| £500 on 09:33 - Jan 22 with 3121 views | snudge27 |
I agree with the general intent behind it, but I think they've misjudged the selfishness of large parts of the British public.
There'll no doubt be those who think 'ooh, free money' yet carry on regardless. |  |
|  |
| £500 on 09:34 - Jan 22 with 3109 views | DanTheMan |
On the flipside I've heard of a number of people saying they cannot afford not to go into work when isolating, especially if they just get SSP.
So do you take the hit of some chancers or try and help the majority of normal people?
I'd prefer the option they are proposing honestly. |  |
| |
| £500 on 09:37 - Jan 22 with 3082 views | snudge27 |
| £500 on 09:34 - Jan 22 by DanTheMan |
On the flipside I've heard of a number of people saying they cannot afford not to go into work when isolating, especially if they just get SSP.
So do you take the hit of some chancers or try and help the majority of normal people?
I'd prefer the option they are proposing honestly. |
Don't get me wrong, I completely agree with the broad sentiment behind it. It's been abundantly clear that there are definitely those who would self isolate but for the fact they cannot afford to.
If only we had a world-beating multi-billion-pound Test & Trace system which could make sure that those who are meant to be self-isolating are actually doing so. | |
| |
| £500 on 09:37 - Jan 22 with 3082 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| £500 on 09:34 - Jan 22 by DanTheMan |
On the flipside I've heard of a number of people saying they cannot afford not to go into work when isolating, especially if they just get SSP.
So do you take the hit of some chancers or try and help the majority of normal people?
I'd prefer the option they are proposing honestly. |
Yes if you are self employed, the temptation must be just to chance it, rather than go unpaid.
The cynical side of me just thought that this pandemic seems to have highlighted that there are a lot of selfish people around. And those that think COVID is no concern. |  | | |
| £500 on 09:50 - Jan 22 with 3040 views | factual_blue |
| £500 on 09:33 - Jan 22 by snudge27 |
I agree with the general intent behind it, but I think they've misjudged the selfishness of large parts of the British public.
There'll no doubt be those who think 'ooh, free money' yet carry on regardless. |
The tories wrote the manual on selfishness. |  |
| |
| £500 on 10:26 - Jan 22 with 2962 views | BloomBlue |
If I catch it more than once will I get the £500 each time?
I could get free money for a luxury holiday at this rate |  | | |
| £500 on 10:35 - Jan 22 with 2943 views | DanTheMan |
| £500 on 10:26 - Jan 22 by BloomBlue |
If I catch it more than once will I get the £500 each time?
I could get free money for a luxury holiday at this rate |
The chances of someone catching it more than once are very rare, as far as I understand. | |
| |
| £500 on 10:48 - Jan 22 with 2918 views | Giant_Midget |
If this happens I bet within 2 weeks there will be news stories of someone receiving their £500 and going out with symptoms to spend it! Or of someone selling positive swabs. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| £500 on 10:55 - Jan 22 with 2903 views | Ace_High1 |
Question for any employers, or those who know. What are employers doing generally with staff who test positive and have to self-isolate. Are you still paying them, have you put them on furlough, or just letting them claim SSIP?
So far we have paid our staff there normal contracted salary on the odd occasion this has happened for the whole isolation period. |  | | |
| £500 on 11:04 - Jan 22 with 2888 views | Guthrum |
| £500 on 09:37 - Jan 22 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
Yes if you are self employed, the temptation must be just to chance it, rather than go unpaid.
The cynical side of me just thought that this pandemic seems to have highlighted that there are a lot of selfish people around. And those that think COVID is no concern. |
Tho if you're SE (as I am) there is a different strand of support, with lump sum payments available every few months to compensate for loss of earnings. So, potentially, you wouldn't need the £500.
Mind you, that doesn't help those with less than three years tax returns, who are unable to access that scheme. |  |
| |
| £500 on 11:39 - Jan 22 with 2846 views | bluelagos |
The govt. has it's finger on the pulse as ever. Only 4 1/2 months after SAGE highlighted the issue.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/11/less-than-20-of-people-in-england-
Wonder how many people have died as a result of their inability to govern in any a way even remotely resembling a competent govt?
Still, some blokes drove to Coventry in a car, so let's direct our outrage at those idiots instead...Twtd as it's finest. [Post edited 22 Jan 2021 12:03]
|  |
| |
| £500 on 11:43 - Jan 22 with 2839 views | loftboy |
| £500 on 10:55 - Jan 22 by Ace_High1 |
Question for any employers, or those who know. What are employers doing generally with staff who test positive and have to self-isolate. Are you still paying them, have you put them on furlough, or just letting them claim SSIP?
