Vulnerable shielding/furlough question

Yahoo_Mail

Becles said:

MarkN88 said:

Guidance doesn’t even specifically say your entitled to Furlough, it mentions SSP & ESA:
 

“There is a further group of people who are defined, also on medical grounds, as clinically extremely vulnerableto coronavirus – that is, people with specific serious health conditions. Over this period, we are advising the CEV to work from home. If you cannot work from home, you are advised not to go to work and may be eligible for Statutory Sick Pay (SSP) or Employment Support Allowance (ESA).”

It was on the furlough guidance last time:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/check-which-employees-you-can-put-on-furlough-to-use-the-coronavirus-job-retention-scheme

If your employee’s health has been affected by coronavirus (COVID-19) or any other conditions

If your employee is:

• unable to work because they are shielding in line with public health guidance (or need to stay at home with someone who is shielding)
• unable to work because they have caring responsibilities resulting from coronavirus (COVID-19), including employees that need to look after children

They can be furloughed as long as you previously placed the employee on furlough before 30 June and submitted a claim for them by 31 July.

Employers can furlough employees who are shielding or off on long-term sick leave. It is up to employers to decide whether to furlough these employees.

It's written so shielding people are entitled to 80% of their salary so they can follow the shielding advice, but then gives employers the option to opt out. My employer chose to opt out last time so I ended up losing 65% of my household income.

This time they're saying stop off work but you're only entitled to SSP/ESA if you do.

There was no entitlement to be furloughed if you were shielding last time and there isn't if you're extremely vulnerable now,  nothing has changed in that regard.  What you're quoting is not an entitlement at all, but an exception to the normal rules of furlough for people who are clinically vulnerable or have childcaring responsibilities.  Furlough was intended to cover the wages of people who didn't have any work to do because of COVID.  Obviously, under those rules people who were vulnerable or had kids to look after couldn't (legally) be furloughed if there was still work for them to do, these exceptions allowed for them to be furloughed anyway

But it's not saying those people should be furloughed, and certainly not must. The employer still had a choice over whether to furlough them or not and it's the same this time around, clinically vulnerable people and those with childcaring responsibilities can be furloughed if the employer chooses to do so.

Becles

Yahoo_Mail said:

Becles said:

MarkN88 said:

Guidance doesn’t even specifically say your entitled to Furlough, it mentions SSP & ESA:
 

“There is a further group of people who are defined, also on medical grounds, as clinically extremely vulnerableto coronavirus – that is, people with specific serious health conditions. Over this period, we are advising the CEV to work from home. If you cannot work from home, you are advised not to go to work and may be eligible for Statutory Sick Pay (SSP) or Employment Support Allowance (ESA).”

It was on the furlough guidance last time:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/check-which-employees-you-can-put-on-furlough-to-use-the-coronavirus-job-retention-scheme

If your employee’s health has been affected by coronavirus (COVID-19) or any other conditions

If your employee is:

• unable to work because they are shielding in line with public health guidance (or need to stay at home with someone who is shielding)
• unable to work because they have caring responsibilities resulting from coronavirus (COVID-19), including employees that need to look after children

They can be furloughed as long as you previously placed the employee on furlough before 30 June and submitted a claim for them by 31 July.

Employers can furlough employees who are shielding or off on long-term sick leave. It is up to employers to decide whether to furlough these employees.

It's written so shielding people are entitled to 80% of their salary so they can follow the shielding advice, but then gives employers the option to opt out. My employer chose to opt out last time so I ended up losing 65% of my household income.

This time they're saying stop off work but you're only entitled to SSP/ESA if you do.

There was no entitlement to be furloughed if you were shielding last time and there isn't if you're extremely vulnerable now,  nothing has changed in that regard.  What you're quoting is not an entitlement at all, but an exception to the normal rules of furlough for people who are clinically vulnerable or have childcaring responsibilities.  Furlough was intended to cover the wages of people who didn't have any work to do because of COVID.  Obviously, under those rules people who were vulnerable or had kids to look after couldn't (legally) be furloughed if there was still work for them to do, these exceptions allowed for them to be furloughed anyway

But it's not saying those people should be furloughed, and certainly not must. The employer still had a choice over whether to furlough them or not and it's the same this time around, clinically vulnerable people and those with childcaring responsibilities can be furloughed if the employer chooses to do so.

I just don't understand why they can't either make furlough mandatory for extremely clinically vulnerable people who cannot work from home, or introduce some other payment that gives them 80% of their wages. It's very harsh to be forced into financial difficulty through loss of wages for following public health advice to keep safe. ESA/SSP is a lot less than a full time wage.

