Jump to content

When will this shit end?


Chrisp1986

Recommended Posts

I'm not saying you should magic up a solution. It was the callous attitude that the personal circumstances of your colleagues and the effects of these on their reasons for not wanting to return to work were none of your company's concern that riled me. You expressed surprise at "resentment" and I am trying to explain why people who are being told to either not be paid or quit their job might feel a bit resentful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Zoo Music Girl said:

Oh and sorry you asked me what the alternative is - to furlough those staff surely? The government is still paying 80% of salary until August. I know, I know, you still have some costs. But it's either that or tell them to starve.

Yes, and that's what has happened.  I've outlined the costs - it is a little more than "some", but yes they are currently being met.  eventually, there will be no money left though.  Certainly, the things that the money was going to be used for have gone.

It's not quite "furlough" or "starve", interestingly.  I did suggest some part-time working to bring in some money, but I was told a flat "no" by people. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Zoo Music Girl said:

I'm not saying you should magic up a solution. It was the callous attitude that the personal circumstances of your colleagues and the effects of these on their reasons for not wanting to return to work were none of your company's concern that riled me. You expressed surprise at "resentment" and I am trying to explain why people who are being told to either not be paid or quit their job might feel a bit resentful.

I expressed surprise at resentment from other people still working, who resent people on furlough in the company.  That was the surprise.  I would have thought a "live & let live" approach better, but I know some people are very bitter about it.

 

I made the comment about the return to work in a particular callous way, as you made what I took to be an inflexible comment about the childcare issue.  I was trying to copy the style, so to speak. 

 

The problem is there are no winners in all of this, and I thought my comments would be of interest as personally I only see the "well, it's the companies money, it can afford it" type comments on the internet.  It's not that simple though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the record I wasn't being sarky when I said do you expect them to bring the kid to work. It was a genuine question, to which your answer is take unpaid leave. 

I completely understand that companies are in dire straits. Most people will put the welfare of their families above their employer though and I believe that's the way it should be. Going to leave it there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

My kid is going to black lives matter march in town...wants me to go...I said no...now she's saying I'm racist!

Nah, you just have more sense. These kids are daft, they act like they are immune to the virus. Hang round in big big groups near us. I'm sure they'd love it if their parents or grandparents became ill as a result of their neglect of the advice..

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, EasyUserName said:

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. 

I think it's a very difficult situation and I fully appreciate the difficult balance that needs to be struck between human empathy and profit/loss/keeping the business running. My concern is that there appear to be all too many examples of profit/loss being weighed far more heavily in the mix than empathy.

I'm not in the business of making judgments on people because of their views, and I don't think you've been unreasonable in what you've said, although there is a significant amount I wouldn't fully agree with. 

To pick up on one point in your latest post, which is quoted above, and clarify my situation and why I perhaps feel as I do about it:
The organisation I work for is at zero risk of going out of business and all employees are on a flat salary based on a pay scale, with no overtime or additional pay. The colleagues who are covering for me not being physically on site are not being paid any more than them (this raises issues of whether that seems fair, but it is industry standard, and there has been a trade off where I am taking on additional work which can be done remotely).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, EasyUserName said:

Yes, and that's what has happened.  I've outlined the costs - it is a little more than "some", but yes they are currently being met.  eventually, there will be no money left though.  Certainly, the things that the money was going to be used for have gone.

It's not quite "furlough" or "starve", interestingly.  I did suggest some part-time working to bring in some money, but I was told a flat "no" by people. 

One way round this could be the way wealth is distributed through the business at this difficult time. I'm assuming the directors are on fairly decent money, could some of their money be distributed down through the business in a way that covers some of ors all of these costs? I would imagine that these workers are on much less than the owners of the business, and the higher salaries could be spread out to show camaraderie with the rest of the work force.

 

That obviously won't happen because capitalism. Susan with her 2 kids at home will be expected to make these sacrifices whereas owners of businesses simply won't even though they have more resources to aid their own personal situations.

