be in financial dire straights to furlough staff. 

It casts doubts on whether you are “heavily involved” if you think this is one of the criteria. 

"If you cannot maintain your current workforce because your operations have been severely affected by coronavirus (COVID-19), you can furlough employees "

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/claim-for-wage-costs-through-the-coronavirus-job-retention-scheme

However. I cannot be arsed arguing. As ever, I hope posters will do their own reading and not rely on random internet bods.

Come on, i expected better. This is open to everyone, seriously multinationals are furloughing people, even if you havent read the full guidance (and i'd hope you had) it would be obvious

It's a scheme to avoid employers making redundancies (which has an immediate cost.) Multinationals also make people redundant when business is under pressure. Size is not a factor.

Go patronise someone else. None of this helps the OP. If it was designed to help employees, not employers, the employees would get money directly.

Comms69

BrassicWoman said:

Comms69 said:

BrassicWoman said:

JReacher1 said:

BrassicWoman said:

I am heavily involved in implementing furloughing. It’s not there for any job; the employer has to be in financial dire straights. If she’s a key worker (logistics, food) she can ask the council to help her find childcare.

otherwise, benefits, I am afraid.

This isn’t correct. The employer does not have to be in financial dire straights to furlough staff. 

It casts doubts on whether you are “heavily involved” if you think this is one of the criteria. 

"If you cannot maintain your current workforce because your operations have been severely affected by coronavirus (COVID-19), you can furlough employees "

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/claim-for-wage-costs-through-the-coronavirus-job-retention-scheme

However. I cannot be arsed arguing. As ever, I hope posters will do their own reading and not rely on random internet bods.

Come on, i expected better. This is open to everyone, seriously multinationals are furloughing people, even if you havent read the full guidance (and i'd hope you had) it would be obvious

It's a scheme to avoid employers making redundancies (which has an immediate cost.) Multinationals also make people redundant when business is under pressure. Size is not a factor.

Go patronise someone else. None of this helps the OP. If it was designed to help employees, not employers, the employees would get money directly.

Indeed, size is not a factor, though my point was more about financial stability, which was your initial point. 

I'm certainly not patronising you. But if you claim to be heavily involved, expect more scrutiny to what you write. You are after all suggesting your opinion carries weight. 

I do agree that your advice has not helped the OP.