David O'Day
Well-Known Member
Ok skippy you can't have a qr reading app or a bluetooth app on an old phone
That’s exactly what they’ve done. It’s not possible to make the app usable by any more people.
it's also 2bn more expensive than the furlough scheme
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.View attachment 17063
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?
Ok skippy you can't have a qr reading app or a bluetooth app on an old phone
Just what 2020s missing, a bit of widespread destitution.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.
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..
View attachment 17063
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?
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.
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.Don’t get this new furlough scheme at all. Why would an employer keep two or three people on under this scheme over sacking all but one and keeping them full time?
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...
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.It's 6 months and making people redundant in the UK is cheap.
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.
Only qualify if you work less than your original hours, so what? Company's will be reducing hours so they can qualify for the scheme
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.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?
They make soundbite statements like that because Tory voters are mostly content free. See for example "more tests = more infections"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.
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.
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.
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
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
How can you refuse anyone entry or kick them out? If someone says they have an exemption you're not allowed to question it. From what has been said on here in other countries its been wear a mask at all times when you leave the house. Simple, easy to follow and totally unambiguous.A lot of complaints about the policing of it. Yeah, a little poster on the shop door won’t stop people from not wearing one. I’ve never seen someone ejected or refused entry.
Bro I seen something from the dumbass conspiracy theorist the other day about pearl harbour if I can find it I will show you but honestly it's the funiest shit I've seen.Anti maskers and anti vax people are definitely flat earthers... Absolute pellets
If the government were going to control us, then I'm absolutely positive it would be something more extreme than just saying "please, for all our health's, put a mask on"fuck me
There shouldn't be a exemption, my gran is 78 years old has lung cancer and asthma and she wears a mask, just idiots who won't wear them.How can you refuse anyone entry or kick them out? If someone says they have an exemption you're not allowed to question it. From what has been said on here in other countries its been wear a mask at all times when you leave the house. Simple, easy to follow and totally unambiguous.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?