You're probably right about many companies using it before laying them off when furlough ends, but surely that is still a bit better than just having mass redundancy immediately with no warning or safety net? Having a few months grace to prepare, and possibly even look for other work as a back up option in a worst case scenario (even if the number of available positions is likely to be extremely low with many people looking for work as well), is better than just going in Monday to find you don't have a job to go to.
Is there any evidence to suggest there are large numbers of genuinely redundant positions that companies are retaining people on furlough in? Employers have to contribute towards furlough and will be expecting the scheme to end in October so either need to bring people back into work or make them redundant then. Why would they be putting off the inevitable? The average time people stay in a job is 4.5 years so its not like we're talking huge redundancy payouts. Keeping people on knowing you'll be making them redundant in a few weeks is just chucking money away.
The latest ONS figures have 6.8m people on furlough. The maximum level of furlough seems to have been set based on the average UK salary so it equates to 30K a year. What impact does it have on the economy if you overnight dump those people out of work and on to universal credit, a maximum of under £5K a year? Not like there were be millions of vacant positions for them to move into. How many people who though they were in secure stable employment have mortgage payments alone over the £410 a month maximum they will receive on universal credit let alone other bills to pay? What happens a few months down the line when they get kicked out of their homes? You then have a homelessness crisis, potentially right when we're hitting a winter peak for the pandemic.
But if the scheme is being abused by companies to collect free taxpayers money then we have to say the problem is not so much with the scheme but with that mindset of wanting to exploit things for personal gain and how it was created. And who was it that created the 'greed is good' and 'bugger you Jack, I'm alright' ethos?
Couldn't agree more with this. We've had years of everything flowing to those at the top and now we act surprised that those at the top turn out to not give a shit about anything but how they can benefit out the situation. If the scheme is being abused, as the article below suggests, then clamp down on that, don't punish those lower down the chain who are reliant on it to survive.
New study finds that fifth of staff whose wages were paid by government were ‘compelled’ to work by bosses
www.theweek.co.uk
There is no ideal solution but IMO having that safety net in place is far preferable to not and will cause far fewer problems both in terms of mental and physical health.
Exactly, there's no simple solution to an unprecedented issue. But the safety net is about to get yanked away without anything to take its place. Whatever standpoint you come from, be it physical health, mental health or the impact on the economy, I can't see how that is the best option.
Â
