Jump to content

When will this shit end?


Chrisp1986

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

It's not quite the govt who's doing it, it's the economics - whether a business can get by with Sunak's offering.

Whatever Sunak offered there'd still be an economic crunch point for some (the worst-off) businesses.

I think Sunak's thinking is this...

1. if you can't work there's no viable job there.
2. you can get another job in the meantime (subject to availability, of course)
3. if the old job comes back in the future, you can return to that job if you want to.

Rishi has no sense of reality here.
1. So many viable jobs, that have just been affected by the pandemic alone, that will probably be viable when we return to normality. 
2. Subject to availability, hahahahahahahahahaah
3. So many businesses will perish without support, freelancers, self employed, industries that can't opne on GOVERNMENTS orders are all now being fucked by the gov. 

I'm sorry imo this is catastrophic, not as catastrophic as just leaving people with nothing. 
But hate how so many people will defend and like this announcement, by saying "well at least its not nothing" - I'm sick of the attitude of the chancellor thinking h is doing the public a favor, when he is simply doing his job. 

If this is the most generous scheme any government has put in the world, people must be suffering abroad haha. 


 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

I really get how tough it is to find the right option and no way is perfect; I’m just worried this might not be the best way. 

if it's as that graphic is, it's a long way from perfect. Employers will be keeping employees on at a bigger cost than the employee will be earning for that employer. It's an incentive for employers to lay people off, not to keep them on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, ace56blaa said:

I'm sorry imo this is catastrophic, not as catastrophic as just leaving people with nothing. 

People are not left with nothing though. Unemployment benefit remains available.

The problem is for most businesses, payroll is not the only cost. It's actually not feasible to expect businesses that can't open, so have zero income, to somehow keep going for 12 months, even if the government were paying the entire payroll cost. They likely still pay rent on offices, and have other fixed costs.

We're really past the point where any company will be able to "well that was just a blip, back to normal now". It sucks, but there's not really many options at this point. 

Something else is definitely needed for those that work at places that can't open, but realistically that can't be the government paying them 80% of their wage to do nothing for a year. There's a point at which it starts to become hugely unfair - got made redundant in Feburary? Bad luck, you get unemployment benefit. Your work disappears in March because of COVID? Sure, have most of your wage for a year.

I don't disagree that more should be done to support the unemployed, especially those seeking work, but there's a point at which you have to step back and question why we differentiate so much between people who can't work because of COVID and everyone else.

The current scheme is designed to protect jobs in businesses that have seen a fall in demand but can still operate, it gets people back actually working, if only 12 hours a week, it gets them back in touch with their business and their colleagues, and it buys time for businesses to adapt around the new conditions with the play to bring people back full time as things pick up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

if it's as that graphic is, it's a long way from perfect. Employers will be keeping employees on at a bigger cost than the employee will be earning for that employer. It's an incentive for employers to lay people off, not to keep them on.

That's essentially been the case since August though (I think) when they had to start paying pension contributions again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Music venues desperately need some form of protection, otherwise by the time this is done most of them will be gone. Many will be converted to other uses and will never come back, and given council hostility to opening new venues it'll take at least a decade to get back to where we were.

The knock on effects are going to be utterly disastrous for UK music scene. With nowhere for small artists to earn a living many will be forced to give up or move abroad.

It really angers me that one of the most precious parts of our contemporary culture is being left to rot by the Tories. In a sense they've outlawed club music, and I can't help but feel like many of them will be quietly delighted about it.

I hope to see some big names including Glastonbury shine as much light on to this as they can, the danger is that it gets lost amongst the never ending cascade of terrible news.

ffs

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

if it's as that graphic is, it's a long way from perfect. Employers will be keeping employees on at a bigger cost than the employee will be earning for that employer. It's an incentive for employers to lay people off, not to keep them on.

Kind of like this? Employer retains staff on 33% hours, while paying them, out of their own pocket, 58% of their salary?

They could simply hire part-time staff, without the additional cost? This scheme is destined to fail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

People are not left with nothing though. Unemployment benefit remains available.

The problem is for most businesses, payroll is not the only cost. It's actually not feasible to expect businesses that can't open, so have zero income, to somehow keep going for 12 months, even if the government were paying the entire payroll cost. They likely still pay rent on offices, and have other fixed costs.

We're really past the point where any company will be able to "well that was just a blip, back to normal now". It sucks, but there's not really many options at this point. 

Something else is definitely needed for those that work at places that can't open, but realistically that can't be the government paying them 80% of their wage to do nothing for a year. There's a point at which it starts to become hugely unfair - got made redundant in Feburary? Bad luck, you get unemployment benefit. Your work disappears in March because of COVID? Sure, have most of your wage for a year.

I don't disagree that more should be done to support the unemployed, especially those seeking work, but there's a point at which you have to step back and question why we differentiate so much between people who can't work because of COVID and everyone else.

