Confus

The more I read/see/hear about the furlough scheme, the more I think companies (particularly big ones) are abusing taxpayers’ generosity. Some didn’t really need to shut down but have because it’s easier. In BA’s case, they are claiming support when it’s not really needed. The government set the amount at something it would be more than reasonable to live on for a while, particularly if you’re not allowed to go out. But in BA’s case, a manager on 60k could be furloughed at twice the government's cap. By definition the company does not need support for this, as they are saying can afford to top up the salary by the exact same amount they claim from the government. Those of us who will be paying for this for decades should have more to say about it.

(I’m not saying we shouldn’t have a scheme, I absolutely believe there are some who fully need and deserve it. But I’m more and more coming to the realisation that there should be caps for everyone, it absolutely should not be subsidising fairly well off people.)

KARFA

By the time you work out and implement a scheme based on which companies are deserving and which aren't half the companies will have gone bust anyway and/or many people would have been laid off. It may be some companies are effectively getting support which they don't need, but we needed a scheme which was relatively simple and easy to operate now.

Had there been no scheme which BA could use the alternatives would be either more or less forcing thousands of people on prolonged unpaid leave (which was already happening prior to this) or redundancies - they wouldn't have just kept everyone on at full salary for weeks and months even if they could afford it.

Bohinjska Bistrica

There is no doubt that there are some companies abusing the government furlough scheme. Tottenham Hotspur are a particularly horrendous example of this - furloughing their entire "back office" whilst paying their players in full. Disgraceful behaviour.

As KARFA has higighted, there is unfortunately a lack of time to make assessments. It doesn't take long for some companies to end up in the brown stuff, and indeed Carluccios and Debenhams have shown that, albeit these companies have struggled for some time.

Much as I think BA can take it in the very short term, I guess it's a fine line between offering this or perhaps having to bail it out at a later date. I think the furlough probably saves more jobs in the long run, however.
​​​​​​

Confus

Government: companies can claim up to Ł2500 per employee with the no ability to top up to normal salary if they wish.
Very simple, easy to operate, available immediately, no thought or evaluation on ‘deservingness’ needed. Help fast where it’s needed, no excessive burden on taxpayers when it’s not.

Welcome On Board

We can’t secure NEW employment once under furlough (BA stipulation). Many crew have already secured part time employment at supermarkets/already have existing part time jobs which they can work.

Today I (MF CSM) have been furloughed until 31/5. Very happy with my 80% considering a month ago it looked as if I’d be going 8 weeks without any pay at all.

KARFA

Not sure that solves anything tbh. Why is there a burden if a company tops up someone’s salary?

Geordie405

Exactly. I think the Government's strategy is ensuring, as much as possible, that companies are able to survive and that people who otherwise would have been made redundant actually have jobs to go back to. The situation here in the US is dire with 6.6 million new unemployment claimants this week alone! The worry is that for a lot of small business they will go bust in spite of letting staff go, and hence once the situation is back to normal there won't be jobs available. The one-off $1200 per adult stimulus payment will do absolutely nothing in the long term to support those people who have been let go, often with no notice and absolutely no redundancy package. The USA is predominantly an employment at will nation - which means that an employee can leave a job whenever they want for any reason, and employers can terminate an employee for any reason without notice or cause. Irrespective of the CARES act, I think the repercussions of COVID19 will continue to be felt in the USA for way longer than in the UK. The UK government's furlough scheme is very good news! Whether it's sustainable in the longer term remains to be seen...

antichef

I know this is a BA thread, and there may well be some managers at BA earning Ł60k per year get the benefit of the furlough scheme introduced throughout the UK.

I think I can say with 100% certainty that the likes of them were not at the forefront of the scheme planners, who were more concerned with the vast numbers of workers on NLW or NMW who were going to get 80% of that, rather than be laid off and go immediately on to UC with the costs transferred to the govt.

A P Yu

It’s not just managers benefitting from the no cap. If BA had limited it to 80% then the WW union reps wouldn’t have agreed to it.

Anonba

Yes some colleagues in Manchester and Newcastle are working from home but currently it is only small numbers. Majority of us are still going into work.

Confus

Because if the company can afford to double the government subsidy then they don’t need to take one at all for that person. This should be about helping the low paid, not giving the high paid more than they need.
They wouldn’t have needed to. They don’t need to ask someone to be furloughed, they tell them. If the government had a rule, it’s by definition not within BA’s control.

KARFA

Except BA topping up the higher paid employees whose salaries are above Ł2.5k pm is not detrimental to those on lower pay in the organisation. People on lower pay are not losing out as a result of this top up of higher salary staff. Even those on higher pay need to eat and pay bills you know

Yes BA have lots of cash. However the one thing they were never going to do was keeping everyone on at full salary for 2 months. If BA had no help at all from the government scheme many of their employees would be getting nothing. The cabin crew were already being pushed on to prolonged unpaid leave before the scheme. I think your assumption that BA would keep loads of staff on full pay is flawed. By taking the scheme at least everyone is still getting something.

I am not clear what you are proposing as an alternative to the government scheme, but if your idea is BA gets no help that would have resulted in many staff including lower paid ones being put on prolonged unpaid leave. I am not sure why that seems to be better?

A P Yu

BA have had to agree the whole approach with the unions. And as an Employee you DO need to agree to it - in writing. (It’s a change to your Ts and Cs you have to accept)

from gov.uk
If you and your employer both agree, your employer might be able to keep you on the payroll if they’re unable to operate or have no work for you to do because of coronavirus (COVID-19). This is known as being ‘on furlough

BAs other option would have been expensive redundancies hence they’ve been working with unions to agree this approach.

Confus

Apologies if I wasn't clear. I was never suggesting that BA would keep people working at full pay. I was suggesting that they should give them the government amount and not more (after all, rich people can survive on the same generous amount too) - if BA thinks it can afford more, they should be paying it out of their own pocket, not the taxpayer’s. It’s the government’s fault really. But as we’re at risk of going OT by discussing the merits or otherwise of the Chancellor’s snap not-thought-through decision, I’ll leave it there.

antichef

Confus, you are still not making yourself clear. Perhaps if you answer the following questions it will enable us to understand:
Who do you think Is paying the workers from now until 1 May?
Who do you think is paying any top-up above 80% on furlough pay?
Have you read the rules on furlough set out on gov.uk or just the news reports?
When will the employer receive the “reimbursement” of furlough pay?

I particularly want to know the answer to the last one as it is rather critical to advice I am giving to several people.