Aranyani

Becles said:

Yahoo_Mail said:

Becles said:

MarkN88 said:

Guidance doesn’t even specifically say your entitled to Furlough, it mentions SSP & ESA:
 

“There is a further group of people who are defined, also on medical grounds, as clinically extremely vulnerableto coronavirus – that is, people with specific serious health conditions. Over this period, we are advising the CEV to work from home. If you cannot work from home, you are advised not to go to work and may be eligible for Statutory Sick Pay (SSP) or Employment Support Allowance (ESA).”

It was on the furlough guidance last time:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/check-which-employees-you-can-put-on-furlough-to-use-the-coronavirus-job-retention-scheme

If your employee’s health has been affected by coronavirus (COVID-19) or any other conditions

If your employee is:

• unable to work because they are shielding in line with public health guidance (or need to stay at home with someone who is shielding)
• unable to work because they have caring responsibilities resulting from coronavirus (COVID-19), including employees that need to look after children

They can be furloughed as long as you previously placed the employee on furlough before 30 June and submitted a claim for them by 31 July.

Employers can furlough employees who are shielding or off on long-term sick leave. It is up to employers to decide whether to furlough these employees.

It's written so shielding people are entitled to 80% of their salary so they can follow the shielding advice, but then gives employers the option to opt out. My employer chose to opt out last time so I ended up losing 65% of my household income.

This time they're saying stop off work but you're only entitled to SSP/ESA if you do.

There was no entitlement to be furloughed if you were shielding last time and there isn't if you're extremely vulnerable now,  nothing has changed in that regard.  What you're quoting is not an entitlement at all, but an exception to the normal rules of furlough for people who are clinically vulnerable or have childcaring responsibilities.  Furlough was intended to cover the wages of people who didn't have any work to do because of COVID.  Obviously, under those rules people who were vulnerable or had kids to look after couldn't (legally) be furloughed if there was still work for them to do, these exceptions allowed for them to be furloughed anyway

But it's not saying those people should be furloughed, and certainly not must. The employer still had a choice over whether to furlough them or not and it's the same this time around, clinically vulnerable people and those with childcaring responsibilities can be furloughed if the employer chooses to do so.

I just don't understand why they can't either make furlough mandatory for extremely clinically vulnerable people who cannot work from home, or introduce some other payment that gives them 80% of their wages. It's very harsh to be forced into financial difficulty through loss of wages for following public health advice to keep safe. ESA/SSP is a lot less than a full time wage.

I really feel for you, I can't imagine how hard it must be to have to make the choice between paying my bills/mortgage/heating and protecting my health/life. 

Yahoo_Mail

Becles said:

Yahoo_Mail said:

Becles said:

MarkN88 said:

Guidance doesn’t even specifically say your entitled to Furlough, it mentions SSP & ESA:
 

“There is a further group of people who are defined, also on medical grounds, as clinically extremely vulnerableto coronavirus – that is, people with specific serious health conditions. Over this period, we are advising the CEV to work from home. If you cannot work from home, you are advised not to go to work and may be eligible for Statutory Sick Pay (SSP) or Employment Support Allowance (ESA).”

It was on the furlough guidance last time:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/check-which-employees-you-can-put-on-furlough-to-use-the-coronavirus-job-retention-scheme

If your employee’s health has been affected by coronavirus (COVID-19) or any other conditions

If your employee is:

• unable to work because they are shielding in line with public health guidance (or need to stay at home with someone who is shielding)
• unable to work because they have caring responsibilities resulting from coronavirus (COVID-19), including employees that need to look after children

They can be furloughed as long as you previously placed the employee on furlough before 30 June and submitted a claim for them by 31 July.

Employers can furlough employees who are shielding or off on long-term sick leave. It is up to employers to decide whether to furlough these employees.

It's written so shielding people are entitled to 80% of their salary so they can follow the shielding advice, but then gives employers the option to opt out. My employer chose to opt out last time so I ended up losing 65% of my household income.

This time they're saying stop off work but you're only entitled to SSP/ESA if you do.

There was no entitlement to be furloughed if you were shielding last time and there isn't if you're extremely vulnerable now,  nothing has changed in that regard.  What you're quoting is not an entitlement at all, but an exception to the normal rules of furlough for people who are clinically vulnerable or have childcaring responsibilities.  Furlough was intended to cover the wages of people who didn't have any work to do because of COVID.  Obviously, under those rules people who were vulnerable or had kids to look after couldn't (legally) be furloughed if there was still work for them to do, these exceptions allowed for them to be furloughed anyway

But it's not saying those people should be furloughed, and certainly not must. The employer still had a choice over whether to furlough them or not and it's the same this time around, clinically vulnerable people and those with childcaring responsibilities can be furloughed if the employer chooses to do so.

