Furlough Abuse ?

tarquers

I have heard of someone asking for Furlough as it is too difficult to work and look after young children, the company agreeing, and the other workers taking up the slack of the furloughed person, as the role isn't redundant. So now, the company is saving money, costing the government more & the other workers are working harder.

Now I don't know all the rules, but is this abuse of the system ?

sharpe106

No it is not they can do that. 

elsien

Employers are not furloughing people where there is so much work that they need every hand on deck. Therefore if this person has been furloughed it is  because there is not enough work to keep everyone fully employed in the current circumstances. What criteria they use to choose who to furlough is up to them. 
I would suspect your "I have heard of" may not be giving you the full picture. 

Splatfoot

Also, the Government have said companies can use it this way as many many parents will not be able to return to work until all years at school are back.

tarquers

I am fully aware of the situation, just being vague to avoid any possibility of scrutiny of the actual details.

This definitely means more work for those around, and many of those also have children and/or other personal issues.

I just think if the principle was top protect jobs and companies, then some of the furloughing doesn't seem quite right to me.

I also "know of" (see above) a company who have furloughed their drivers, then opened back up and are employing a 3rd party to do their deliveries.

As we all have to pay this back eventually, I just don't think the spirit of this is taken into account.

bradders1983

It certainly isnt in the spirit of the scheme but sadly yes, the scheme is now being used as a "I cant get childcare" scheme when work is actually available. The sooner the scheme ends, the better.

Mrsn

bradders1983 said:

It certainly isnt in the spirit of the scheme but sadly yes, the scheme is now being used as a "I cant get childcare" scheme when work is actually available. The sooner the scheme ends, the better.

The childcare element of it I suspect will stop soon once the new phase “employer contributions” become payable. I would imagine lots of posts coming saying can they do that etc... once that starts.

Splatfoot

The government have said it can be used this way. Parents cannot help it if they have children in school years who have not yet returned. Im sure they'd much rather their kids be at school. It's the Governments fault for not acting sooner that we are in this mess in the first place.

Grumpy_chap

tarquers said:

I have heard of someone asking for Furlough as it is too difficult to work and look after young children, the company agreeing, and the other workers taking up the slack of the furloughed person, as the role isn't redundant. So now, the company is saving money, costing the government more & the other workers are working harder.

Now I don't know all the rules, but is this abuse of the system ?

If there is no work, then the company can furlough everybody.  If there is 'some' work then the company can furlough 'some' staff and keep others working.  There are no rules over who the companies chooses to furlough and who they keep working.

Once the company realise they can do all the work with only some of the employees, the likelihood is they decide at that time some roles are redundant.  Is it then likely that those that are not working (furloughed) just don't come back and are redundant while those that are working will stay working?

tarquers said:

I also "know of" (see above) a company who have furloughed their drivers, then opened back up and are employing a 3rd party to do their deliveries.

As we all have to pay this back eventually, I just don't think the spirit of this is taken into account.

No, this is not in the spirit of the scheme.
Unfortunately, there are a number of threads on this forum where people have all sorts of excuses why they cannot go back to work after a period of furlough.  I suspect those companies are just dealing with it in the short-term, testing alternatives (less staff, contract 3rd party, etc) and if they prove they can manage without the awkward employees, they will do so.  Likely these decisions come by the end of July as the companies won't want to be incurring costs once the furlough is less subsidised.

However unfair it might seem to you to be at work while others take an easy ride, I think in the long term you are definitely better to be at work than first in the line to have no job.

Thrugelmir

tarquers said:

I also "know of" (see above) a company who have furloughed their drivers, then opened back up and are employing a 3rd party to do their deliveries.

Perhaps the "3rd party" is working on different contractual terms to the company's full times employees. i.e. if there is work basis. The shakedown from the crisis has barely started. As the furlough scheme progressively draws to a close the jobs picture will become much clearer. Nor does the furlough scheme come cost free to employers. 

onwards&upwards

bradders1983 said:

It certainly isnt in the spirit of the scheme but sadly yes, the scheme is now being used as a "I cant get childcare" scheme when work is actually available. The sooner the scheme ends, the better.

But they genuinely can't get childcare.  Schools aren't open, and relatives aren't allowed. 

I get that it must be frustrating for the staff still working, but children can't just be left home alone!