Jump to content

When will this shit end?


Chrisp1986

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Toilet Duck said:

Basically it’s the amount of variation in R (kind of!)...diseases with a high K number have lots of people who contribute to its spread, diseases with a low one have super-spreaders...COVID has a low K number meaning that not everyone is driving the R number. Control super spreading events and you can control R!

Thank you - that was a lot easier to understand than the Guardian! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There’s one thing I’ve noticed since lockdown sex with strangers was made illegal, the amount of matches I’m getting on dating apps and old flames getting back in touch has flown right up. 
 

Just a shame I can’t do a thing about it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, blutarsky said:

This is the recurring theme for me.

There are lots of lovely examples of businesses/organisations looking after staff, but sadly far, far more examples of people being treated as numbers/drones who need to be put back to work to keep the economy going. The human cost isn't factored into business reopening plans, and the government, by changing the guidance on May 31st, has been complicit in this happening, if not the architects of it. 

I personally have been fighting a battle to avoid returning to work in order to limit the risk of my pregnant wife contracting Covid. This is despite the fact there is ample resource in my workplace for other staff to cover me and prevent me having to physically attend work and allow me to continue to work from home. Fortunately I have just won that battle, for the time being, but many others will not be so lucky. 

It shouldn't have had to come to me presenting research around the increased risk of premature labour and complications in labour among Covid infected mothers to win that battle. 

8 hours ago, EasyUserName said:

The whole issue of working / companies during this situation is very complex. 

I sit on the opposite side to you, to a degree - I am responsible for organising work, managing schedules and staff. 

I'm not commenting on your personal situation, but I thought it might be interesting to add my feedback into the mix.  We have mostly shut-down, with only a very limited amount of work being carried out.  This could comfortably be said to be "essential" work and cannot be done from home.  This has clearly reduced the turn-over to around 10% of "normal".  Much of the company is on furlough.  There are a few people who did not qualify unfortunately, and some who are "needed" due to their skills. 


The first thing to note is that most of the people at our company on furlough seem unaware that there is a cost attached to the company, and that it is not "free".  Aside from the holidays being accrued (an unrecoverable cost of around 13% of a salary) there is a company national insurance issue for us too.  Due to the size, this cannot be claimed (for reasons that I can go into if people want but it is very technically boring).  We also pay pensions in a way that is slightly higher than the minimum, meaning that for us there is an unrecoverable cost of about 25% of a salary.  This is running at around £3,000 per month in unrecoverable costs to have people on furlough.  This has to be paid for on the much reduced turn-over, meaning the company is making a loss each month currently (of course there are all the other fixed costs to add to the mix here). 

 

Some of the work that we do is restarting, and it is an essential part of the restarting process of these other business that it is carried out.  I am finding some resistance from people about coming off furlough.  I do understand about the risk of exposure, but it is a bit of an unsolvable problem here.  This work must be done.  There is no way to make it 100% exposure free as it involves leaving your house to do it.  I have no doubts that some of the people I manage feel that they are battling me.  I understand some people have specific issues, but I can say from personal experience that others in the company I work for are not so charitable about having to go to work whilst others are not.  We have a childcare issue with one person, and it is causing some resentment on a level I've not heard of before. 

 

I know this doesn't relate directly to your situation but I can see how someone would say that we're uncaring, and that they're fighting us.  I contrast this with the people who did not qualify for furlough, who due to their economic situation are unfortunately desperate to work  even at the risk of exposure, and I can't help but generalise that I find people's attitude depends a lot on if they are getting government support care of furlough, or not.

 

At the end of the day, the situation is rubbish for everyone, but as this business slowly goes under (some £10,000 in unrecoverable furlough costs soon + the other losses) it starts to drift into that morally difficult area of what value does risk to life have?  When does the human cost really run up against the economic costs?  (I mean really and not just cosmetically, as in economic costs mean no jobs and all that entails).

 

I didn't mean to hijack your comment, as your situation seems unfair, but who knows what is happening in the company unless you're on the other side of the desk. 