So far we have paid our staff there normal contracted salary on the odd occasion this has happened for the whole isolation period. |
I work for Sainsbury’s, they have covid time off as different to the usual sick, three time off sick in a rolling twelve month period results in a disciplinary hearing, but time off with covid doesn’t count, had nearly two weeks off after Christmas and got full pay and got my holiday that I had booked returned as well, so all in all pretty good. | | | |
| £500 on 13:30 - Jan 22 with 2767 views | bluewark |
| £500 on 09:50 - Jan 22 by factual_blue |
The tories wrote the manual on selfishness. |
Yes they did. I expect. this is the flip side of all the firms who were given up to
£ 9000 grant. Moan the poor might take advantage of £500 | | | |
| £500 on 15:18 - Jan 22 with 2727 views | SpruceMoose |
| £500 on 11:43 - Jan 22 by loftboy |
I work for Sainsbury’s, they have covid time off as different to the usual sick, three time off sick in a rolling twelve month period results in a disciplinary hearing, but time off with covid doesn’t count, had nearly two weeks off after Christmas and got full pay and got my holiday that I had booked returned as well, so all in all pretty good. |
Three occurrences of sickness in 12 months leading to a disciplinary hearing is exactly the kind of nonsense that needs to get in the bin in a post-Covid world.
All that does is to force people to go into work and spread whatever they have around. |  |
| Pronouns: He/Him/His.
"Imagine being a heterosexual white male in Britain at this moment. How bad is that. Everything you say is racist, everything you say is homophobic. The Woke community have really f****d this country." | | Poll: | Selectamod |
| |
| £500 on 15:21 - Jan 22 with 2713 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| £500 on 15:18 - Jan 22 by SpruceMoose |
Three occurrences of sickness in 12 months leading to a disciplinary hearing is exactly the kind of nonsense that needs to get in the bin in a post-Covid world.
All that does is to force people to go into work and spread whatever they have around. |
Is it true there’s no statutory sick pay in the States? In our NY office people are know to ‘WFH’ rather than lose a days pay? Is that the norm? | | | |
| £500 on 15:30 - Jan 22 with 2706 views | SpruceMoose |
| £500 on 15:21 - Jan 22 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
Is it true there’s no statutory sick pay in the States? In our NY office people are know to ‘WFH’ rather than lose a days pay? Is that the norm? |
Correct. There's no federal requirements to provide statutory sick pay. FMLA covers up to twelve weeks for certain medical conditions - if you've worked for your employer for the last twelve months and have worked over a certain number of hours in that period I believe. Obviously the better employers do tend to provide a certain number of sick or personal days on top of your holiday allowance every year.
I don't know if your example is the norm as the organisation I work for has a pretty generous work from home policy and I'm senior enough to pretty much set my own hours. They've also been my only employer since I've been out here . But honestly, working from home when you have a minor ailment seems like a smart move for both the employer and employee to me.
If I have a bad cold I can still work, I'm not flat out in a coma. So isn't it better from me to work from home rather than go into the office, give my cold to five other people and then they all have time off work? Disciplining someone for being unfortunate enough to catch four illnesses in one twelve months period seems unnecessarily punitive. [Post edited 22 Jan 2021 15:33]
| |
| Pronouns: He/Him/His.
"Imagine being a heterosexual white male in Britain at this moment. How bad is that. Everything you say is racist, everything you say is homophobic. The Woke community have really f****d this country." | | Poll: | Selectamod |
| |
| £500 on 16:20 - Jan 22 with 2669 views | gazzer1999 |
| £500 on 15:30 - Jan 22 by SpruceMoose |
Correct. There's no federal requirements to provide statutory sick pay. FMLA covers up to twelve weeks for certain medical conditions - if you've worked for your employer for the last twelve months and have worked over a certain number of hours in that period I believe. Obviously the better employers do tend to provide a certain number of sick or personal days on top of your holiday allowance every year.
I don't know if your example is the norm as the organisation I work for has a pretty generous work from home policy and I'm senior enough to pretty much set my own hours. They've also been my only employer since I've been out here . But honestly, working from home when you have a minor ailment seems like a smart move for both the employer and employee to me.
If I have a bad cold I can still work, I'm not flat out in a coma. So isn't it better from me to work from home rather than go into the office, give my cold to five other people and then they all have time off work? Disciplining someone for being unfortunate enough to catch four illnesses in one twelve months period seems unnecessarily punitive. [Post edited 22 Jan 2021 15:33]
|
I agree with your sentiments Sprucie regarding working from home if you can, which is what I am having to do at the moment. However think of all the factory workers where it is impossible to do so, and I think that is where the problem lies. What are they meant to do? Some business owners are unscrupulous and refuse to pay sick pay; plus the usual procedure is nothing for the first 3 days which can leave some short.
In the main the £500 is a good thing for the correct people that need it, however as with all things there will be some that abuse it.
With regard to disciplining for 4 absences in a year I think that is a standard clause in a contract to discourage those that take advantage of it, generally it is those on a salary rather than hourly paid. |  | | |
| £500 on 16:27 - Jan 22 with 2658 views | SpruceMoose |
| £500 on 16:20 - Jan 22 by gazzer1999 |
I agree with your sentiments Sprucie regarding working from home if you can, which is what I am having to do at the moment. However think of all the factory workers where it is impossible to do so, and I think that is where the problem lies. What are they meant to do? Some business owners are unscrupulous and refuse to pay sick pay; plus the usual procedure is nothing for the first 3 days which can leave some short.
