Employed by Boots Pharmacy

poppy12345

Beth260805 said:

Mrsn said:

In any event I don’t think you’ll find any others from boots in your situation on here because let’s say have they have been left on furlough this will have been a discretionary decision which I’m sure if they went talking about to other colleagues which then results in them saying well so and so is still on furlough why aren’t I? Probably won’t be looked upon too kindly.

Thank you for your ‘personal opinion’
If I go on unpaid leave I will have no wages - the furlough scheme IS there for people to use who are losing out on wages and struggling due to the effects of Covid. That’s exactly what Rishi said. It’s put in place so the people won’t be left at a loss. 

Also as as per your comment about it being a discretionary decision - that’s where your wrong. Martin Lewis has been campaigning for equal rights for people in the same situation from the same company and that you cannot allow one person furlough and send the other one back and it just be down to one persons decision. Otherwise it goes down an discrimination. He has just been trying to fight for it to be discrimination and everyone be treated equally. Read about it on this very website. So yes that’s exactly what I would like. I repeat.. I would just like to hear anyone who works for Boots in the same situation (not pharmacy staff) 
I’m sure I’m looking for a needle in a haystack but I just thought I’d reach out for some facts from Boots colleagues. 

You most likely won't find anyone that posts on here that works for boots, that's like tryiong to find a needle in a hay stack.

Yes, you were furloughed but now your employer wants you to return to work.

Your thoughts on your rights to be furloughed are not correct. Yes an employer can furlolugh an employee because of childcare issues but they don't have to do this and your employer has decided they want you to return to work. You can't force them to continue to furlough you.

I'm sorry you've comne here and didn't get the answers you would have liked, you won't be the first new person to do this.

gary83

you’ve benefited from the furlough scheme allowing you to be paid to look after your kids, but that was a happy accident, not what the scheme was originally intended for ( it was called the coronavirus job retention scheme, not the coronavirus childcare scheme) the scheme was to ensure you had a job to go back to once the pandemic was over, you obviously do. If the company want you back your two options are take annual leave or unpaid leave - at the companies discretion. Nobody can force a company to put them on furlough, if they have work for you to do then it’s not a requirement.

the advanced notice of annual leave is irrelevant, that applies if the company mandates you to take leave when you don’t necessarily want it ie they made you take a week in June when you were already on furlough. If you were to take annual leave now that’s not been forced on you by boots, that’s at your request as you’re unable to work

Beth260805

LilElvis said:

Have you looked into summer playschemes? The one that operates out of my daughter's primary school has already started enrolling children for the summer holidays.

Yes I’ve checked but school have cancelled all summer clubs & after school clubs. 

LilElvis

Use one of the benefits calculators to see if you would be entitled to claim Universal Credit, though it will take into account your husband's earnings.

JamoLew

Beth260805 said:

Mrsn said:

In any event I don’t think you’ll find any others from boots in your situation on here because let’s say have they have been left on furlough this will have been a discretionary decision which I’m sure if they went talking about to other colleagues which then results in them saying well so and so is still on furlough why aren’t I? Probably won’t be looked upon too kindly.

Thank you for your ‘personal opinion’
If I go on unpaid leave I will have no wages - the furlough scheme IS there for people to use who are losing out on wages and struggling due to the effects of Covid. That’s exactly what Rishi said. It’s put in place so the people won’t be left at a loss. 

Also as as per your comment about it being a discretionary decision - that’s where your wrong. Martin Lewis has been campaigning for equal rights for people in the same situation from the same company and that you cannot allow one person furlough and send the other one back and it just be down to one persons decision. Otherwise it goes down an discrimination. He has just been trying to fight for it to be discrimination and everyone be treated equally. Read about it on this very website. So yes that’s exactly what I would like. I repeat.. I would just like to hear anyone who works for Boots in the same situation (not pharmacy staff) 
I’m sure I’m looking for a needle in a haystack but I just thought I’d reach out for some facts from Boots colleagues. 

Exactly this - everyone IS being treated equally, by being asked to return to work.
There is no discrimination here
People with no kids working a 40 hour week and getting paid 100% whilst "you" not working and getting 80% wage isn't very good for internal employee relationships.
Your options as already stated are - unpaid leave or annual leave

EssJayD

Its incorrect to say the CJRS scheme isn't there for this situation, it quite literally is:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/check-which-employees-you-can-put-on-furlough-to-use-the-coronavirus-job-retention-scheme
"

If your employee has caring responsibilities

Employees who are unable to work because they have caring responsibilities resulting from coronavirus (COVID-19) can be furloughed. For example, employees that need to look after children can be furloughed. Such an employee can continue to be furloughed from 1 July so long as you have previously submitted a claim for them in relation to a furlough period of at least 3 consecutive weeks taking place any time between 1 March 2020 and 30 June."