 

 

7 hours ago, Zoo Music Girl said:

The situation you describe is very different to what @blutarsky is saying though. You're talking about people who cannot work from home, not people who can but are being forced back. This despite the government advice that people who can work from home should do so.   ...

 

5 hours ago, blutarsky said:

That's exactly it. There are parts of my job I can't do from home, but there is a significant chunk of it which can, and which I have been doing from home since March. I still have to work from home, but was being forced into physically go in to do the other parts of the job on a rota, which could easily be covered by other staff. We're literally talking about 50 hours work over the next five weeks which was being covered by a team of six people. Of those six I am the only one with a legitimate healthcare concern meaning I was reticent about going back. My colleagues supported me, and they are now going to work 10 hours each, rather than eight, yet the employer was insisting I physically go in. That's not being a compassionate or flexible employer. 

I wasn't trying to make an argument about this specific situation, but I thought it might be interesting to hear an opinion from the other side.

 

Blutasrsky - If I have your position correctly, your role is broadly capable of working from home and the element that is not is capable of being covered by you is covered by your team?  If your team is happy, why would it be an issue for your employers?

 

7 hours ago, Zoo Music Girl said:

... Also what do you think people should do about the lack of childcare if told to go back to work? Bring the kid along? 

Now, this I have heard.

 

I would counter this by asking - is your childcare issue the company concern?

 

 

 

 

 

 

House

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, squirrelarmy said:

There’s one thing I’ve noticed since lockdown sex with strangers was made illegal, the amount of matches I’m getting on dating apps and old flames getting back in touch has flown right up. 
 

Just a shame I can’t do a thing about it. 

Must just be me missing out on missing out then :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, EasyUserName said:

 

 

 

I wasn't trying to make an argument about this specific situation, but I thought it might be interesting to hear an opinion from the other side.

 

Blutasrsky - If I have your position correctly, your role is broadly capable of working from home and the element that is not is capable of being covered by you is covered by your team?  If your team is happy, why would it be an issue for your employers?

 

Now, this I have heard.

 

I would counter this by asking - is your childcare issue the company concern?

 

 

 

 

 

 

House

Wow do you work in the 1950s? Schools are closed for most year groups or didn't you hear? Even Boris said the other day that not having childcare should preclude people from having to be forced back to work. Really hope the people bothering you with this trivial issue find another job at a more progressive company soon. Most people would put the welfare of their kids ahead of your company's profit margins I'm afraid and rightly so.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, EasyUserName said:

 

 

 

I wasn't trying to make an argument about this specific situation, but I thought it might be interesting to hear an opinion from the other side.

 

Blutasrsky - If I have your position correctly, your role is broadly capable of working from home and the element that is not is capable of being covered by you is covered by your team?  If your team is happy, why would it be an issue for your employers?

 

Now, this I have heard.

 

I would counter this by asking - is your childcare issue the company concern?

 

 

 

 

 

 

House

Wow. Whilst it might not directly be your companies issue you have a duty of care to your employees and also as a human a morale duty to date about them and their family. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Deaf Nobby Burton said:

Generally because the ‘caveat’ is normally a significant piece of information. From this article:

https://www.itv.com/news/2020-06-05/death-toll-coronavirus-uk-friday-5-june-covid-19/

NHS England announced 123 new deaths of people who tested positive for Covid-19, bringing the total number of confirmed reported deaths in hospitals in England to 27,282. Of the 123 new deaths announced on Friday 19 occurred on June 4, 50 on June 3, 23 June 2 while seven people who had tested positive for Covid-19 died on June 1.The figures also show 19 of the new deaths took place in May, four occurred in April, and the remaining one death took place on March 25.

 

the reason for the long delay for some of those is postmortems.

It's no surprise to me that some are taking a long time. Last September it was taking over a month for postmortems in some parts of the country, so is bound to be taking even longer now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, squirrelarmy said:

There’s one thing I’ve noticed since lockdown sex with strangers was made illegal, the amount of matches I’m getting on dating apps and old flames getting back in touch has flown right up. 
 

