Not fairly furloughed

Jonesy1977

HollyTrees said:

sharpe106 said:

If they were just taking advantage of the scheme they would have done it for far more then 3 weeks. They would have been rotating staff in and out of it. Which quite a lot of companies probably have done. Just to save some money even if they had no intention of getting rid of the staff.  

No because we have hundreds of staff and started furloughing late anyway. It would have been impossible for everyone to have a turn. But that doesnt make it fair. 

Hollytrees, the reason why you have had so many incredulous responses is because you do not seem to be tethered in reality here.  You suggesting that your husband is annoyed that he has not had his “turn” at being laid off due to shortage of work (furlough doesn’t sound as good now) he is also annoyed that he has to use holiday to help a company which has employed him for many years in a global pandemic which has certainly effected them.  Livelihoods are being lost, people have died families have been separated, companies have had to take on incredible debts................and you are looking for support for your husband being annoyed that he wasn’t laid off to enjoy a 3 week holiday on full pay?  

JamoLew

I think there will be a lot of these "unfair" situations cropping up
I continued to work full time throughout - haven't taken a single day off and on the weeks where I have had to be onsite in the hospital, have had to wear a mask for the full 8 hour shift - not seen any "bonus" either (don't expect one either for doing the job I am paid to do)- life is like that, some win and some lose.

Biscuit49

I have worked fully while many of my colleagues have been, and remain on furlough. I also am working on a salary reduction too which matches those furloughed, in essence those on furlough are better off as any leave i have taken has been on reduced pay, yet their holidays are carried forward and they will be paid 100% pay for bank holidays which i was not.

Am I enraged by this as the OP seems to be ? No, I had a choice I guess, work as hard as I can and hope that the business can come out the other side, or option 2 to encourage all my colleagues to refuse the pay cut because others were having a jolly....I guess option 2 might have given some immediate satisfaction, however the thought that all of us could be earning exactly the same money and on one long holiday wasnt a great thought, 78 a week JSA wont cover my bills for long.

rosiesposies

You will never be able to fully appreciate the financial position the business is in unless you are a shareholder, CFO or the like. Just because it SEEMS BAU doenst mean it was/is. my company was impacted straight away, but no to the front line staff, it all appeared to be fine no changes.  But the books told a different story therefore a large portion of staff had to be furloughed. was 1 one of them? No - my pay was cut to 80% and i worked throughout. Do I begrudge my colleagues for having up to 16 weeks time off for the same pay? no - because i realize how valuable i am to the business and have absolutely NO anxieties about future cuts (of which there certainly will be and already has been) The bigger picture has been explained here - if the business can survive and still be successful while a large portion of the workforce was furloughed, you can 100% BET there will be changes in future. Count your husband lucky he was chosen to work throughout. 
This thread reeks of entitlement with little knowledge of fact. You are only hearing one side of the story (your husbands) and you have interpreted that in the way you like to feel like you or he has missed out. 
how you react to situations is totally and completely in your control, no matter how you got there. I have zero empathy for your reaction. 

Jonesy1977

"quite a few employees didn't get a chance to be furloughed on full pay, my husband included"  This comment is a joke surely?  I cant believe someone would really say this (in all seriousness).  If it is serious then I suggest you ask you husband to write a letter to his employer, demanding to know why he was treated so unfairly, perhaps copy in his union rep, maybe threaten a strike ballot?  or perhaps he should just resign, find a better employer who would give him the opportunities afforded to others?  of course he might have to wait a while getting another job................ we are in an unprecedented recession after all. 

HollyTrees

Jonesy1977 said:

HollyTrees said:

sharpe106 said:

If they were just taking advantage of the scheme they would have done it for far more then 3 weeks. They would have been rotating staff in and out of it. Which quite a lot of companies probably have done. Just to save some money even if they had no intention of getting rid of the staff.  

No because we have hundreds of staff and started furloughing late anyway. It would have been impossible for everyone to have a turn. But that doesnt make it fair. 

Hollytrees, the reason why you have had so many incredulous responses is because you do not seem to be tethered in reality here.  You suggesting that your husband is annoyed that he has not had his “turn” at being laid off due to shortage of work (furlough doesn’t sound as good now) he is also annoyed that he has to use holiday to help a company which has employed him for many years in a global pandemic which has certainly effected them.  Livelihoods are being lost, people have died families have been separated, companies have had to take on incredible debts................and you are looking for support for your husband being annoyed that he wasn’t laid off to enjoy a 3 week holiday on full pay?  

