People on Furlough....

[Zoo Music Girl]

5 hours ago, stuie said:

I hope you don’t think I’m being ignorant but how is it different to having a one to one or a team meeting?

I haven’t been furloughed but have been working from home since before lockdown... zooms with my colleagues have been how we’ve kept it all together really... and lately I’ve been doing catch ups with key accounts the same way. 
 

You don’t have to show off your house or let people in, just you in front of a plain background is sufficient! We don’t all have massive library’s of books and interesting wall art like the folks on the news talking from their homes! 

I've been forced to do them since the start but I think it's a very personal thing and to me video chats feel a lot different to real life meetings, either with friends or work. It's quite hard to explain really but there is a sort of forced artificial element to it that I didn't like and I hated seeing my face! Found it very distracting. As I say though I have kind of got used to it now, but I don't love it.

[Zoo Music Girl]

It's the making it compulsory bit that bothered me. I work with a bunch of extroverts who were actually excited about the video chat thing (it'll be like Eurovision!), but there was no recognition that it might not be the easiest for everyone.

[gooner1990]

8 hours ago, stuie said:

I hope you don’t think I’m being ignorant but how is it different to having a one to one or a team meeting?

I haven’t been furloughed but have been working from home since before lockdown... zooms with my colleagues have been how we’ve kept it all together really... and lately I’ve been doing catch ups with key accounts the same way. 
 

You don’t have to show off your house or let people in, just you in front of a plain background is sufficient! We don’t all have massive library’s of books and interesting wall art like the folks on the news talking from their homes! 

I just don’t like having a camera on my face that’s all.

[gooner1990]

2 hours ago, Zoo Music Girl said:

It's the making it compulsory bit that bothered me. I work with a bunch of extroverts who were actually excited about the video chat thing (it'll be like Eurovision!), but there was no recognition that it might not be the easiest for everyone.

Yes I agree, there was no asking from my manager if it was ok to be on camera it’s just expected of us. 

Half of the meetings get taken up with them screeching at each other and doing silly waves with the odd appearance of someone’s cat or husband/wife/child. 

[zahidf]

interesting 

 

 

 

[Neil]

8 hours ago, zahidf said:

interesting 

 

 

 

yeah, cos the Treasury can extract blood from a stone, right?  

 

[JoeyT]

Yeah, there's a difference between being forced to make staff redundant and "sacking" them.

Businesses would be doing so to ensure they can either continue or to wind up the business.

Good luck HMRC...

[Neil]

3 minutes ago, JoeyT said:

Yeah, there's a difference between being forced to make staff redundant and "sacking" them.

Sunak actually widened the rules early on so that companies could take back onto their payroll staff that ended working for that company in March (so they could benefit from furlough rather than dole).

So the suggestion in that tweet is a crock of shit, I reckon. Companies everywhere have kept on staff and put them on furlough that they know they're going to have to lay off. That even pretty much applies to me in my one-employee (me) business, cos there's no way I can see income coming back soon enough to keep me employed.

[Comfy Bean]

33 minutes ago, Neil said:

Sunak actually widened the rules early on so that companies could take back onto their payroll staff that ended working for that company in March (so they could benefit from furlough rather than dole).

So the suggestion in that tweet is a crock of shit, I reckon. Companies everywhere have kept on staff and put them on furlough that they know they're going to have to lay off. That even pretty much applies to me in my one-employee (me) business, cos there's no way I can see income coming back soon enough to keep me employed.

Have read bits and bobs around Labour calling for the furlough scheme to be extended through to 2021.

Perhaps industry specific to protect jobs in things likes arts, leisure, travel, entertainment etc. No doubt those lazy jocks in the SNP would support it 😉

Either way, I hope it works out for you mate.

[Neil]

7 minutes ago, Comfy Bean said:

Have read bits and bobs around Labour calling for the furlough scheme to be extended through to 2021.

Perhaps industry specific to protect jobs in things likes arts, leisure, travel, entertainment etc. No doubt those lazy jocks in the SNP would support it 😉

Either way, I hope it works out for you mate.

even if furlough's extended for 'the arts' I'm thinking it'll probably be something that my circumstances are excluded from (which is pretty much how it's gone so far). A website isn't likely to fall within the definitions they're likely to use for who's eligible.  

But anyway, no point worrying about it for the moment. I'm fine for the moment and I'll have to see how things are at the end of October.

[Tartan_Glasto]

I’m not a fan of being on camera but go along with it as it does help keep a connection with the team.

Having worked from home since mid March and being myself in the spare room doing my work, I would have felt very alone and disconnected if I could only hear voices rather than see faces. 

[funkychick2007]

26 minutes ago, Tartan_Glasto said:

I’m not a fan of being on camera but go along with it as it does help keep a connection with the team.

Having worked from home since mid March and being myself in the spare room doing my work, I would have felt very alone and disconnected if I could only hear voices rather than see faces. 

We are working by voice calls at the moment which is really hard and isolating especially when we we normally do home visits and face to face sessions! Over the phone is exhausting and especially when the local authorities will not provide us with equipment which allows us to video call! So frustrating! 

[zahidf]

More help for people in the theatre industry (to include comedians)

 

 

 

[zahidf]

Wow: Rishi Sunak says that companies that take back furloughed workers and keep them in work until January will receive a £1,000 'job retention bonus' He says it all furloughed workers go back it will cost £9billion 

[Neville Street]

For those who don't like to see themselves onscreen in Zoom (and I am sure Teams and other video apps), you can hide your own video from your display. It still shows it to the other participants, it's not the same as muting or pausing your video. I do this because I also felt weird looking at me in meetings, I never see me in meetings normally! I am not in a Zoom call right now, so I can't tell you how to do it, but it is possible once you are in a call to stop displaying your own box on your own screen.