The current scheme is designed to protect jobs in businesses that have seen a fall in demand but can still operate, it gets people back actually working, if only 12 hours a week, it gets them back in touch with their business and their colleagues, and it buys time for businesses to adapt around the new conditions with the play to bring people back full time as things pick up.

This is the problem, it's hard to come up with a financial plan that will cover everyone. 

Unemployment benefits are a disgrace in this country, other european countries have increased that and sick pay because of covid, Unemployment wouldn't even cover my rent and bills. - I applied for UC while on low income due to furlough, make 700 from furlough a month and I couldn't get further support on UC, rent credit or a council tax reduction. 
You are living millions MILLIONS of people in poverty and not to mention people whose partner is still working, so can't get benefits and most then rely entirely on someone else to support them. 

Why can't the government keep extending furlough, they've pissed more money up the wall then they've given support, the failed contracts, etc. 

The reason you differentiate people losing their job in a pandemic, is because it is a wider scale problem where the restrictions are cause by the governments ineffective track and trace and poor handling of the virus. The government have made people redundant by forcing businesses to open for the summer, incure losses, spend hella money for covid measures and ppe and then put restrictions on those same businesses. 

And lastly, is it the best idea to get more and more people working. They are asking people to work from home, but then again singling out the poorest people who work in already shit jobs to continue risking their life and health just because the gov doesn't want to look weak u-turning on furlough, because THEY spent months marketing that furlough was for lazy people. 

But it's not it was flexible, it allowed businesses already to bring people back part time, or keep furloughing people who are higher risk. 

This plan is just shit. You can't give no support to million and millions of people and just say either get a new job (there aren't gonna be enough jobs) or be on the dole (then they'll probably call the people on the dole lazy too)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Mimo said:

Music venues desperately need some form of protection, otherwise by the time this is done most of them will be gone. Many will be converted to other uses and will never come back, and given council hostility to opening new venues it'll take at least a decade to get back to where we were.

Compulsory purchase by the Government then rent holidays for venues unable to open.

(That would probably be happening now under a Corbyn government)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, FestivalJamie said:

Just been out for lunch. Staff not wearing masks, customers not wearing masks when moving around. Really disappointed to be honest.

On a plus note iceland staff are wearing masks now.

Nothing wrong with being proactive and asking them why not ? Or the manager ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, FestivalJamie said:

Just been out for lunch. Staff not wearing masks, customers not wearing masks when moving around. Really disappointed to be honest.

On a plus note iceland staff are wearing masks now.

If places where you go for lunch aren’t following guidelines and you’re not comfortable with it then take your business elsewhere to somewhere that is following the rules. Businesses will follow the money. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

Kind of like this? Employer retains staff on 33% hours, while paying them, out of their own pocket, 58% of their salary?

They could simply hire part-time staff, without the additional cost? This scheme is destined to fail.

As of September they had to pay 10% of salary for 0 hours and in October it'll be 20% of salary for 0 hours (plus NICS and pension).

No-one seemed to think that scheme was destined to fail, and everyone seemed to agree it was good for companies to start to take some of the burden. This is continuing the "tapering" that no-one complained about, just instead of going "From November it'll be 30% of salary for 0 hours and in Feb it'll be 40%" they've moved to a model where the company is now getting 33% of the work for 58% of the salary. If they can effectively use the 33%, that's equivalent to paying 25% for 0 hours. So an increase, but not by much.

Also I'm fairly sure you can't make people redundant then hire back people to do the same job part time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

Kind of like this? Employer retains staff on 33% hours, while paying them, out of their own pocket, 58% of their salary?

They could simply hire part-time staff, without the additional cost? This scheme is destined to fail.

yep, just like that. :( 

It's down to employer loyalty now.

Luckily for me, I've got a very very loyal employer (me). :P 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DeanoL said:

As of September they had to pay 10% of salary for 0 hours and in October it'll be 20% of salary for 0 hours (plus NICS and pension).

No-one seemed to think that scheme was destined to fail, and everyone seemed to agree it was good for companies to start to take some of the burden. This is continuing the "tapering" that no-one complained about, just instead of going "From November it'll be 30% of salary for 0 hours and in Feb it'll be 40%" they've moved to a model where the company is now getting 33% of the work for 58% of the salary. If they can effectively use the 33%, that's equivalent to paying 25% for 0 hours. So an increase, but not by much.

Also I'm fairly sure you can't make people redundant then hire back people to do the same job part time. 

Sorry to ask but are you currently in a full time stable job that hasn't been affected as much by the pandemic?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

yep, tho this new scheme is about double the cost for the employer. 

In direct costs sure. But if you can utlize those 33% of hours productively it's only a small increase.

Which, I think regardless of if you like the approach or not, is the point.

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...