Lots of coverage yday of the Oxford/Cambridge/Zurich paper, finding that two thirds of those furloughed on CJRS may have worked, with rules "routinely ignored". It& #39;s worth a read: https://drive.google.com/file/d/173cuSrweSe9klMW0q98EDth5-ow5zsQa/view
However">https://drive.google.com/file/d/17... - the findings aren& #39;t as clear-cut as being reported... quick thread

First, the paper *does* suggest potential significant abuse of CJRS: one in five were asked by their employer to work.
As graphs show, this is dominated by white collar industries: ICT, real estate, financial, support services.
Will be useful in targeting enforcement action...

But large majority - four fifths - say that they were *not* asked to work while furloughed. Yet two thirds did so, for avg 10 hrs/wk.
Why? Study suggests "worker autonomy": more likely in higher paid jobs, where ppl worked from home and had variable hours. i.e. choosing to work.

(However, worth noting that survey asked if respondent was furloughed *this week* but how many hours they did *last week* - given that the survey was conducted in April, it& #39;s well possible that quite a few were within the rules and had only just gone on furlough...)

Importantly, the Labour Force Survey also asks if respondents were on CJRS, away from work, how many hours etc . ONS hasn& #39;t yet released the CJRS variables on UKDS, but if they do for the Apr-Jun (please!) then we can explore in much more detail who worked when, which jobs.

Finally - a key but unrelated conclusion of the study was that mothers in particular were more likely to ask for furlough, and that if schools continue to be disrupted then we& #39;ll need measures to help parents stay in work if they need to care for kids. Couldn& #39;t agree more.