Just a shame I can’t do a thing about it. 

sex indoors with someone who is working for you is legal, so try offering a fiver. :P 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, crazyfool1 said:

Is that the going rate ?😛 does that meet minimum wage requirements? 

there's no NMW for the self-employed. :P 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/coronavirus-lockdown-government-death-toll-boris-johnson-a9551516.html
‘Britain is failing to cope with the Covid-19 epidemic as well as other countries in Europe and East Asia have. Out of 62,000 excess deaths in the UK, says former chief medical officer Sir David King, "40,000 excess deaths could have been avoided if government had acted responsibly".’

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Firstly, apologies for the long post!  I've put the relevant quotes in because otherwise it is hard to follow the flow.

 

Blutarsky posted this comment below initially.

 

22 hours ago, blutarsky said:

This is the recurring theme for me.

There are lots of lovely examples of businesses/organisations looking after staff, but sadly far, far more examples of people being treated as numbers/drones who need to be put back to work to keep the economy going. The human cost isn't factored into business reopening plans, and the government, by changing the guidance on May 31st, has been complicit in this happening, if not the architects of it. 

I personally have been fighting a battle to avoid returning to work in order to limit the risk of my pregnant wife contracting Covid. This is despite the fact there is ample resource in my workplace for other staff to cover me and prevent me having to physically attend work and allow me to continue to work from home. Fortunately I have just won that battle, for the time being, but many others will not be so lucky. 

It shouldn't have had to come to me presenting research around the increased risk of premature labour and complications in labour among Covid infected mothers to win that battle. 

And then followed up with this...

17 hours ago, blutarsky said:

That's exactly it. There are parts of my job I can't do from home, but there is a significant chunk of it which can, and which I have been doing from home since March. I still have to work from home, but was being forced into physically go in to do the other parts of the job on a rota, which could easily be covered by other staff. We're literally talking about 50 hours work over the next five weeks which was being covered by a team of six people. Of those six I am the only one with a legitimate healthcare concern meaning I was reticent about going back. My colleagues supported me, and they are now going to work 10 hours each, rather than eight, yet the employer was insisting I physically go in. That's not being a compassionate or flexible employer. 

I thought it might be of interest to hear of things from a different perspective. 

 

I'm not involved in Blutarsky's situation, and on the surface of it the employer does sound like they are being unreasonable, but the point of my posts was that there might be more behind the scenes that the company is letting on.  Someone made a passing comment about companies and communication, so I thought I'd take the time to post about my experiences, and what I am seeing out there in other companies and on employment law forums etc.

 

I think the technical way to handle this would be a request that the company outlines their reasoning for the non-home work, and the using the grievance process if they do not.  A problem that could arise is that the company might see the non-home work as reasonable, but an employee night not.  That's not a comment about this situation by the way, but a general comment.  The question of cost has to come into it as well, of course.  If the other people are working an extra two hours, they will be being paid for it.  Without wanting to be personal, if the company is still paying a full salary for the person at home then the companies costs have gone up.  This could be countered by increased sales though.  All of this is just me speculating as who knows what the company is doing behind the scenes. 

 

20 hours ago, Zoo Music Girl said:

The situation you describe is very different to what @blutarsky is saying though. You're talking about people who cannot work from home, not people who can but are being forced back. This despite the government advice that people who can work from home should do so. 

Also what do you think people should do about the lack of childcare if told to go back to work? Bring the kid along? 

 

I know the government is saying work from home if you can (guidance here:  https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-guidance-launched-to-help-get-brits-safely-back-to-work).

"All reasonable steps ..."  The problem is that we can't see behind the scenes in these situations.  It might be the case for someone that they can technically work from home, but the company is seeing a reduced efficiency over all of the teams that threatens the viability of the company.  Could be a number of things.  Good communication would avoid confusion on this though.  Usually.  My favorite so far personally?  Spending a couple of hours putting together something that outlined the costs of furlough and the financial situation of the company so that staff were kept informed, speaking to the accountants and company lawyers.  For no other reason other than to keep people "in the loop".  To be told by one person "no, you're wrong.  Martin Lewis says it is free so you must be doing something wrong".  Glad they listened, 

 

Anyway, I posted this, ZooMusicGirl:

 

I would counter this by asking - is your childcare issue the company concern?

