Furloughed due to lack of work.

MattMattMattUK

ILikeJohnLewis said:

Then like any other part time worker he should be given his shifts in advance

He is not part time though.

Thrugelmir

ILikeJohnLewis said:

Then like any other part time worker he should be given his shifts in advance

Other not being part time. The work will no doubt be available at short notice. Hence the need to be flexible. 

Barny1979

As previously others have said, you can't be paid and moan you can't work a second job and the main job is getting in the way. Either accept the Furlough and make yourself available at reasonable notice, or build your second job up.

sheramber

Remember, your employer does not need to furlough you. It is solely his choice whether he does so or not.

You are getting paid but not  working and no doubt doing your own work in your employer's time.

Barny1979

Sounds right in some cases https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57531637

JamoLew

Barny1979 said:

Sounds right in some cases https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57531637

The system was always broken - who would want to go into work when they can sit around all day doing whatever they want and still get paid 80% of their wage.

Its a similar "paradox" to people on benefits  starting full time work - they only see a small % uplift in money received for having to work 35+ hours - hence the comments of "I'm only getting paid £x per hour - how can that be legal" when they only factor in the extra they are receiving.

The furlough system was far too generous, has gone on far too long and was easily susceptible to intentional financial abuse

Barny1979

I think there was also the mental worth too as an employee, not knowing if you had a job to come back to due to the industry you're in, realising your career is disposable etc.

Grumpy_chap

JamoLew said:

The system was always broken - who would want to go into work when they can sit around all day doing whatever they want and still get paid 80% of their wage.

Its a similar "paradox" to people on benefits  starting full time work - they only see a small % uplift in money received for having to work 35+ hours - hence the comments of "I'm only getting paid £x per hour - how can that be legal" when they only factor in the extra they are receiving.

The furlough system was far too generous, has gone on far too long and was easily susceptible to intentional financial abuse

Furlough and SEISS were fit-for-purpose as schemes introduced at zero planning or notice and with an intended life-span of 3 months.  As the schemes have been extended repeatedly, the knowledge and willingness to "game" the schemes has increased exponentially.

The current schemes run until the end of September.  If there is a need to extend beyond that, this needs to come with a wholesale overhaul of the rules and it may be that simply being eligible now is not a criteria for remaining eligibility, even if the individual had been in the system continuously since the first introduction way back in March 2020.  I fear that, as any scheme extension would be considered as only short-term for another few months, the Government will not do anything to make them fit-for-purpose again as the financial cost to do so and political fall-out won't be deemed worth the effort.

sheramber

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57531637

Dame Andrea said on Thursday it was "disappointing that some staff on furlough have taken on second jobs and then resigned when invited back to work".

She said she asked Steve Barclay, chief secretary to the Treasury, in the House of Commons what could be done to protect the taxpayer from "furlough gaming" and how businesses could be protected.

Replying, Mr Barclay said it was a "very important and legitimate point", saying: "In terms of the design of the furlough scheme it was designed to operate within the employment law framework, so an employee is able to have a second job whilst on the furlough, providing this is allowed within the terms of their existing employment contract.

"But I appreciate the spirit of the point she is raising."