Edited by Ozanne
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Zoo Music Girl said:

For the record I wasn't being sarky when I said do you expect them to bring the kid to work. It was a genuine question, to which your answer is take unpaid leave. 

I completely understand that companies are in dire straits. Most people will put the welfare of their families above their employer though and I believe that's the way it should be. Going to leave it there.

Hi Zoo, I appreciate you clarifying the post and I feel I should do the same.  I'm not saying it is an out and out choice of unpaid leave or nothing, as there is furlough currently.  I was only trying to comment that this comes with strings attached (the costs) & isn't free as many people seem to think. Ultimately though furlough isn't a right, so from a legal perspective harsh as it is, the choices really are unpaid leave or nothing.

 

It's not an issue for us as the person in question is on furlough but I can see how it is a difficult situation no matter what. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, blutarsky said:

I think it's a very difficult situation and I fully appreciate the difficult balance that needs to be struck between human empathy and profit/loss/keeping the business running. My concern is that there appear to be all too many examples of profit/loss being weighed far more heavily in the mix than empathy.

I'm not in the business of making judgments on people because of their views, and I don't think you've been unreasonable in what you've said, although there is a significant amount I wouldn't fully agree with. 

To pick up on one point in your latest post, which is quoted above, and clarify my situation and why I perhaps feel as I do about it:
The organisation I work for is at zero risk of going out of business and all employees are on a flat salary based on a pay scale, with no overtime or additional pay. The colleagues who are covering for me not being physically on site are not being paid any more than them (this raises issues of whether that seems fair, but it is industry standard, and there has been a trade off where I am taking on additional work which can be done remotely).

Hi Blutarsky, thanks for the information.  It really does sound as though your employer is being unreasonable.  I would have thought that they would be aware in this situation that they could be opening themselves up to an unfair dismissal claim if they insisted on you going in.  You have taken all reasonable steps to ensure the company is not out of pocket by you staying at home, so personally I'd think they were on shaky ground if they force the issue.  

 

Disappointing that they are not paying your colleagues for their time.  Obviously, the money pot is still the same size, but it might have been reasonable to suggest a % drop for the duration so that the people who are working get a "fair pay" for their time.  Appreciate that this would have put you in an awkward spot as you'd be earning less (as you'd not be working the "extra" hours) but this would have been a starting point for a discussion on fairness.  Maybe they are just difficult. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

One way round this could be the way wealth is distributed through the business at this difficult time. I'm assuming the directors are on fairly decent money, could some of their money be distributed down through the business in a way that covers some of ors all of these costs? I would imagine that these workers are on much less than the owners of the business, and the higher salaries could be spread out to show camaraderie with the rest of the work force.

 

That obviously won't happen because capitalism. Susan with her 2 kids at home will be expected to make these sacrifices whereas owners of businesses simply won't even though they have more resources to aid their own personal situations.

Actually there have been a few examples of directors of companies doing this. Would be nice to see more though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

One way round this could be the way wealth is distributed through the business at this difficult time. I'm assuming the directors are on fairly decent money, could some of their money be distributed down through the business in a way that covers some of ors all of these costs? I would imagine that these workers are on much less than the owners of the business, and the higher salaries could be spread out to show camaraderie with the rest of the work force.

 

That obviously won't happen because capitalism.

For us the directors have taken a cut (including one month with nothing as the company was as good as shut down so no income), but I get your point generally.  Regarding the higher salaried employees, I can't see that happening.  Capitalism doesn't work if you want people looked after unfortunately, and I think here the government should have looked at some form of universal income like other countries, rather than making companies into a de-facto branch of social services (by making them the gatekeepers of the furlough scheme).

 

I know one direct competitor of ours who fired the whole company in March before the furlough scheme was announced.  The company already had a reputation - zero hour contracts when you don't need them in the industry we're in, aggressive management tactics, that sort of thing.  I was really surprised at the time, as it seemed a nasty thing to do, but removing the humanity from it and looking at it from an economical point of view, when he reopens he's going to be tens of thousands of pounds better off than us, making him able (if he wanted) to undercut our rates.  I'd like to think that buyers will consider the human element after all this, but society is complex and unfortunately price-driven.  I'm reasonably sure I will see work go his way from us at some point because of it. 

