Employed by Boots Pharmacy

EssJayD

No I get that, but thats a much deeper discussion than the one here which is just "can my employer furlough me for childcare" - the answer is a very clear yes, yes they can.

but how is it not levelling the paying field?  The scheme allows employers to furlough people who cannot work because they have caring responsibilities.  Don't have responsibility for another human beings complete and total well being?  That's great, you can carry on working earning 100%, maintaining skills, building them, remaining employable in the future.  That's a good thing.  Those who do have this now constant 24/7 responsibility with decent employers who recognise this and furlough them is a good thing.  It helps keep a roof over theirs and the person/people they are caring for heads, maintains some sort of income so they can still contribute taxes, means they dont have to choose between eating and paying bills............the  level playing field.  Or equity to be more precise. 

As a side what do you think would happen if someone did lose their home or who's income drops so much they have to go on benefits?  Who pays for those, or the temp accommodation or.....gasp........subsidise their housing costs in a council property?  Is that the tax payer I wonder? 

Affordability of the scheme which is a different (and yes, concerning) tangent altogether.  I do agree that its clearly not sustainable in the long term, but I don't have the answers, I don't think anyone not experienced in this area does.  A number of people on a random message board certainly don't but the answer isn't to deride people (or lets call a spade a spade, I'm talking about men and women, but we're really talking about pesky women who have had the audacity to breed here aren't we?) who have now had 24/7 caring responsibilities shoved on them and are worried about having no income.

gary83

You’re right the answer can be yes but the answer can also be no, It’s entirely at the company’s discretion. With companies starting to work again, struggling to get back & Furlough starting to cost progressively more for employers then it’s obviously not going to be the ideal solution for a lot of HR departments.

going back to this:

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.

i don’t think it’s a level playing field if people aren’t playing by the same rules. If all people aren’t treated equally - what you’re proposing is that those with kids are more equal than others & given preferential treatment. 

I assume a fairly decently sized proportion of the Workforce has kids and would like to get paid 80% of their usual salary to stay at home. To give another example a relatively small group of people received letters from the government, instructing them to shield as they’d been dealt a pretty crappy hand in life. They’re not entitled to furlough (“only“ SSP)  They’re the people “ who might be at a disadvantage due to circumstances beyond their control.” Speaking flippantly I’m pretty sure no young couples have ever sat down and had a discussion where they laid out their plans for the future & those plans included a very severe debilitating or life threatening condition, that’s not the same as deciding to have kids.

Yet those people are currently in the exact same financial situation as those with childcare issues. they could be getting furlough, but only if the company granted it. It’s not a great solution, I don’t think it is. CJRS was an unprecedented panic decision, it was rushed in with little thought to the loopholes that were left open & how many people would be left with nothing, purely on the whim of their employers HR policy. Companies were asked to administer a scheme that was originally intended to protect jobs.

As a result of this pandemic many people are clearly going to lose their jobs, there’s been further announcements from companies today. Unfortunately they’ll be many people who can’t find immediate re-employment they’re going to fall back on the states safety net in their time of need & get the benefits they’re entitled to. Unfortunately for those that find themselves in the situation in the months to come & those that have found themselves in that situation in the past unrelated to the Covid 19 pandemic previously the state safety net does not pay out 80% of your previous salary. We can’t expect everyone to continue receiving such generous state support, it was unthinkable 3 months ago at the start of March because it’s simply unsustainable the affordability of anything can’t be part of a separate conversation. At some point we have to reset our attitudes and expectations, we don’t usually live in the kind of socialist state that we’ve experienced these past few months. Being honest If someone had suggested last year that they stayed at home and looked after their kids and still get paid 80% of their usual salary I expect that back then you’d have laughed them straight out of the office? Moving on that simply isn’t going to become part of the long term near normal.

EssJayD

 I do understand that employers furlough at their discretion, hence my continued and accurate use of the word "can" rather than "must". And for what its worth I agree with this 100% as there are still associated ongoing employment costs as we know.

I think furloughing people solely due to caring responsibilities, and this being allowed under the scheme, is more about equity rather than equality, so yes potentially benefiting a little more than others if they are selected for that reason.  But I'd like to think that generally, people are decent and wouldn't begrudge a colleague being furloughed who has suddenly found themselves having to provide 24/7 care to another human being - this is a situation beyond someones control (unless theres a suggestion that people shouldn't have children in case in 10 years time there is a pandemic?).  

We can debate whether the scheme is right or wrong all day long, but it doesn't change the fact that its there and can be used for this situation.  Bit like child benefit I suppose.  Many people don't need it but still readily accept that direct debit from the tax payer every month.

gary83

I think what’s interesting is nobody has objected to your company using it, that’s entirely at your discretion and as well as accruing holiday pay it’s going to start costing the company more and more. 

What people do seem to have a problem with is more the sense of entitlement, the OP originally wanted to continue on furlough, was quite legally denied this & resorted to joining a random forum wanting to find another member of boot’s staff that had been granted furlough who would jeopardise that continuing by telling her. Then the OP could go back to HR and say, “it’s not fair I’m not turning up to work & am not getting paid however mrs xxxx that works in xxx store is, that’s not fair I’m being discriminated against” although following through with that logic she’s more than happy for every other boots employee in the country to be “discriminated against” as boots expect them to turn up to work In return for their pay packet.

if you want to get paid you’re expected to turn up to work. that’s generally been the way we’ve all thought for hundreds of years, except for the last few months. Some people, and I’m including myself in that group who have continued to work or haven’t benefited from the Covid schemes can’t help noticing that some (but not all) other people are far too comfortable getting paid to do nothing & think that should just continue as long as they want it to and display a sense of entitlement to a scheme that was pretty much unimaginable 4 months ago. paying people who are not working a salary (not the usual Benefits) is simply not sustainable or the right thing to do going forward.

Dr_Crypto

Maybe the OP would be better off asking on a Boots employee group if she wants a specific example from that firm.