Forced holidays and furlough

Thrugelmir

[DELETED USER] said:

People missing the point here.

Holidays are needed to maintain good mental health. Under lockdown it can be difficult for many people to relax and recuperate. Not everyone has a garden or things to amuse themselves at home. Lockdown for many has been hard.

Not everyone can afford to take a holiday in the context you are suggesting.  Lockdown has been difficult for many people in many ways. Being paid to do nothing productive is a bonus. 

SunnyUpNorth

Where I work, about half the staff were furloughed for about 6 months last year, the rest worked full time on 20% pay cut (including me). The furloughed staff were not obligated to take holidays and weren't even told they should still be taking them (albeit that they would still have been stuck at home with nowhere to go). In hindsight this was an error as consequently they all came back to work with weeks and weeks of holiday leaving those who had worked throughout holding the fort (again). Also, as holiday pay was paid at 100% it would have meant a bit of extra money during the furloughed period. Work had picked up significantly by the time they came back, so having had six months of working without team members (ok when it was a bit quieter I suppose), we were then left doing their work again in busy times whilst the furloughed staff then took their holiday. It was a complete mess and I personally think it should have been made clear during the furlough period that staff should still be taking holidays - it created considerable resentment which could have been avoided if it had been addressed sooner.  

Tokmon

SunnyUpNorth said:

Where I work, about half the staff were furloughed for about 6 months last year, the rest worked full time on 20% pay cut (including me). The furloughed staff were not obligated to take holidays and weren't even told they should still be taking them (albeit that they would still have been stuck at home with nowhere to go). In hindsight this was an error as consequently they all came back to work with weeks and weeks of holiday leaving those who had worked throughout holding the fort (again). Also, as holiday pay was paid at 100% it would have meant a bit of extra money during the furloughed period. Work had picked up significantly by the time they came back, so having had six months of working without team members (ok when it was a bit quieter I suppose), we were then left doing their work again in busy times whilst the furloughed staff then took their holiday. It was a complete mess and I personally think it should have been made clear during the furlough period that staff should still be taking holidays - it created considerable resentment which could have been avoided if it had been addressed sooner.  

Sounds like they managed that terribly and the very least they should have done want swapped people around who were on furlough so that everyone had the same amount. 

SomeMadeUpName

Tokmon said:

SunnyUpNorth said:

Where I work, about half the staff were furloughed for about 6 months last year, the rest worked full time on 20% pay cut (including me). The furloughed staff were not obligated to take holidays and weren't even told they should still be taking them (albeit that they would still have been stuck at home with nowhere to go). In hindsight this was an error as consequently they all came back to work with weeks and weeks of holiday leaving those who had worked throughout holding the fort (again). Also, as holiday pay was paid at 100% it would have meant a bit of extra money during the furloughed period. Work had picked up significantly by the time they came back, so having had six months of working without team members (ok when it was a bit quieter I suppose), we were then left doing their work again in busy times whilst the furloughed staff then took their holiday. It was a complete mess and I personally think it should have been made clear during the furlough period that staff should still be taking holidays - it created considerable resentment which could have been avoided if it had been addressed sooner.  

Sounds like they managed that terribly and the very least they should have done want swapped people around who were on furlough so that everyone had the same amount. 

Clearly 'they' did manage that badly, 'they' should have obliged those on furlough to take any leave they accrued whilst on furlough during the period of furlough itself (ie exactly what the OP is complaining about). 'They' made a mistake. Try to remember though that those managing the HR are humans (whose only job may not be HR dependant on the size of the firm) dealing with a fast evolving situation and rafts of brand new legislation, and be a little less judgemental, please.

Tokmon

SomeMadeUpName said:

Tokmon said:

SunnyUpNorth said:

Where I work, about half the staff were furloughed for about 6 months last year, the rest worked full time on 20% pay cut (including me). The furloughed staff were not obligated to take holidays and weren't even told they should still be taking them (albeit that they would still have been stuck at home with nowhere to go). In hindsight this was an error as consequently they all came back to work with weeks and weeks of holiday leaving those who had worked throughout holding the fort (again). Also, as holiday pay was paid at 100% it would have meant a bit of extra money during the furloughed period. Work had picked up significantly by the time they came back, so having had six months of working without team members (ok when it was a bit quieter I suppose), we were then left doing their work again in busy times whilst the furloughed staff then took their holiday. It was a complete mess and I personally think it should have been made clear during the furlough period that staff should still be taking holidays - it created considerable resentment which could have been avoided if it had been addressed sooner.  

