Primus84
Well-known member
And you again show a complete lack of understanding. He's a director of the business asking others to give up a portion of their meagre income whilst he's living the high life, it is immoral.Of course, I know that, it's economically a very sound thing to do, to save the economy and save jobs, which is exactly the thing I'm trying to explain/ protect. My point is the people getting the money are not doing anything for it, currently.
Might be "here nor there" to you, but it won't be to them. It's also to have a job to go back to, to not have to sell the house, or car. Having everyone on furlough is unsustainable, so would eventually have to drop and as would benefits, or other services. If furlough prolonged, then the furlough and benefits would not go up, money runs out.
Furlough does not come directly from the government, the company pays it and claims it back (weeks later), this is a cashflow problem.
Funny how you cut out/ ignore the outlay/ losses that the business has had.........and that they pay the loan back, and then also provide future employment.
Nothing to do with the business or ower, or have any link in any way whatsoever. I wouldn't touch hospitality with a barge pole to be honest, wouldn't have done this pre-pandemic either. But during the pandemic, as I've seen first hand the damage done in other sectors and it's brutal, but nothing compared to what hospitality is dealing with.
The staff have a lot more to gain in percentage/ real terms and the loan is not a loss, not permanently.
You again talk about a minor shareholder, with assets (probably not fully owned), which are likely mainly achieved from wealth gained away from this business (which is a limited company). His interest in this business is probably equally limited, he (and the other number of shareholders) might eventually just cut their losses (which are likely substantial).
Obviously we don't want to see businesses go to the wall and people unemployed but if they've been expanding and taking on additional liabilities throughout the pandemic then they can't now turn round and plead poverty such that they need interest free loans from their staff.
There's loads of ways they could have rewarded staff for their loyalty at very little cost to them, the fact they haven't even considered that says what kind of an employer they are.
Regardless of there being a lag on furlough payments the scheme is for the benefit of EMPLOYEES. Employers already derive a benefit from this by the wages being covered by the Government.
A relative was asked to give up a portion of his salary during the pandemic (he's by no means on minimum wage). They were promised it would be returned along with enhanced bonuses. He's already had the money returned, they've paid a thank you one off bonus and upped his commission rate - that's how you look after your staff. It was entirely optional and it was made clear how much of a favour they were doing the business and how the business would remember that at the appropriate times. He also wasn't on furlough and they gave all staff who gave up that portion of their salary an additional day off per week for the full duration of that sacrifice.