I just don't understand why they can't either make furlough mandatory for extremely clinically vulnerable people who cannot work from home, or introduce some other payment that gives them 80% of their wages. It's very harsh to be forced into financial difficulty through loss of wages for following public health advice to keep safe. ESA/SSP is a lot less than a full time wage.

I think the Government have meddled in businesses enough already.  It should be up to the employer who they need in the office or not.

Dr_Crypto

Becles said:

Yahoo_Mail said:

Becles said:

MarkN88 said:

Guidance doesn’t even specifically say your entitled to Furlough, it mentions SSP & ESA:
 

“There is a further group of people who are defined, also on medical grounds, as clinically extremely vulnerableto coronavirus – that is, people with specific serious health conditions. Over this period, we are advising the CEV to work from home. If you cannot work from home, you are advised not to go to work and may be eligible for Statutory Sick Pay (SSP) or Employment Support Allowance (ESA).”

It was on the furlough guidance last time:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/check-which-employees-you-can-put-on-furlough-to-use-the-coronavirus-job-retention-scheme

If your employee’s health has been affected by coronavirus (COVID-19) or any other conditions

If your employee is:

• unable to work because they are shielding in line with public health guidance (or need to stay at home with someone who is shielding)
• unable to work because they have caring responsibilities resulting from coronavirus (COVID-19), including employees that need to look after children

They can be furloughed as long as you previously placed the employee on furlough before 30 June and submitted a claim for them by 31 July.

Employers can furlough employees who are shielding or off on long-term sick leave. It is up to employers to decide whether to furlough these employees.

It's written so shielding people are entitled to 80% of their salary so they can follow the shielding advice, but then gives employers the option to opt out. My employer chose to opt out last time so I ended up losing 65% of my household income.

This time they're saying stop off work but you're only entitled to SSP/ESA if you do.

There was no entitlement to be furloughed if you were shielding last time and there isn't if you're extremely vulnerable now,  nothing has changed in that regard.  What you're quoting is not an entitlement at all, but an exception to the normal rules of furlough for people who are clinically vulnerable or have childcaring responsibilities.  Furlough was intended to cover the wages of people who didn't have any work to do because of COVID.  Obviously, under those rules people who were vulnerable or had kids to look after couldn't (legally) be furloughed if there was still work for them to do, these exceptions allowed for them to be furloughed anyway

But it's not saying those people should be furloughed, and certainly not must. The employer still had a choice over whether to furlough them or not and it's the same this time around, clinically vulnerable people and those with childcaring responsibilities can be furloughed if the employer chooses to do so.

I just don't understand why they can't either make furlough mandatory for extremely clinically vulnerable people who cannot work from home, or introduce some other payment that gives them 80% of their wages. It's very harsh to be forced into financial difficulty through loss of wages for following public health advice to keep safe. ESA/SSP is a lot less than a full time wage.

Because they government can’t dictate how individual businesses can run. Doing something like that may wipe out some businesses.
It would also, and I think this is probably the more pressing reason, result in a host of people harassing their doctors for various declarations that they are vulnerable and thus entitled to be sat at home on 80%. 

Becles

I'm not coping with this well at all. This is just another nail in my coffin.

ToxicWomble

Many of us are feeling the fatigue of all this.
Just think positively that there will be an end to it.
Direct your anger and negativity towards the socially irresponsible and rule flouters/breakers that have put us back in this mess again

Aranyani

Becles said:

I'm not coping with this well at all. This is just another nail in my coffin.

What is your company's sick pay policy?  Is it just SSP even for illness?  

Aranyani

ToxicWomble said:

Many of us are feeling the fatigue of all this.
Just think positively that there will be an end to it.
Direct your anger and negativity towards the socially irresponsible and rule flouters/breakers that have put us back in this mess again

Yep, Dominic Cummings, Rishi Sunak, Gavin Williamson etc etc...

JamoLew

Aranyani said:

ToxicWomble said:

Many of us are feeling the fatigue of all this.
Just think positively that there will be an end to it.
Direct your anger and negativity towards the socially irresponsible and rule flouters/breakers that have put us back in this mess again

Yep, Dominic Cummings, Rishi Sunak, Gavin Williamson etc etc...

I have no idea how the most generous chancellor in generations comes into your cross hairs - pleas enlighten
It's the millions or irresponsible people that need to take social responsibility for this mess - NOT just 2 or 3 selected "figureheads" -- what happened to taking the moral and social high ground rather than the lemming view of "well, if they've been naughty, so can we"
How about including the entire Labour party for there constant "we told you so" rhetoric, how about something constructive and helpful from them for a change.
Very few are blameless - but society as a whole shoulders the majority of it