Also, I often put it into "minimal view" which is done from the menus at the top in a call. That shows one small box which floats on top of your desktop e.g. efestivals, with just the current speaker in. I drag the little video box to close to the camera because you look like you are paying attention when you check who is talking. You have to go back to normal Zoom if they share slides that you are supposed to be paying attention to whilst watching the Glastonbury webcam......

[zeppelin]

1 hour ago, zahidf said:

Wow: Rishi Sunak says that companies that take back furloughed workers and keep them in work until January will receive a £1,000 'job retention bonus' He says it all furloughed workers go back it will cost £9billion 

Can someone explain if this is actually significant?

To me, rather cynically, it feels like this will just provide a bonus to companies that never planned on making redundancies. Is £1k really enough to encourage a company to keep paying people full whack for 3+ months? 

Genuine question and, for once, not meant as a dig at this govt. 

[squirrelarmy]

Its to give employers more incentive to bring someone back from furlough. 
 

If people are back in work then they will feel as if they have more job security and will be more comfortable spending money boosting the economy. A lot of people on furlough are reluctant to spend money as the future is uncertain. If people aren’t spending money than whole industries are at risk. 
 

I work in manufacturing, if people aren’t buying the products we make then my boss has no choice but to reduce the workforce. I’m being kept on furlough because there isn’t the workload there. People need to get out there and making the big purchases that they are reluctant to do right now.
 

I hope the voucher scheme also comes in especially if it’s for vouchers than can be spent on products that are produced in this country. The local manufacturing sector needs a huge boost. 

[Zoo Music Girl]

£1,000 doesn't sound a lot to keep someone on until January to me. It's just a one-off grand isn't it? Easily save more by letting people go, sad to say.

[zeppelin]

Yeah, sorry, I get the concept. What I'm really asking is whether £1k is enough to do that for companies that might be considering redundancies.

On thinking about it further I guess it depends how much an employee is paid, and this would be worth it for lower income roles. 

Edit: Zoo Music Girl is on the same page as me I think. 

Edited July 8, 2020 by zeppelin

[eFestivals]

18 minutes ago, zeppelin said:

Can someone explain if this is actually significant?

To me, rather cynically, it feels like this will just provide a bonus to companies that never planned on making redundancies.

yep, it's definitely that - although it only pays for furloughed employees, not all employees.

 

18 minutes ago, zeppelin said:

Is £1k really enough to encourage a company to keep paying people full whack for 3+ months? 

Genuine question and, for once, not meant as a dig at this govt. 

For my company with me as the employee, it's certainly going to make a big difference. I know i'm alright until the end of October but currently have no idea if there'll be the money to keep me on the payroll beyond that.

Knowing there's an extra 'free' £1k of income coming could be what makes the difference, into the time when ad revenues might pick up & ticket commissions might have resumed.

 

Personally I'd have preferred Sunak to do the £500 voucher for everyone thing to be spent in physical stores, as the cost would be around the same as that £1k and the vat cut and the "have a meal on us" thing.

[Quark]

3 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Knowing there's an extra 'free' £1k of income coming could be what makes the difference, into the time when ad revenues might pick up & ticket commissions might have resumed.

If you don't mind me asking (I know you're shy in telling people to sod off) will you start getting ticket commissions now bands are starting to announce tours again?  Don't know if you get your commission at point of purchase or when the gig actually happens.

[eFestivals]

It varies across agents. The ones that pay at booking tend to take it back if the show is cancelled.

And from what I'm seeing, few bookings are being made for what's being (re) announced. That might be because people want to see shows going ahead before they'll book, or because demand was mostly filled when the shows were first announced before being cancelled.

[Quark]

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

It varies across agents. The ones that pay at booking tend to take it back if the show is cancelled.

And from what I'm seeing, few bookings are being made for what's being (re) announced. That might be because people want to see shows going ahead before they'll book, or because demand was mostly filled when the shows were first announced before being cancelled.

Fair enough.  Suspect I'm in a minority but I'm just booking stuff anyway and keeping them all in the bank for later, but will make sure I'm going through egigs if they're available 

[philipsteak]

3 hours ago, zeppelin said:

Can someone explain if this is actually significant?

To me, rather cynically, it feels like this will just provide a bonus to companies that never planned on making redundancies. Is £1k really enough to encourage a company to keep paying people full whack for 3+ months? 

Genuine question and, for once, not meant as a dig at this govt. 

Should certainly  help the company I work for to keep people. Very seasonal (tourism), we normally have a core of permanent staff, (of which I am one) and topped up with seasonal staff, some of whom only want to work the summer season, and some we manage to keep on over winter too, even if on reduced hours. Obviously no idea what's going to happen this winter, so I wouldn't have been surprised to see a fair few staff who would normally stay, let go at the end of their contracts at the and of October. Hopefully now we'll be able to keep a few more of them through the winter

[Pinhead]

4 hours ago, eFestivals said:

yep, it's definitely that - although it only pays for furloughed employees, not all employees.

 

For my company with me as the employee, it's certainly going to make a big difference. I know i'm alright until the end of October but currently have no idea if there'll be the money to keep me on the payroll beyond that.

Knowing there's an extra 'free' £1k of income coming could be what makes the difference, into the time when ad revenues might pick up & ticket commissions might have resumed.

 

Personally I'd have preferred Sunak to do the £500 voucher for everyone thing to be spent in physical stores, as the cost would be around the same as that £1k and the vat cut and the "have a meal on us" thing.

Are your hosting fees the largest part of your expenditure?