Not fairly furloughed

HollyTrees

I notice a few debates on this section about furlough which haven't got deleted so I thought I'd ask a question on my husbands behalf.
Basically the company he works for has furloughed some staff for 3 week terms on 100% pay.
80% from paid by the government and 20% from his employer.
I say some staff, because there was a cut off point, which meant that quite a few employees didn't get a chance to be furloughed on full pay, my husband included, and won't be furloughed at all now. So it wasen't done very fairly. 
To add salt to the wound he came home today saying he will be on enforced holidays in August which will consume his own holidays entitlement.
He asked his union where he stands, but they said the company can do this legitimately. 
Can they reallly do this? Basically some employees have had 3 weeks free holidays and some hasent. What if anything can he do? 

Grumpy_chap

What is actually unfair about any of that?  
Even the Union says it is fine.

poppy12345

It's a good thing he wasn't furloughed because it most likely means his job is secure. There's a lot of people who no longer have a job after being furloughed and he's moaning because he still has a job...really?

Yes providing his employer gives twice the amount of notice they can dictate when employees use their annual leave.

HollyTrees

Grumpy_chap said:

What is actually unfair about any of that?  
Even the Union says it is fine.

Well the fact other employees had basically 3 weeks to stay home on full pay. But my husband and others won't even get a slice of that cake now. 
But to make matters worse he now has been told in August he has to take 5 days enforced holidays. 
How is that fair? 

poppy12345

Oh come on, really? This must be some joke surely?

HollyTrees

poppy12345 said:

It's a good thing he wasn't furloughed because it most likely means his job is secure. There's a lot of people who no longer have a job after being furloughed and he's moaning because he still has a job...really?

Yes providing his employer gives twice the amount of notice they can dictate when employees use their annual leave.

No one has been made redundant, even the ones that were furloughed on full pay. 

Grumpy_chap

You entirely failed to explain how anything is unfair.

Surely the company keep the most important working, so better job security.

HollyTrees

Poppy do you mean the ones furloughed are at greater risk of being layed off?  If so that would have happened by now surely? The ones furloughed have been back to work now for weeks already. 

poppy12345

And? There's absolutely nothing wrong with any of this. All i can see is jealousy, sorry.

poppy12345

HollyTrees said:

Poppy do you mean the ones furloughed are at greater risk of being layed off?  If so that would have happened by now surely? The ones furloughed have been back to work now for weeks already. 

Does any of that really matter? The reason he probably wasn't furloughed was because there was work there for him to do. Furlough was never meant for employees to stay at home when there's work to do.

You can moan all you want but there's at all wrong with any of this.

HollyTrees

poppy12345 said:

And? There's absolutely nothing wrong with any of this. All i can see is jealousy, sorry.

Well I'm speechless,  its not jealousy to me, just an injustice type of thing going on.
Of course my husband feels left out, but not enviable of his furloughed colleagues. And hes grateful to still have his job. But how was this allowed to happen? Its like giving one worker a hand out but not others, that is an injustice to me.
Or are they more likely to be made redundant?