Why isn’t Tesco paying me?

trixie73

Well the care home I work at has fourloughed all shielding staff, and taken on new staff to cover. Didn't think that that was what the scheme was for, but hey ho, it obviously is 🤔

sharpe106

trixie73 said:

Well the care home I work at has fourloughed all shielding staff, and taken on new staff to cover. Didn't think that that was what the scheme was for, but hey ho, it obviously is 🤔

No it wasn't but I a lot of what is being claimed is not what the scheme was for. For the amount of jobs it actually saves the scheme to the cost they would have far better being paying the full salary of every employee of companies that had to shut and left it at that.

Thrugelmir

trixie73 said:

Well the care home I work at has fourloughed all shielding staff, and taken on new staff to cover. Didn't think that that was what the scheme was for, but hey ho, it obviously is 🤔

Comes at a cost to the care home as well. 

sharpe106

Thrugelmir said:

trixie73 said:

Well the care home I work at has fourloughed all shielding staff, and taken on new staff to cover. Didn't think that that was what the scheme was for, but hey ho, it obviously is 🤔

Comes at a cost to the care home as well. 

True but probably easier for them then SSP as what they would be entitled to shielding, knowing care companies they will be getting them to take the leave to so a saving there for them. 

yksi

My supermarket is not paying self-shielding staff either, they've basically been told there is work for them to do and if they choose to self-isolate without a fit note (sick note) to say that THEY are actually SICK, then they will do it on their own dime. The rest of us have to go to work and risk our own health, so why should people be paid to stay home and sit on their backside?

In fact two staff who insisted on not coming in, while not actually being sick, have been dismissed for breaching their contract. As it should be. People have to eat and we have a job to do feeding them. If we all stayed home to protect ourselves and our families, nobody would be able to buy groceries. Life's tough but you do what you've got to do, you use sanitiser, you wear a mask, you put your clothes straight in the wash when you get home. Lots of us have vulnerable relatives and have to take steps to protect them. There's a great big long queue of people who want your stepfather's job if he isn't interested in keeping it. After eight weeks of not even speaking with his employer about his time off, he should be thankful if he even has a job to go back to quite frankly.

Gonna-be-debt-free

yksi said:

My supermarket is not paying self-shielding staff either, they've basically been told there is work for them to do and if they choose to self-isolate without a fit note (sick note) to say that THEY are actually SICK, then they will do it on their own dime. The rest of us have to go to work and risk our own health, so why should people be paid to stay home and sit on their backside?

In fact two staff who insisted on not coming in, while not actually being sick, have been dismissed for breaching their contract. As it should be. People have to eat and we have a job to do feeding them. If we all stayed home to protect ourselves and our families, nobody would be able to buy groceries. Life's tough but you do what you've got to do, you use sanitiser, you wear a mask, you put your clothes straight in the wash when you get home. Lots of us have vulnerable relatives and have to take steps to protect them. There's a great big long queue of people who want your stepfather's job if he isn't interested in keeping it. After eight weeks of not even speaking with his employer about his time off, he should be thankful if he even has a job to go back to quite frankly.

Well, because we live in a civilized society where we look after each other, and not an anarchy where it is every man for himself.
For some extremely vulnerable and clinically vulnerable groups the mortality rate is more than 100 time higher than the rest of the population, therefore one would assume the rest of the population might help to look after them.
Maybe to balance it out, when you turn up for your shift you should instead be asked to do something 100 times more risky than normal - cave diving, tightrope walking, lion taming ....?

poppy12345

Gonna-be-debt-free said:

yksi said:

My supermarket is not paying self-shielding staff either, they've basically been told there is work for them to do and if they choose to self-isolate without a fit note (sick note) to say that THEY are actually SICK, then they will do it on their own dime. The rest of us have to go to work and risk our own health, so why should people be paid to stay home and sit on their backside?

In fact two staff who insisted on not coming in, while not actually being sick, have been dismissed for breaching their contract. As it should be. People have to eat and we have a job to do feeding them. If we all stayed home to protect ourselves and our families, nobody would be able to buy groceries. Life's tough but you do what you've got to do, you use sanitiser, you wear a mask, you put your clothes straight in the wash when you get home. Lots of us have vulnerable relatives and have to take steps to protect them. There's a great big long queue of people who want your stepfather's job if he isn't interested in keeping it. After eight weeks of not even speaking with his employer about his time off, he should be thankful if he even has a job to go back to quite frankly.

For some extremely vulnerable and clinically vulnerable groups the mortality rate is more than 100 time higher than the rest of the population, therefore one would assume the rest of the population might help to look after them.

I'm not sure what the rest of the population can do other than keep to the 2 metre rule. That still doesn't entitle those that are living with vulnerable people to stay home from work.

Gonna-be-debt-free

poppy12345 said:

Gonna-be-debt-free said:

yksi said:

My supermarket is not paying self-shielding staff either, they've basically been told there is work for them to do and if they choose to self-isolate without a fit note (sick note) to say that THEY are actually SICK, then they will do it on their own dime. The rest of us have to go to work and risk our own health, so why should people be paid to stay home and sit on their backside?

In fact two staff who insisted on not coming in, while not actually being sick, have been dismissed for breaching their contract. As it should be. People have to eat and we have a job to do feeding them. If we all stayed home to protect ourselves and our families, nobody would be able to buy groceries. Life's tough but you do what you've got to do, you use sanitiser, you wear a mask, you put your clothes straight in the wash when you get home. Lots of us have vulnerable relatives and have to take steps to protect them. There's a great big long queue of people who want your stepfather's job if he isn't interested in keeping it. After eight weeks of not even speaking with his employer about his time off, he should be thankful if he even has a job to go back to quite frankly.

For some extremely vulnerable and clinically vulnerable groups the mortality rate is more than 100 time higher than the rest of the population, therefore one would assume the rest of the population might help to look after them.

I'm not sure what the rest of the population can do other than keep to the 2 metre rule. That still doesn't entitle those that are living with vulnerable people to stay home from work.

I agree, but I was responding specifically to yksi's comment that no-one should be paid if they are shielding, even if they themselves are highly-vulnerable
The rest of the population is already helping some of the severely affected people by virtue of the fact that the furlough scheme was amended to include (at the employers discretion) employees who are in the highest risk category, even if there is work for them to do.
The OP's FIL is not in this category, and even I wouldn't expect someone to be paid to say at home simply because they are living with an at-risk person.   (However the discussion had drifted from that original point).

yksi

My child has a heart condition and my partner is someone for whom Covid-19 is likely to be fatal. I'm working, because I myself am not in an extremely vulnerable group. Among my colleagues are five in that group themselves. One has cancer. All five are working and taking the necessary precautions. 

You seem to be suggesting that while these five vulnerable people should work and put their own health at risk, the OP, who made no mention of being vulnerable themselves, should sit at home at leisure and get paid for doing nothing. How do you think my colleagues - and the thousands like them across the country - will feel about that?

We all have to make sacrifices right now and need to stop expecting a magic fairy to do everything for us. It isn't unreasonable to say that if you aren't ill, and if you can safely work, then you should go to work, or someone else can have your job. And by all accounts Tesco has done an extraordinary job to enable the work to be as safe as possible.