 

Salaries are through the floor at the moment too.  Recruitment agencies pushing people who are out of work at the moment are quoting people 20 - 30% down on their salary expectations.  It's going to be a brutal next six months, especially after August (when the furlough scheme requires companies to pay a % of the wage). 

Edited by EasyUserName
Added one word for clarity
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Zoo Music Girl said:

Actually there have been a few examples of directors of companies doing this. Would be nice to see more though.

I think it's important to acknowledge when this has happened. My original comment wasn't to ignore the fact some business owners / directors have behaved really honourably, but to say I felt they have been in a minority. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, blutarsky said:

I think it's important to acknowledge when this has happened. My original comment wasn't to ignore the fact some business owners / directors have behaved really honourably, but to say I felt they have been in a minority. 

Yeah totally fair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, EasyUserName said:

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

Yes. Because loads of your employees will have kids and they're not going to just go "I'll leave the kid unattended at home and come into work then". So you make them redundant (which takes time and money) and then you're faced with recruiting and training replacements for around half of your workforce. This would also be a disaster. So yeah, if it were my company I'd be very concerned.

1 hour ago, EasyUserName said:

"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".  

To be fair, many companies are managing just fine with very low costs for furloughed workers. That your company has cocked up the NI arrangements (I know, transitions in size,  and it was going to get sorted out sooner or later, we just never did...) and pension contributions. You can also be forcing employees to take annual leave while on furlough so you shouldn't accrue it (though you would have to top up the 20%) - wouldn't be popular but again... there are steps your company could take to reduce their furlough costs and they're clearly not taking them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, EasyUserName said:

Sorry to sound dense but what is the "want to conga out of respect for the war dead" reference to? 

I think it's a reference to the people who conga'd down the street during the VE Day celebrations on 8th May. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

Yes. Because loads of your employees will have kids and they're not going to just go "I'll leave the kid unattended at home and come into work then". So you make them redundant (which takes time and money) and then you're faced with recruiting and training replacements for around half of your workforce. This would also be a disaster. So yeah, if it were my company I'd be very concerned.

To be fair, many companies are managing just fine with very low costs for furloughed workers. That your company has cocked up the NI arrangements (I know, transitions in size,  and it was going to get sorted out sooner or later, we just never did...) and pension contributions. You can also be forcing employees to take annual leave while on furlough so you shouldn't accrue it (though you would have to top up the 20%) - wouldn't be popular but again... there are steps your company could take to reduce their furlough costs and they're clearly not taking them.

It's not a cock-up for the NI as I understand it, but an allowance / relief.  I am pretty sure it's this:  https://www.gov.uk/claim-employment-allowance

Furlough covers the company NI, but not with the allowance.  The end effect is that the NI cannot be reclaimed so there is an additional cost.

The lowest you'll get on costs is still circa 11% (for the accrued holidays).  That could still be significant, especially if there are a lot of people on the scheme and no or limited income. 

 

I made the child-care comment in reference to some other posts, but it doesn't change the basic dynamics.  The person could be made redundant, yes.  It could also be a disaster, but not always.  It will depend on the job and the company (& how long the person has been there). 

 

The point remains though that even with just the holiday costs (excluding the NI issue) in a company of 10 people on furlough, the salary of one person cannot be reclaimed.  7 and a bit months of that could send some companies under. 

 

The annual leave one is another thorny one.  You're correct that people won't like it, based on what I've seen on other forums.  It's a way of reducing the costs, yes, but it's another moral question.  Not as severe as "come to work or no job" but still getting people to understand that it is a way of reducing costs when they generally think furlough is free will mean that there will be people out there right now who feel hard-done to by their employer.  We will likely end up doing it mind, for the reasons you've outlined. 

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...