fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
It sounds an overly complex scheme that will end up impacting the poorest the most, do virtually nothing to protect employment and lead to widespread destitution.
Coronavirus Thread (Off Topic, Politics) (13 Viewers)
- Thread starter BackRoomRummermill
- Start date
It sounds an overly complex scheme that will end up impacting the poorest the most, do virtually nothing to protect employment and lead to widespread destitution.
David O'Day
Well-Known Member
exactly you need to try and make the app usable by the most people possible
David O'Day
Well-Known Member
it's also 2bn more expensive than the furlough scheme
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Their choice was use the tech for those that can or don’t use tech at all. There’s no method to do this type of app on older devices.
Looking at the stats you’re talking maybe 5% of users on iPhone 6 or before, not sure about Android as stats are harder to come across.
Looking at the stats you’re talking maybe 5% of users on iPhone 6 or before, not sure about Android as stats are harder to come across.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
That’s exactly what they’ve done. It’s not possible to make the app usable by any more people.
David O'Day
Well-Known Member
Ok skippy you can't have a qr reading app or a bluetooth app on an old phone
David O'Day
Well-Known Member
jimmyhillsfanclub
Well-Known Member
Not sure where thats come from but it aint right.
Furlough already covered about 40bn of wages..... This is a fraction of the cost....approx. £5bn according to capital economics estimate..
David O'Day
Well-Known Member
Correct me if I am wrong but that reads like the employer is paying the employee for more hours than they have worked?
If so how does this save any jobs?
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Reads that way to me. An important point here is that a lot of those who are employed in salaried roles, as opposed to paid by the hour, had to sign amended contracts to allow them to be furloughed. A lot of those amended contracts also allowed employers to reduce hours, and therefore pay, if and when the employee came off furlough.
Means that for many an employer could, for example, bring you back for a 33% of your hours and pay you 33% of your salary, or they can bring you back for 33% of your hours and pay you 55% of your salary with the government adding 22%. You're relying on a lot of companies to do the right thing when experience suggests they will do whatever makes them the most money.
Also if you're in an industry that still isn't permitted to operate you're completely screwed and get nothing.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
You can’t run an new OS (which is needed thanks to privacy measures for background apps) on an old device.
You can’t run Bluetooth constantly on old devices you need a BLE chip, which isn’t on very old iPhones and a lot of old Androids.
The QR part is a tiny part. The always on contact tracing is the important bit. You can scan a QR code and check in with any device already.
What about featurephones with no app capability? What about cheap phones without BLE? What about 2G phones? What about people with no phones?
The choice is always have a cut off or don’t do it. There is no 100% inclusive solution.
Johnnythespider
Well-Known Member
Just what 2020s missing, a bit of widespread destitution.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
It is pathetic tbh,
Yeah, it's ridiculous
Somebody on £10 p/h on 40 hours p/w contract.
33% of pay is £132
Remainder is £268
Employer and govt pay £88 each of it
Employee hourly rate (paid by employer) goes up to £16.53
Good old Tories, delivering pay rises
David O'Day
Well-Known Member
No you make a simplified version, if you need maximum take up you make it available to the most people.
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
I assume the logic is that as it's a temporary thing, employers will see the costs of making people redundant more than the costs of embracing this scheme.
Seems a bit risky, mind...
David O'Day
Well-Known Member
It's 6 months and making people redundant in the UK is cheap.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Quick google says the average length of employment in the UK is 4.5 years. Given you don't get redundancy pay until you've been employed for 2 years you've got to imagine most companies could make a significant number of redundancies without paying out.
David O'Day
Well-Known Member
Yep and that is the madness of this
David O'Day
Well-Known Member
why would they? If you reduce someone to 33% of their contracted hours you have to pay them 55% of their full salary. Why would companies decide to pay a higher rate of pay to people for working less?
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
The talk going into the announcement, which given how this government operates presumably was 'leaked' to the media, was that Sunak would introduce a similar scheme to Germany.
From what I can make out, and I could have this completely wrong as its going off a quick google, the German scheme sees the state pay 60 or 67% depending on if you have children (increasing to increased to 70 or 77% after 4 months and 80 or 87% after 7 months). The cost to the employer remains the same. Am I missing something or is this scheme nothing like the German one?
It almost seems like its designed so that the government can say they did something rather than a serious attempt to avoid mass redundancies.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
"The conditions will be set out in guidance which will be published shortly, then over the next few weeks the further details will be worked through with businesses and unions."
Why does this sound like they're making it up as they go along. This is something that has been flagged up for months how can they not be prepared?
Why does this sound like they're making it up as they go along. This is something that has been flagged up for months how can they not be prepared?
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
They make soundbite statements like that because Tory voters are mostly content free. See for example "more tests = more infections"
David O'Day
Well-Known Member
They'll spin it to say it is like the German scheme as they pay something towards wages but I can not get my head round why it seems to make employers pay for for part times hours?
David O'Day
Well-Known Member
Almost like they are economically illiterate, It would also cost more to keep 2 people at 33% (the minimum to qualify) hours.
For each person they would have to pay the 33% basic and then top up an extra 22% meaning that for 66% FTE hours they are paying 110% FTE wages.
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
The suggested 4 day week scheme seem far more sensible although would require a lot more administration ( recruitment etc)
David O'Day
Well-Known Member
Disrespectful arrogant twats is what they are, I've avoided anyone who is fragile including my grandparents since early Feb this year, I don't get what's hard about isolating for 2 weeks not the end of the world, just imagine you have covid and passing it to someone who then goes and dies fuxk I couldn't live with myself.
Evo1883
Well-Known Member
If there is one thing I will say, irrespective of what you believe... Just follow the fucking rules, put a mask on... Isolate when necessary and stop being a c**t.
I've not always lapped up everything but I always follow the fucking rules and restrictions, even if you think its stupid just sigh and do what's asked of you... It's really not hard
I've not always lapped up everything but I always follow the fucking rules and restrictions, even if you think its stupid just sigh and do what's asked of you... It's really not hard
Tommo1993
Well-Known Member
What you on about?! Wearing a mask for however long I’m in a shop or washing my hands is way too much to ask!
Also, I found out that my employer only pays £20 per week if you’re off sick with Covid. So if you’ve got it you might want to just say you’ve got the shits and it’ll probably last two weeks or more.
fuck me
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
Absolutely agree that everyone has to follow the isolation rules.
The report the data is pulled from seems to suggest that childcare and not being able to afford time of work as being two major contributors to the high numbers. Would seem to indicate that we don't have the right support systems in place for people who need to isolate.
Lack of tests will be contributing as well I suspect. If you feel well but are told to isolate a negative test would release you back into the world. If you can't get a test, or aren't eligible for a test, is that prompting people to just ignore the instructed isolation?
The report the data is pulled from seems to suggest that childcare and not being able to afford time of work as being two major contributors to the high numbers. Would seem to indicate that we don't have the right support systems in place for people who need to isolate.
Lack of tests will be contributing as well I suspect. If you feel well but are told to isolate a negative test would release you back into the world. If you can't get a test, or aren't eligible for a test, is that prompting people to just ignore the instructed isolation?
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
My views on it are known but I do what I’m told and defend the rules to kids who question them. The frustration is they can do what they want but I have to stay in a box unable to help