But my hubby isn't alone in feeling hard done by.  Even the ones furloughed have found it unfair and strange because on the shop floor its been very much business as usual. Like I explained the company are only doing this because they can take advantage of the government furlough scheme. The injustice is the government should work out which companies need it and those that don't first. 
By the time they started furloughing my hubby came home and said, hang on we worked all through lockdown, now they are furloughing, this doesn't make sense. So he rang his union, and they said its because they are being cheeky and taking advantage of the furlough scheme. 

LilElvis

HollyTrees said:

Jonesy1977 said:

HollyTrees said:

sharpe106 said:

If they were just taking advantage of the scheme they would have done it for far more then 3 weeks. They would have been rotating staff in and out of it. Which quite a lot of companies probably have done. Just to save some money even if they had no intention of getting rid of the staff.  

No because we have hundreds of staff and started furloughing late anyway. It would have been impossible for everyone to have a turn. But that doesnt make it fair. 

Hollytrees, the reason why you have had so many incredulous responses is because you do not seem to be tethered in reality here.  You suggesting that your husband is annoyed that he has not had his “turn” at being laid off due to shortage of work (furlough doesn’t sound as good now) he is also annoyed that he has to use holiday to help a company which has employed him for many years in a global pandemic which has certainly effected them.  Livelihoods are being lost, people have died families have been separated, companies have had to take on incredible debts................and you are looking for support for your husband being annoyed that he wasn’t laid off to enjoy a 3 week holiday on full pay?  

But my hubby isn't alone in feeling hard done by.  Even the ones furloughed have found it unfair and strange because on the shop floor its been very much business as usual. Like I explained the company are only doing this because they can take advantage of the government furlough scheme. The injustice is the government should work out which companies need it and those that don't first. 
By the time they started furloughing my hubby came home and said, hang on we worked all through lockdown, now they are furloughing, this doesn't make sense. So he rang his union, and they said its because they are being cheeky and taking advantage of the furlough scheme. 

Had the Government tried to implement a scheme whereby employers were required to prove a need to furlough staff before doing so then the unemployment figures would have been off the charts within a couple of weeks of lockdown. Over the coming years HMRC will be rigorously investigating claims under the scheme and clawing back money claimed fraudulently - that's a given.

I suspect that the union rep at the end of the phone knows about as much regarding the employer's financial situation as you and your "hubby" - i.e. nothing.

HollyTrees

LilElvis said:

HollyTrees said:

Jonesy1977 said:

HollyTrees said:

sharpe106 said:

If they were just taking advantage of the scheme they would have done it for far more then 3 weeks. They would have been rotating staff in and out of it. Which quite a lot of companies probably have done. Just to save some money even if they had no intention of getting rid of the staff.  

No because we have hundreds of staff and started furloughing late anyway. It would have been impossible for everyone to have a turn. But that doesnt make it fair. 

Hollytrees, the reason why you have had so many incredulous responses is because you do not seem to be tethered in reality here.  You suggesting that your husband is annoyed that he has not had his “turn” at being laid off due to shortage of work (furlough doesn’t sound as good now) he is also annoyed that he has to use holiday to help a company which has employed him for many years in a global pandemic which has certainly effected them.  Livelihoods are being lost, people have died families have been separated, companies have had to take on incredible debts................and you are looking for support for your husband being annoyed that he wasn’t laid off to enjoy a 3 week holiday on full pay?  

But my hubby isn't alone in feeling hard done by.  Even the ones furloughed have found it unfair and strange because on the shop floor its been very much business as usual. Like I explained the company are only doing this because they can take advantage of the government furlough scheme. The injustice is the government should work out which companies need it and those that don't first. 
By the time they started furloughing my hubby came home and said, hang on we worked all through lockdown, now they are furloughing, this doesn't make sense. So he rang his union, and they said its because they are being cheeky and taking advantage of the furlough scheme. 

Had the Government tried to implement a scheme whereby employers were required to prove a need to furlough staff before doing so then the unemployment figures would have been off the charts within a couple of weeks of lockdown. Over the coming years HMRC will be rigorously investigating claims under the scheme and clawing back money claimed fraudulently - that's a given.

I suspect that the union rep at the end of the phone knows about as much regarding the employer's financial situation as you and your "hubby" - i.e. nothing.

Well its a big French corporate company which has sites all over the world, where hubby works is a tiny fish in a giant pond. 

sharpe106

Lots of big companies have very little actual money sat around doing nothing. I don't think you will get the answer you want from here anyway. There is nothing you can do about it except leave in protest.

Barny1979

It is nice to know the OP is disappointed that they couldn't leech off//feed at the government trough.