SAINSBURYS LIES about paying workers who live with EXTREMELY VULNERABLE PEOPLE 12 weeks paid leave

[Deleted User]

onwards&upwards said:Why would they need to pay 2 people in the same household for that?  

onwards&upwards said:

NHS and other care staff and key workers aren’t staying home because they have vulnerable people in their households,

Clearly the government have told vulnerable people to stay at home for three months to avoid serious illness and unnecessary deaths which could overwhelm the health service. The whole point of this is completely negated if someone in the same household is still going to work, especially in regular direct contact with the general public as supermarket workers are. 

In addition, there are indeed NHS staff who are not at work currently because they have vulnerable people in their households and the NHS is indeed still paying their wages. 

As to your final sentence about being able to "decontaminate", this is plainly and simply not possible and you should remove this comment as it is so inaccurate. 

Being sensible about uniforms etc  worn outside and other potentially exposed items is a wise move for everyone no matter  their circumstance. But there is no way to "decontaminate"  each evening after work. 

Finally, Sainsbury's do appear to be somewhat mean-minded in generally refusing to fund two staff members in the same household with a  vulnerable person, especially as the number of people affected in this way will be tiny.  However, the "timeline of events" from post #2 does reveal that Managers can exercise localised discretion with regard this ruling...

bradders1983

Really dont see the issue here and you cant expect the government and employers to bail out an entire household. What about if one person has to shield and they live with EIGHT other people?

gary83

They could have been even more “mean minded” and not paid anything. they’ve agreed to pay for 1 member of staffs wages and left it up to the managers discretion about what to do about the other ones wages - they didn’t have to do anything. If it’s affecting you it would be a lot more productive speaking to your manager about your issues and concerns and letting them make the decision they’ve been empowered to make at their discretion.

how do you know the number of people will be tiny? What happens then when all the staff who have childcare issues decide that Sainsburys are being “mean minded” by not paying them? No matter where you draw the line not everyone’s going to be happy. Supermarkets are pretty essential, they need staff to stay in work to feed the rest of us.

onwards&upwards

Moneyineptitude said:

onwards&upwards said:Why would they need to pay 2 people in the same household for that?  

onwards&upwards said:

NHS and other care staff and key workers aren’t staying home because they have vulnerable people in their households,

Clearly the government have told vulnerable people to stay at home for three months to avoid serious illness and unnecessary deaths which could overwhelm the health service. The whole point of this is completely negated if someone in the same household is still going to work, especially in regular direct contact with the general public as supermarket workers are. 

In addition, there are indeed NHS staff who are not at work currently because they have vulnerable people in their households and the NHS is indeed still paying their wages. 

As to your final sentence about being able to "decontaminate", this is plainly and simply not possible and you should remove this comment as it is so inaccurate. 

Being sensible about uniforms etc  worn outside and other potentially exposed items is a wise move for everyone no matter  their circumstance. But there is no way to "decontaminate"  each evening after work. 

Finally, Sainsbury's do appear to be somewhat mean-minded in generally refusing to fund two staff members in the same household with a  vulnerable person, especially as the number of people affected in this way will be tiny.  However, the "timeline of events" from post #2 does reveal that Managers can exercise localised discretion with regard this ruling...

The NHS is paying people to stay at home because they live with vulnerable people?  Really what trust is this? 

Some are supporting people by putting them up in hotels, some hotels are providing the rooms for free, I’m not aware of any that are paying them to stay home.  

I probably should have said ‘decontaminate as much as possible’.  

[Deleted User]

gary83 said:

how do you know the number of people will be tiny? 

It's rare enough for there to be two members of Sainsbury's staff in the same household at all, but also with a vulnerable person as well? The number will be tiny.  

Your comments about childcare issues are irrelevant to this and please don't address my posts as if I am the OP. 

I'm not.

[Deleted User]

onwards&upwards said:

Some are supporting people by putting them up in hotels, some hotels are providing the rooms for free, I’m not aware of any that are paying them to stay home.  

It's not a huge number (and it's only in very specific circumstances), but there are indeed. I know this for a fact. 

sharpe106

In addition, there are indeed NHS staff who are not at work currently because they have vulnerable people in their households and the NHS is indeed still paying their wages. 

Which ones? Know mine is not 

onwards&upwards

Moneyineptitude said:

onwards&upwards said:

Some are supporting people by putting them up in hotels, some hotels are providing the rooms for free, I’m not aware of any that are paying them to stay home.  

It's not a huge number (and it's only in very specific circumstances), but there are indeed. I know this for a fact. 

I presume then that you know a person in this situation.  It must be very unique circumstances, because it’s certainly not widespread.  The trusts are generally advising on how to carry on working while minimising the risk to the shielding family member. 

[Deleted User]

sharpe106 said: Know mine is not 

There really is no need for "debate" about this.

If someone working for the NHS is also living with a vulnerable person, there is protection in place. It won't be widely "advertised".

TheHandler

I think I need to clarify that this is about EXTREMELY vulnerable people, not just vulnerable. I'm talking about the people who have been sent an NHS letter who are at highest risk of death if they come into contact with the virus.