Refusal of furlough.

68ComebackSpecial

Jemima2204 said:

No. I received the letter from the government saying that I had to shield but unfortunately, those who were considered vulnerable didn't receive furlough they only got SSP.

If they only paid SSP for those shielding March to July, when furlough would have cost nothing, then they are highly unlikely to change their stance now when it comes with additional costs to the employer.

poppy12345

Jemima2204 said:

I am aware it is not a right and never implied that it was, what I asked was is it correct. If you cannot answer the question, I suggest you go and troll another thread.

I don't see anyone trolling your thread, all i can see is advice from other members, members who spend a lot of their time for free advising others.

Jemima2204

68ComebackSpecial said:

Jemima2204 said:

No. I received the letter from the government saying that I had to shield but unfortunately, those who were considered vulnerable didn't receive furlough they only got SSP.

If they only paid SSP for those shielding March to July, when furlough would have cost nothing, then they are highly unlikely to change their stance now when it comes with additional costs to the employer.

It was the government who wouldn't allow furlough to be paid during March to July to 2.2 million who were told (or advised) to shield. During that time, the employers had to pay 20% of the wages and the government paid the other 60%. This time around the employer only has to pay tax and NI as the government is paying the whole 80% so there is actually less cost to the employer.
This is one of the reasons that I asked the question as there is little cost involved.

Jemima2204

poppy12345 said:

Jemima2204 said:

I am aware it is not a right and never implied that it was, what I asked was is it correct. If you cannot answer the question, I suggest you go and troll another thread.

I don't see anyone trolling your thread, all i can see is advice from other members, members who spend a lot of their time for free advising others.

poppy12345 said:

Jemima2204 said:

I am aware it is not a right and never implied that it was, what I asked was is it correct. If you cannot answer the question, I suggest you go and troll another thread.

I don't see anyone trolling your thread, all i can see is advice from other members, members who spend a lot of their time for free advising others.

Apart from you.............

Jemima2204

bradders1983 said:

Jemima2204 said:

I am aware it is not a right and never implied that it was, what I asked was is it correct. If you cannot answer the question, I suggest you go and troll another thread.

Someone posting an answer you dont like is not "trolling". They can make anything up, the upshot is there isnt much you can do about it.

It wasn't the answer I disliked, it was the implication as I read it that I think it is a right. If this was not implied then I retract my reply.

[Deleted User]

Regardless if what there saying is right or wrong. It’s going to get you nowhere. There only reason to not furloughing you can simply be as blunt as they don’t want to and there’s nothing you can do. 

poppy12345

Jemima2204 said:

poppy12345 said:

Jemima2204 said:

I am aware it is not a right and never implied that it was, what I asked was is it correct. If you cannot answer the question, I suggest you go and troll another thread.

I don't see anyone trolling your thread, all i can see is advice from other members, members who spend a lot of their time for free advising others.

poppy12345 said:

Jemima2204 said:

I am aware it is not a right and never implied that it was, what I asked was is it correct. If you cannot answer the question, I suggest you go and troll another thread.

I don't see anyone trolling your thread, all i can see is advice from other members, members who spend a lot of their time for free advising others.

Apart from you.............

Oh dear, you really do have an attitude. I'm surprised you get any help here with that attitude...

Jemima2204

MarkN88 said:

Regardless if what there saying is right or wrong. It’s going to get you nowhere. There only reason to not furloughing you can simply be as blunt as they don’t want to and there’s nothing you can do. 

I had noticed that all information that I have found carries the same message "at the employers discretion" I just didn't know if there were or are any other legalities regarding my particular case.

Mrsn

Yahoo_Mail said:

unholyangel said:

Yahoo_Mail said:

Their reason doesn't make much sense. If they're receiving extra money to employ people to cover those who are shielding, then presumably you're being paid to shield?  In which case it wouldn't really matter if you're furlough or just paid to shield.

But it doesn't sound like that's the case or you wouldn't be here asking about furlough.

But despite you to not liking the answer, or the way it as phrased, bradders1983 is right.  Even if their excuse is a load of old codswallop they're not obliged to furlough you, regardless of your vulnerability so if they say no furlough, then it's no furlough.

I think what they're saying is they have been given emergency funding, from which to pay for any replacement staff, with shielding staff on contractual or statutory sick pay. 

At least, it's the way I've found reasonable to understand. 

Well if the shielding staff were on contractual pay I don't think the OP would be asking about furlough.  And SSP is paid by the Government is it not?  OK, it has to be reclaimed rather than a direct payment to the employee but they're not footing the bill for it.  Not sure why an employer who isn't paying their shielded staff can't use that money to pay for the people providing cover?

SSP has come out of the employers pocket for a while now. So will cost the employer either way.

gary83

Jemima2204 said:

MarkN88 said:

Regardless if what there saying is right or wrong. It’s going to get you nowhere. There only reason to not furloughing you can simply be as blunt as they don’t want to and there’s nothing you can do. 

I had noticed that all information that I have found carries the same message "at the employers discretion" I just didn't know if there were or are any other legalities regarding my particular case.

there are absolutely no legalities or loopholes to force an employer into paying someone furlough if they don’t want to do it. furlough was originally designed to stop mass redundancies but it has since morphed into being viewed as a quasi benefits scheme which is privately administered and part privately financed, however if anybody can’t or doesn’t want to attend work through vulnerabilities of themselves or others, childcare problems or just sheer laziness then unfortunately for them the employer holds all the cards.

your clutching at a furlough straw that doesn’t exist if your employer won’t change their mind & can’t be reasoned with then you’d be better off looking at SSP & universal credit