Vulnerable shielding/furlough question

Becles

Aranyani said:

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?  

It's usually just SSP. 

Last time then said shielding workers would not be entitled to SSP. Work put me on unpaid leave as I was "choosing not to work." They said the shielding letter was advisory not mandatory so they wanted me in work but I didn't feel safe as it's a public facing role. I claimed ESA which was £73 a week. Then about a month later the Government decided shielding workers could be paid SSP. I asked if work could pay me SSP now but was refused as I had an active ESA claim. It is a massive drop in household income and I've really struggled. 

I've worked since I was 16 and paid in all these years. I do think shielding workers should have been entitled to 80% of their wages either through furlough or some other method. It's harsh being made to suffer financially simply because I have a long term health condition.

Aranyani

JamoLew said:

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

Eat out to help out.  

The DC fiasco result wasn’t people saying ‘he’s been naughty so will I’ it was people saying ‘he did what was best for the people he loved, so will I’ as well as a genuine grievance that while so many were making major sacrifices including not being with dying relatives, a spad can break multiple rules and there be no consequences at all. 

elsien

Dr_Crypto said:

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%. 

This is a relevant factor. You only have to see the number of posts on here for people who didn’t want to go into work although they weren’t in the shielding/vulnerable category. Posts along the line of “dad is 65, no health conditions, but I don’t want to put him or me at risk.
I’m certainly not saying that is anything to do with the OP, but there were certainly a fair few trying to push the boundaries, 

strawb_shortcake

Aranyani said:

JamoLew said:

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

Eat out to help out.  

The DC fiasco result wasn’t people saying ‘he’s been naughty so will I’ it was people saying ‘he did what was best for the people he loved, so will I’ as well as a genuine grievance that while so many were making major sacrifices including not being with dying relatives, a spad can break multiple rules and there be no consequences at all. 

I never took part in the EOHO scheme, but the way I see it is that food establishments should have been operating under social distancing rules, at the time the infection rate was very low. 
It was a very small window of time to throw a life line to a crippled industry, in what should have been with safe and controlled measures in place. 
We did try to eat out one lunch time, a number of restaurants had 1 hour plus queues because their capacity was much reduced. One restaurant looked absolutely rammed and it would have been pure stupidity to have eaten there. 
People do need to take responsibility for their own actions, if they don't feel the government have gone far enough then they can live under tighter self imposed rules, but if there is a financial impact then the government can't be expected to pick up the tab. 

Kier Starmer can say whatever he likes, as he's never going to be tested on it. 

For the record I do agree that DC did much damage to the public's perception of the government's efforts against COVID-19, and as an example should have been reprimanded for it.

Loanranger21

Becles: To return to the OP and their problem, i would contact the local council today, Monday, and your local councillors both County and Borough depending on how your locality is organised. They have been given funds by the government to help vulnerable people and you need to approach them for that help. Don't delay.