In the main the £500 is a good thing for the correct people that need it, however as with all things there will be some that abuse it.
With regard to disciplining for 4 absences in a year I think that is a standard clause in a contract to discourage those that take advantage of it, generally it is those on a salary rather than hourly paid. |
If you work in a factory and can't work from home then you should be allowed to take the sick days you need to recover without the fear of losing your job. If you work in a factory your economic situation is likely to be precarious enough as it is without having to sacrifice your health on top of that. It's about basic human dignity and respect.
Is there evidence that people take advantage of sick pay, or is it more accurate to say some employers are taking advantage of their staff? If somebody is clearly abusing a sick day policy then it can be handled case by case by their supervisor or manager. But I can't see how punitive and overly stringent policies don't only cause result in spreading illness around a work place. | |
| Pronouns: He/Him/His.
"Imagine being a heterosexual white male in Britain at this moment. How bad is that. Everything you say is racist, everything you say is homophobic. The Woke community have really f****d this country." | | Poll: | Selectamod |
| |
| £500 on 20:48 - Jan 22 with 2558 views | SuffolkPOSH |
| £500 on 13:30 - Jan 22 by bluewark |
Yes they did. I expect. this is the flip side of all the firms who were given up to
£ 9000 grant. Moan the poor might take advantage of £500 |
It has been alleged that businesses fraudulently claimed over 10 billion in grants during the first lockdown. Councils were handling them out to anybody & everybody & I've heard of businesses making 2 or 3 claims when they were only entitled to one. Even worse is that they have been told by the government not to raise the issue, I guess they don't want the additional bad PR during the pandamic. |  | | |
| £500 on 20:52 - Jan 22 with 2548 views | SuffolkPOSH |
I can see it now, some guy walking around the supermarket carrying 20 phones hoping to come in contact with someone so all the phones getting an isolation text & then taking a commission from the phone owners. | | | |
| £500 on 20:56 - Jan 22 with 2534 views | J2BLUE |
| £500 on 20:48 - Jan 22 by SuffolkPOSH |
It has been alleged that businesses fraudulently claimed over 10 billion in grants during the first lockdown. Councils were handling them out to anybody & everybody & I've heard of businesses making 2 or 3 claims when they were only entitled to one. Even worse is that they have been told by the government not to raise the issue, I guess they don't want the additional bad PR during the pandamic. |
Some people get nothing. Businesses have to have been affected. It's such a vague term. One day or the entire twelve weeks you get the same amount. |  |
| |
| £500 on 21:06 - Jan 22 with 2522 views | SuffolkPOSH |
| £500 on 20:56 - Jan 22 by J2BLUE |
Some people get nothing. Businesses have to have been affected. It's such a vague term. One day or the entire twelve weeks you get the same amount. |
I'm one of the "EXCLUDED" as my ltd company was set up under 12 months before pandamic & I'm also excluded from any other benefits. No doubt if I make a success of my business I will NOT EXCLUDED from the increase in taxes to repayment the government current financial decisions. | | | |
| £500 on 21:13 - Jan 22 with 2512 views | Lord_Lucan |
| £500 on 20:48 - Jan 22 by SuffolkPOSH |
It has been alleged that businesses fraudulently claimed over 10 billion in grants during the first lockdown. Councils were handling them out to anybody & everybody & I've heard of businesses making 2 or 3 claims when they were only entitled to one. Even worse is that they have been told by the government not to raise the issue, I guess they don't want the additional bad PR during the pandamic. |
This is impossible as companies are only allowed to claim per company per rateable valuable premises.
It is impossible to bend this. |  |
| |
| £500 on 21:29 - Jan 22 with 2484 views | Lord_Lucan |
| £500 on 20:56 - Jan 22 by J2BLUE |
Some people get nothing. Businesses have to have been affected. It's such a vague term. One day or the entire twelve weeks you get the same amount. |
This isn't correct to be honest J2
Businesses with a rateable value got between £10k and £25k regardless. I believe we are about to get another £4k on top of the previous £10k
The thing is....... We are lucky enough to have actually done extremely well out of the pandemic and also takeaways have gone through the £ roof - yet we all still get the same money even though many businesses have crashed.
Thing is though, we really are in a mish mash of quickly evolving sh1te and it is impossible to micro manage this sh1t. Anyone who thinks they can is a silly bollox.
For whatever reason our sales since March 2020 have gone through the roof, Pint of Wine Paul is receiving more money now than when he was butchering hair.
Larger businesses though are taking a big hit and god knows what will happen to the service industry. It's a royal disaster but things are happening at such speed.
X + (-) Y = impossible [Post edited 22 Jan 2021 21:31]
| |
| |
| £500 on 21:32 - Jan 22 with 2476 views | m14_blue |
Surely they’re not going to give it to poor people?
They may as well give it straight to the crack dens and brothels.
Even worse, some people might use it to buy their kids food, that must not be allowed. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