It is still up to the employer to furlough, if they decide not to they should offer unpaid leave.  If they started any sort of absence management proceedings based on your inability to obtain childcare during a global pandemic then they'd be rather foolish.

gary83

That says an employee can be furloughed, not should or must be furloughed because they have childcare issues. It’s down to the employer, in this case boots have said no more furlough as they have work for their staff to do so the OP can either take unpaid leave, use annual leave or keep asking boots to put them back on furlough knowing that they can keep saying no. 

Hoping to find someone else in a boots branch who’s remained on furlough for childcare reasons on a public forum might be seen by some as clutching at straws. So might arguing that discrimination is bad whilst simultaneously wanting positive discrimination allowing all employees with kids to remain at home on 80% wages at a cost to the taxpayer and an increasing cost to the company. Whilst those without kids go into work and do their work whilst presumably picking up the slack left by those sat at home with their kids on only 20% less pay, fairly obviously that idea would go down like a lead balloon with most workforce’s.

EssJayD

Yes, which is why I said "it is up to the employer"

Positive discrimination is illegal in the UK, I think you just mean levelling the playing field for people who might be at a disadvantage due to circumstances beyond their control, which is a good thing for everybody.  Keeps people earning so they keep spending and they can also effectively raise those who will one day be paying taxes towards our paltry pensions or social care.

The furlough scheme is inherently unfair to everyone  - those who lose 20% of their pay, those who have to pick up the slack only getting 20% more for it, those who want to work but are furloughed........there will always be someone whinging s'not fair.  Tough I'm afraid!  

We've furloughed a number of employees with caring responsibilities and I know for a fact that the rest of the workforce are fine with this (in fact it was suggested by a number of their colleagues when they could see how stressed they were getting trying to balance work/caring).  Mind you our culture is pretty great to be fair.

gary83

EssJayD said:Positive discrimination is illegal in the UK, I think you just mean levelling the playing field for people who might be at a disadvantage due to circumstances beyond their control.

No I didn’t mean that at all. A society where those without kids work and those with kids stay at home on 80% wages is simply unaffordable. It is also quite clearly not a level playing field. How long do you propose that status quo carries on for?

The government and taxpayers can’t afford to keep paying out at this rate & just as importantly companies need to get started again. If they’ve work to do they need their staff to do it. People with children would quite rightly be up in arms if that was a criteria used to select those who are let go or selected for redundancy if a firm needs to downsize however they’re more than happy for it to be used as the sole criteria for furloughing staff? They can’t have that cake and eat it.

unholyangel

EssJayD said:

Its incorrect to say the CJRS scheme isn't there for this situation, it quite literally is:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/check-which-employees-you-can-put-on-furlough-to-use-the-coronavirus-job-retention-scheme
"

If your employee has caring responsibilities

Employees who are unable to work because they have caring responsibilities resulting from coronavirus (COVID-19) can be furloughed. For example, employees that need to look after children can be furloughed. Such an employee can continue to be furloughed from 1 July so long as you have previously submitted a claim for them in relation to a furlough period of at least 3 consecutive weeks taking place any time between 1 March 2020 and 30 June."

It is still up to the employer to furlough, if they decide not to they should offer unpaid leave.  If they started any sort of absence management proceedings based on your inability to obtain childcare during a global pandemic then they'd be rather foolish.

What they mean by that is that if the employer is furloughing staff, caring responsibilities (or shielding) is not a barrier to them being furloughed. Because in normal circumstances, all they would be entitled to would be unpaid leave. 

Childcare issues has never been a qualifying criteria - the qualifyinng criteria is basically that they (employer) operate a paye payroll and that the business has been adversely affected due to covid. If they wanted to guarantee people's income, they would've allowed people to claim rather than the employer. They'd be in a perfect position to calculate how much they should be paid (as they did for SEISS) and they'd know if they were still working as employer would still be submitting RTI. They didn't - because the aim has never been to support people. Only business/the economy. 

The OP says they don't want people's personal opinions - yet she's said this to people who have simply told her what her position in law is. There is no right to be furloughed. There is however a right to either unpaid parental leave or unpaid time off for dependants. The former gives a parent up to 18 weeks they can take off for children under 18 (although its 1 week per year you gain & can take up to 4 weeks I think in a single year). The latter only gives you "emergency" time off - time to deal with the issue by arranging alternatives rather than deal with it yourself. 

It is up to the employee to make themselves available for work and up to the employer to have work available & pay them for that work. Either party needs to fulfil their end if they want to be entitled to the benefit from the other.