Universal Credit for [merged]

zagfles

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

Thanks, I think I understand it now for people in work, or unemployed.

What happens to people who are off sick?

There are exceptions to conditionality eg for disability/health/caring responsibilities.

And do I understand correctly, that in a couple if one earns twice the NMW @35 hours, then the other is not required to look for work?

So my son (whose contract is 29 hours at just over minimum wage) and his girlfriend (who does 35 hours at NMW) , with no children, would have a condition built in that one or both of them would have to look to earn a little bit more if they required any of the Benefits that go into the UC? Is that correct?

Yes, but it's likely they'd be over the income limit anyway so they wouldn't be eligible. Do they get means tested benefits now?

zagfles

Sixer wrote: »

They will be expected to prove they are LOOKING for more or better paid work, rather than actually HAVING it. If you see what I mean.

Yes, this seems to be a point constantly missed by the "there are no jobs" brigade. You don't have to find work to satisfy the conditionality requirements, you just need to be looking for work.

I agree that a time of high unemployment is not a good time to be implementing something like this and I dislike many of the details - but broadly speaking, I'm in favour of the principles.

I dislike NMW. Either set it at a level that doesn't require welfare payments to top it up and risk higher unemployment, or scrap it altogether and risk failing to deal satisfactorily with exploitative employers.

One possible beneficial consequence: as people will need to at least TRY to work more, we may find full-time vacancies increase and the current proliferation of part-time vacancies decrease. Employers will be less incentivised to advertise part-time jobs and avoid employer NICs contributions (payable on over £136 per week) and employees will be much less keen to take them (due to conditionality in UC).

Yes... I never understood why there's an employer's threshold for NICs, especially one well above the LEL. Why not just a flat %?

Cynically I wonder if it was to encourage more part time jobs to lower the unemployment figures? Two 16 hour jobs takes 2 people off the unemployment figures, one 32 hour job only takes one off

seven-day-weekend

BigAunty wrote: »

Yes, sounds logical to me.

Those in full time employment use their free time outwith work to apply for their next positions...

Exactly. I don't see the problem either. You job seek in the evenings/weekends/ whenever you are not working!

seven-day-weekend

zagfles wrote: »

There are exceptions to conditionality eg for disability/health/caring responsibilities.



Yes, but it's likely they'd be over the income limit anyway so they wouldn't be eligible. Do they get means tested benefits now?

They have not been eligible to apply for any.

Marisco

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

Exactly. I don't see the problem either. You job seek in the evenings/weekends/ whenever you are not working!

That's fine if you're single, but if you have a family you'll have other commitments. You cannot spend all your time either in work or looking for work!

BigAunty

Marisco wrote: »

That's fine if you're single, but if you have a family you'll have other commitments. You cannot spend all your time either in work or looking for work!

So how do people currently in employment who have children find themselves a new role....?

Are you seriously saying that a move to UC should be abandoned because it's a bit tricky applying for a new job if you've already got a work commitment and a bit trickier if you've got kids, too....?!

Perhaps you want finely graded conditionality?

"If you are in part time employment, you must apply for 3 jobs a week, but if you are in a full time work placement, you only have to apply for 2 jobs a week. If you have work and child commitments, you must apply for 1 job a week unless you have 2+ kids in which case you are only required to spend 10 mins a month on a job search.."

I mean, so what if a household has commitments and constraints! Just get on with it.

Weary_soul

Marisco wrote: »

That's fine if you're single, but if you have a family you'll have other commitments. You cannot spend all your time either in work or looking for work!

No you can't, but then when were governments connected to how real people live their lives.

The whole idea is a farce If you ask me.

seven-day-weekend

Marisco wrote: »

That's fine if you're single, but if you have a family you'll have other commitments. You cannot spend all your time either in work or looking for work!

Whenever I wanted a new job, I managed to fill in the forms etc, and I had a family and work commitments. How do you think people manage?

Marisco

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

Whenever I wanted a new job, I managed to fill in the forms etc, and I had a family and work commitments. How do you think people manage?

If the conditions are as stringent as JSA (and I'm only going on what I have read on here re job searching, as it's donkeys since I claimed the dole) then quite a few people will be sanctioned! They have to prove they have tried for x number of jobs, willing to travel 90 mins each way etc, how can people with kids travel that amount of time for a second job? The cost of child care would be ridiculous, as maybe the partners work wouldn't "gel" with the other.

I used to leave the house at 8am and get home at 5.30 ish, would I be expected to then travel an hour and a half to go to another job? So when are people supposed to have some sort of life? Is that all there is to life, work? Thank god I'm retired! Maybe if employers paid living wages, there would be no need for all this juggling!!!

Weary_soul

Ah but you're forgetting the current government don't care about you're quality of life, they just want cheap expendable labour and nothing more.

The plebs work themselves to death for the rich. Ah, good old Victorian values make a return. *end sarcasm*