Shielding - sick pay or furlough

Cowcup2018

Why is it that someone who is extremely vulnerable and is advised by the NHS/government by letter to shield for 12 weeks to ensure that they protect themselves due to their severe underlying medical conditions, who work full time for a company that can decide how much if any you will be paid during the time you are shielding.This means that  you can be paid as little as £400 per month for SSP even though you could receive 80% of your wage up to £2500 if they chose to furlough you. Why is it that the government have left this decision up to the employer to make on how much their employees will receive. Therefore a company who has to stop trading or reduce their workforce can choose to pay those employees who have disabilities and shielded the SSP amount and the rest of their workforce the furlough pay. How is that fair and are being allowed to do this?? 

bradders1983

Because the shielding letter is advisory and not a demand to do so.

Exactly the same wishy washy thinking which we had the week before "lockdown" where Boris basically said "erm um restaurants and pubs can stay open but we advise you dont go to them".

Diamandis

Because the furlough scheme is there to protect jobs, if you're not able to go to work for medical reasons when there is work available then you're sick. 

Jeremy535897

I don't understand why employers choose to keep shielded people on SSP (which, apart from the first two weeks, they have to fund) instead of furloughing them.

calcotti

Jeremy535897 said:

I don't understand why employers choose to keep shielded people on SSP (which, apart from the first two weeks, they have to fund) instead of furloughing them.

Absolutely - possibly because they haven't thought it through!

OP. The answer is that the law gives you a statutory right to SSP if you are shielding and your employer cannot give you work to do at home but there is no statutory right to be furloughed.

Cowcup2018

The furlough scheme is there to protect jobs but also to support those who has severe health conditions as per the government guidelines. The majority of companies have supported their vulnerable staff by furloughing them, however for whatever reason others have chosen not to. 

poppy12345

Cowcup2018 said:

The furlough scheme is there to protect jobs but also to support those who has severe health conditions as per the government guidelines.

No it's not there to support those with severe health conditions. Those that have received the shielding letter are entitled to SSP. If their employer chooses to furlough them it's entirely their choice.

Gonna-be-debt-free

poppy12345 said:

Cowcup2018 said:

The furlough scheme is there to protect jobs but also to support those who has severe health conditions as per the government guidelines.

No it's not there to support those with severe health conditions. Those that have received the shielding letter are entitled to SSP. If their employer chooses to furlough them it's entirely their choice.

That's not entirely correct - Guidelines, ACAS and CIPD are all clear that employees can be furloughed for shielding.
However I agree with the OP that it should not be at the discretion of the employer.  IMO it would have been better handled outside of the JRS.

poppy12345

Gonna-be-debt-free said:

poppy12345 said:

Cowcup2018 said:

The furlough scheme is there to protect jobs but also to support those who has severe health conditions as per the government guidelines.

No it's not there to support those with severe health conditions. Those that have received the shielding letter are entitled to SSP. If their employer chooses to furlough them it's entirely their choice.

That's not entirely correct - Guidelines, ACAS and CIPD are all clear that employees can be furloughed for shielding.
However I agree with the OP that it should not be at the discretion of the employer.  IMO it would have been better handled outside of the JRS.

No where in my comment did i say they can't be furloughed. ACAS guidlines say "they can ask their employer if they can be put on 'furlough'. What i actually said was it's the employers decision whether they choose to furlough them. Some have and some haven't.

https://www.acas.org.uk/coronavirus/vulnerable-people-and-high-risk

calcotti

Gonna-be-debt-free said: That's not entirely correct - Guidelines, ACAS and CIPD are all clear that employees can be furloughed for shielding.

Exactly, ‘can’ be, not ‘entitled’ to be.

Cowcup2018

The government should have been more decisive around furlough pay for the extremely vulnerable as this has created a grey area and rather than "can be" should have been an "entitled to". This would have ensured that all companies treated extremely vulnerable staff the same. There are companies out there that have put extreme vulnerable staff on SSP and the rest of the team on furlough. Government guidelines for employers also say that when choosing the staff to be put on furlough they do not discriminate. For those extreme vulnerable members of staff who work for employers who chosen to only pay them SSP have made them choose between taking the government advice or continuing going to work.