Furlough

[Murdoch]

I don't see how keeping people more people alive can possibly be "more damaging" than letting more die.

Exactly the point I was making about how people only consider the immediate threat.

Take the financial crash in 2008, the economic damage that was done in the aftermath contributed to 130,000 preventable deaths. Life expectancy stalled, and even declined in some areas. Suicides increased by a significant amount. Economic depressions are a disaster for people's health and lives. Furthermore, if we can't fund the NHS properly in the years to come because of this economic crash, the consequences could be far more dire. Much of the NHS resources have already been diverted to Covid-19, people aren't being tested for serious illnesses like cancer, later diagnoses for these types of illnesses, means more deaths. Just to reiterate, we came into this crisis with 1.5 trillion in debt, and a deficit of 25 billion, and we've got Brexit on the horizon, we're not well placed to deal with tanking the economy.

The lockdown will surely work to stall the spread of covid-19 eventually, but you'd have to be really naive to think it's not going to do a huge amount of damage.

Personally, I'd self-isolate everybody high risk (& over 60s), and use strict social distancing measures & PPE in every other situation. For context, it's bizarre to me that we're still out delivering door to doors, but tradesmen, like electricians, plumbers, joiners, are for the most part sitting at home. I personally know many people that have lost their jobs because of this already, many of them have families to feed, and mortgages to pay, and won't necessarily qualify for the government help schemes.

[Zicomurphy]

Someone on Facebook has posted saying this is part of the Furlough agreement that employers make you sign

When your Furlough Leave ends, while we will always endeavour to provide you with work, in the event of insufficient work being available you agree we are entitled to place you on short time or lay you off without pay except for statutory guarantee payments.


If this is part of the standard agreement how many of us would actually want to sign it? Would you really trust Royal Mail not to take advantage of it to get rid of staff when things return to normal, bearing in mind before all this started they had plans to bring in changes that would mean a reduction in staffing?

My feeling is that the furlough thing is great if the alternative is being made unemployed at a time when very few employers will be recruiting but for most of us it would actually be quite worrying. I certainly think it’s wrong just to see it as a 3 month holiday on virtually full pay.

[twiddledumb]

It’s very simple. The last thing the government want right now is 110,000 postal workers adding to their furlough bill, most of whom are on half decent money (let’s be honest, we complain about the job but never the money which is a fair amount).

NHS staff are being threatened and told not to post anything about a shortage of PPE. RM will have a similar deal with the Govt - RM won’t furlough the workforce, in return the Govt will turn a blind eye to what’s going on with ignoring safety measures.

I feel our only solution is making as many aware as possible.

We earn below the average wage in the UK, the government are paying up to £2500 a month.

[tractorboy2]

Someone on Facebook has posted saying this is part of the Furlough agreement that employers make you sign

When your Furlough Leave ends, while we will always endeavour to provide you with work, in the event of insufficient work being available you agree we are entitled to place you on short time or lay you off without pay except for statutory guarantee payments.


If this is part of the standard agreement how many of us would actually want to sign it? Would you really trust Royal Mail not to take advantage of it to get rid of staff when things return to normal, bearing in mind before all this started they had plans to bring in changes that would mean a reduction in staffing?

My feeling is that the furlough thing is great if the alternative is being made unemployed at a time when very few employers will be recruiting but for most of us it would actually be quite worrying. I certainly think it’s wrong just to see it as a 3 month holiday on virtually full pay.

Isn't the whole point of the furlough , so that companies don't have to lay off their staff ? Surely if companies then lay off their employees when this finally ends they have broken an agreement with the government and should be made to pay all the money paid out , back.

[mickeymacca]

There is this perception that being furloughed (never knew that word a few weeks ago) is a preferable option than working. The uncertainty of when you are going to get your money/ compensation because I am sure it is backdated, the hassle of having to deal with government agencies, the faith that you have to place in the honesty and integrity of the government to stand by what they have said and what they have promised.......from a purely financial point of view I'd rather be working than relying on this government to honour its word.....

regards

[TheStrangler]

I don't see how keeping people more people alive can possibly be "more damaging" than letting more die.

Exactly the point I was making about how people only consider the immediate threat.

Take the financial crash in 2008, the economic damage that was done in the aftermath contributed to 130,000 preventable deaths. Life expectancy stalled, and even declined in some areas. Suicides increased by a significant amount. Economic depressions are a disaster for people's health and lives. Furthermore, if we can't fund the NHS properly in the years to come because of this economic crash, the consequences could be far more dire. Much of the NHS resources have already been diverted to Covid-19, people aren't being tested for serious illnesses like cancer, later diagnoses for these types of illnesses, means more deaths. Just to reiterate, we came into this crisis with 1.5 trillion in debt, and a deficit of 25 billion, and we've got Brexit on the horizon, we're not well placed to deal with tanking the economy.

The lockdown will surely work to stall the spread of covid-19 eventually, but you'd have to be really naive to think it's not going to do a huge amount of damage.

Personally, I'd self-isolate everybody high risk (& over 60s), and use strict social distancing measures & PPE in every other situation. For context, it's bizarre to me that we're still out delivering door to doors, but tradesmen, like electricians, plumbers, joiners, are for the most part sitting at home. I personally know many people that have lost their jobs because of this already, many of them have families to feed, and mortgages to pay, and won't necessarily qualify for the government help schemes.

I did read that around 150,000 people died as a result of the "beast from the east" Jan-March 2018.
Not trying to underestimate the problem with this virus, just saying I don't remember this number of deaths getting anything like as much coverage in any of the media.

[A2B]

No idea if that's true but even if it is none of those people would have been a carrier of a potentially fatal virus able to infect many more people.

[POSTMAN]

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... ges/deaths" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Excess winter mortality in England and Wales

https://www.dyingmatters.org/page/frequ ... -questions" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;