Sounds like they managed that terribly and the very least they should have done want swapped people around who were on furlough so that everyone had the same amount. 

Clearly 'they' did manage that badly, 'they' should have obliged those on furlough to take any leave they accrued whilst on furlough during the period of furlough itself (ie exactly what the OP is complaining about). 'They' made a mistake. Try to remember though that those managing the HR are humans (whose only job may not be HR dependant on the size of the firm) dealing with a fast evolving situation and rafts of brand new legislation, and be a little less judgemental, please.

I don't think my comment was too judgmental at all. They put the staff on 80% pay who remained at work so they didn't even get any more than the people who were off on furlough for 6 months so a very unfair situation. The least they should have done was swapped people around on a monthly basis so that it didn't end up with some people having 6 months off and others having to work the entire time. 

SomeMadeUpName

Tokmon said:

SomeMadeUpName said:

Tokmon said:

SunnyUpNorth said:

Where I work, about half the staff were furloughed for about 6 months last year, the rest worked full time on 20% pay cut (including me). The furloughed staff were not obligated to take holidays and weren't even told they should still be taking them (albeit that they would still have been stuck at home with nowhere to go). In hindsight this was an error as consequently they all came back to work with weeks and weeks of holiday leaving those who had worked throughout holding the fort (again). Also, as holiday pay was paid at 100% it would have meant a bit of extra money during the furloughed period. Work had picked up significantly by the time they came back, so having had six months of working without team members (ok when it was a bit quieter I suppose), we were then left doing their work again in busy times whilst the furloughed staff then took their holiday. It was a complete mess and I personally think it should have been made clear during the furlough period that staff should still be taking holidays - it created considerable resentment which could have been avoided if it had been addressed sooner.  

Sounds like they managed that terribly and the very least they should have done want swapped people around who were on furlough so that everyone had the same amount. 

Clearly 'they' did manage that badly, 'they' should have obliged those on furlough to take any leave they accrued whilst on furlough during the period of furlough itself (ie exactly what the OP is complaining about). 'They' made a mistake. Try to remember though that those managing the HR are humans (whose only job may not be HR dependant on the size of the firm) dealing with a fast evolving situation and rafts of brand new legislation, and be a little less judgemental, please.

I don't think my comment was too judgmental at all. They put the staff on 80% pay who remained at work so they didn't even get any more than the people who were off on furlough for 6 months so a very unfair situation. The least they should have done was swapped people around on a monthly basis so that it didn't end up with some people having 6 months off and others having to work the entire time. 

OK, apologies then, I thought your comment referred to the fact that furloughed staff came back 'to the office' with 6 months of accumulated holiday (as that was the central subject of the quoted post and indeed the thread). In regard to the who's furloughed who isn't situation: Then ideally yes 50/50 would be perfect, but that assumes all roles are the same. I've had 80% of my workers in, but some who have been on furlough for a year now. Those that are on furlough are those that can be off with the least disruption to workflow, so the business can mitigate outgoings without redundancy whilst keeping the firm in the best shape to pick up again as things improve (now hopefully). [lots of fingers crossed emojis]

adamp87

As an employer just my two cents, as we’ve had to do this, but we jumped the gun last year looking ahead and had this arranged across the year.

Yes, people haven’t been able to go on holiday properly, or do things they normally would but for all purposes it’s a one off year. Neither have most of the country. 

Logistically if we went back April/May and I had 20 odd staff all with even 4 weeks of holiday to use before the end of our holiday period or the year after on top of their yearly allowance it would be very difficult to roster and support the team.

There has to be some compromise due to furlough. I don’t stand with the people who think furlough is a huge holiday, it’s not. And it’s detrimental to many people’s mental health to begin with.

But there it does save your job, it does ensure you are paid, and it’s not much to ask that you unfortunately lose those holidays (but get paid for them 100%) as a result. 

SomeMadeUpName

It would just have been a lot easier (and probably less contentious) if the job retention scheme parameters had been that holiday was not accrued during furloughed periods.