 

As an equally sarky response to your comment (or at least, I took your comment to be sarky):

 

Also what do you think people should do about the lack of childcare if told to go back to work? Bring the kid along? 

 

Really, I should have asked you what you would expect to happen.  I've outlined the costs to a company.  I've given you a scenario where work has to happen or else it puts others at risk.  Childcare would normally be something that you would have had "in hand" when you started working, otherwise how would you do a job in simply a practical sense?   It is only the current situation that would have unbalanced that.  I get that it might not be possible to do a job because of childcare problems.   But, what are you suggesting as the alternative?

 

 

 

 10 hours ago, stuartbert two hats said:

If it was my company, then yes.

I see.  How would make that work, out of curiosity? 

 

10 hours ago, Zoo Music Girl said:

Wow do you work in the 1950s? Schools are closed for most year groups or didn't you hear? Even Boris said the other day that not having childcare should preclude people from having to be forced back to work. Really hope the people bothering you with this trivial issue find another job at a more progressive company soon. Most people would put the welfare of their kids ahead of your company's profit margins I'm afraid and rightly so.

No-one should be forced back to work, of course not.  But, is it a right to be paid, when you're not working?  You do realise that a company that loses money goes bust (well, unless you're a multinational with friends in high places).

A person could take unpaid parental leave of course.  That's the technical way to solve this.  Four weeks unless an employer agrees to more (which might happen).  In that case, you could have 18 weeks unpaid leave.  Link:  https://www.gov.uk/parental-leave 

You would still accrue annual leave during this time. 

 

2 hours ago, Ozanne said:

Wow. Whilst it might not directly be your companies issue you have a duty of care to your employees and also as a human a morale duty to date about them and their family. 

Of course.  They could take unpaid leave (as above).  Did you mean there is a moral duty to pay a person not working?   

 

 

Anyway, it was Blutarsky's comment below that caught my eye initially.  I thought it might be interesting to discuss the human cost vs the business cost.

 

The human cost isn't factored into business reopening plans, and the government, by changing the guidance on May 31st, has been complicit in this happening, if not the architects of it. 

 

We're all going to be paying for this for a long time, one way or another (from a financial perspective).  I read the technical posts on here about the virus itself with interest, but the economic and employment issues are less discussed. 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just really glad I don't work for your company! Find it baffling that you can't see what an exceptional situation we are in regarding the childcare issue. Yes they would normally have it prearranged, but if the nursery or school closed or the previous carer is in an at-risk group it's amazing to me that your company expects employees to magic up a solution. Essentially the choice you are offering is quit your job or leave your child home alone.

Edited by Zoo Music Girl
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Zoo Music Girl said:

I'm just really glad I don't work for your company! Find it baffling that you can't see what an exceptional situation we are in regarding the childcare issue. Yes they would normally have it prearranged, but if the nursery or school closed or the previous carer is in an at-risk group it's amazing to me that your company expects employees to magic up a solution. Essentially the choice you are offering is quit your job or leave your child home alone.

In effect what will happen if the company goes under.

 

As it happens, the company is spending circa £3,000 a month on unrecoverable costs to have people on furlough, as I said in my earlier post.

 

I'm personally not offering anything as such, just interested in a discussion about employment and the virus.   The stark choices are realistically though - find a workaround to do a job (like different hours, working from home etc, reduced hours etc), take money out of the company to cover pay (& thus slowly go bust) or universal credit.  UC is considered "enough" for people (not that I'd agree but that's a different issue).

 

It's not something that will be unique - it will be happening to most companies right now.  

 

I find it baffling that you are saying that it is down to the company to magic up a solution. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...