REFUSE TO RETURN FROM FURLOUGH?

harz99

And 43 hours later the OP hasn't come back....does anyone think they may have been an employee asked to return?

Grumpy_chap

I have noticed a very high number of "one post wonders" in the past week.  Not sure whether something is wrong with the forum and it is being spammed somehow?

neilmcl

Grumpy_chap said:

I have noticed a very high number of "one post wonders" in the past week.  Not sure whether something is wrong with the forum and it is being spammed somehow?

This whole CV forum has been full of "one post wonders" from the very start, nature of the beast I'm afraid.

[Deleted User]

The cafe could be busy being run single-handedly.  Can't imagine the best thing to do is post twistedly from the Employers POV. 
Karen did sound genuine with an employee who wanted near on 7 months off work paid. I do imagine people saying to the type of employer who can be be bossed around "no it's ok, I'll stay on furlough till end of October thanks". Hopefully it will make giving references fun for some employers. For the people who do want to go back to work, there was always be another set that will want to stretch this out.  I recently saw a hiring 'multiple candidates' job vacancy come back up, now either something wasn't to clear in the job ad, the employer is wildly picky or people genuinely didn't want to go to a physical attendance interview with the prospect of immediate start. 
So it's a helpful thread.

[Deleted User]

Jeremy535897 said:

calcotti said:

unholyangel said:

kingfisherblue said:

Why are people suggesting unpaid leave? The employer has already stated that they need the employee to work, so if the employee refuses, unpaid leave does not have to be offered as an alternative. Instead, the disciplinary procedure should be started. The OP does not want an employee on unpaid leave - he/she wants her employee to work. It has been stated that business is picking up, hence the need for the employee to attend work. Unpaid leave is not necessarily an option, and should not be offered in my opinion.

Because all he has to do is claim he was refusing to attend for health & safety reasons and the OP is potentially looking at a tribunal. 

Safer option is unpaid leave. 

But then OP needs to employ somebody else and when first employee decides they feel like coming back to work OP has too many staff and has the stress of having to make somebody redundant. Making people redundant is one of the most upsetting things I have ever done.

100% agree with that sentiment. It's a horrible thing to have to do.

I agree it is not pleasant, I had to do it when I was previously employed by someone else. However if someone was refusing to work and demanding that they be allowed to sit on their !!!!!! at home being paid then I would have little issue with firing them, their misfortune would be entirely self inflicted.

Jeremy535897

MadMattUK said:

Jeremy535897 said:

calcotti said:

unholyangel said:

kingfisherblue said:

Why are people suggesting unpaid leave? The employer has already stated that they need the employee to work, so if the employee refuses, unpaid leave does not have to be offered as an alternative. Instead, the disciplinary procedure should be started. The OP does not want an employee on unpaid leave - he/she wants her employee to work. It has been stated that business is picking up, hence the need for the employee to attend work. Unpaid leave is not necessarily an option, and should not be offered in my opinion.

Because all he has to do is claim he was refusing to attend for health & safety reasons and the OP is potentially looking at a tribunal. 

Safer option is unpaid leave. 

But then OP needs to employ somebody else and when first employee decides they feel like coming back to work OP has too many staff and has the stress of having to make somebody redundant. Making people redundant is one of the most upsetting things I have ever done.

100% agree with that sentiment. It's a horrible thing to have to do.

I agree it is not pleasant, I had to do it when I was previously employed by someone else. However if someone was refusing to work and demanding that they be allowed to sit on their !!!!!! at home being paid then I would have little issue with firing them, their misfortune would be entirely self inflicted.

Yes, it's much easier when they deserve it through their own actions or inaction.

[Deleted User]

Jeremy535897 said:

Yes, it's much easier when they deserve it through their own actions or inaction.

I have twice had to fire people as the conclusion of a disciplinary process which I had no problems with, they were the architects of their own downfall and I had no problem with getting rid of them. 

I also had to make people redundant because the business I worked for at the time was in dire financial straits because the owner had taken money out of the business that was not there, loaded it up with debts there and then lost the company it's two biggest clients (60% of turnover) in the space of six weeks because of his personal behaviour. That was horrific because they had done nothing wrong and had performed exceptionally. I gave them all exceptional references, made sure they all got what they were due and quit the day the payments to them were made.

I have no problem doing the former again, the latter is one of the (many) reasons I now run my own company.

renegadefm

Sorry to be blunt, but he sounds a cheeky git, who is using the coronavirus thing to a T,  and expects to sit at home and get furlough money. 
I personally wouldn't have someone working for me with that attitude anyway. 
He needs to go! Pronto! 

calcotti

MadMattUK said:

Jeremy535897 said:

calcotti said:

unholyangel said:

kingfisherblue said:

Why are people suggesting unpaid leave? The employer has already stated that they need the employee to work, so if the employee refuses, unpaid leave does not have to be offered as an alternative. Instead, the disciplinary procedure should be started. The OP does not want an employee on unpaid leave - he/she wants her employee to work. It has been stated that business is picking up, hence the need for the employee to attend work. Unpaid leave is not necessarily an option, and should not be offered in my opinion.

Because all he has to do is claim he was refusing to attend for health & safety reasons and the OP is potentially looking at a tribunal. 

Safer option is unpaid leave. 

But then OP needs to employ somebody else and when first employee decides they feel like coming back to work OP has too many staff and has the stress of having to make somebody redundant. Making people redundant is one of the most upsetting things I have ever done.

100% agree with that sentiment. It's a horrible thing to have to do.

I agree it is not pleasant, I had to do it when I was previously employed by someone else. However if someone was refusing to work and demanding that they be allowed to sit on their !!!!!! at home being paid then I would have little issue with firing them, their misfortune would be entirely self inflicted.

That was rather the point. I was originally responding to someone suggesting that OP leave the unwilling employee on unpaid which would imply needing to get somebody else in to do the work. To me that was creating a new problem. Getting rid of someone who doesn’t work makes much more sense.

[Deleted User]

Grumpy_chap said:

I have noticed a very high number of "one post wonders" in the past week.  Not sure whether something is wrong with the forum and it is being spammed somehow?

Some just seem to ask a question which has been asked multiple times before, I guess that is the nature of people panicking.

There are others which are fairly obvious sock-puppets. Their comments were all on a common "cause", had all signed up over the course of a few hours, they followed the same pattern and style linguistically, quite a few of them even had the same spelling mistakes in them. Nearly all of those ones have never signed in again (shows last active on their profile).