Job Fears: I am about to become part of the working poor?

Okydoky25

Martynb_ wrote: »

You see, I would do this job voluntarily. Yes! Voluntarily. But if it meant working to keep me in poverty then I'd rather not take the job. There's a difference between not taking a job and not wanting to work. I want to work. But I want to make it work, or else just what is the point? If the point is that I must work even if it means that I will be financially worse off, then they should enshrine that in law and not let these Marie Antoinettes on the internet (and elsewhere) throw insults at us.

Bit late on this thread and may have been covered but OP have you in the last two years done any voluntary work?

Also I thought benefits were there for those who can't find work soif the op decides it's not worth his while will the benefits not be cut which in turn would mean it was I fact worthwhile for the op to tke the job because in reality he should be a lot worse of when he's got no job OR Benefits?

princessdon

sniggings wrote: »

instead of throwing out a line that we have all heard before how about sticking to the facts here, he is on £72 a week, unless you reduce his rent to less than he needs to rent somewhere how much do you suggest should £72 be reduced by to make this job worth while?

How about paying a decent wage for a days work, £6.08ph is a joke.

No the joke is that he gets £71 ppw - plus £100 pw rent plus other benefits (ct, free dental, free prescriptions etc)

And if you are using the £71 pw as benefit figure - then he is £140 + a week better off

princessdon

sniggings wrote: »

Even if someone pays the full fees of £9000 the tax payer is still subsidising most degrees.

Really - do you have a source on that?

Even if true given I have paid tax since 16

Then again depends on the term tax payer doesn't it? Eg if someone says "I pay for your uni" and receives tax credits/dla/ca etc at a much higher rate than they contribute - then is it the ex student who now pays tax who pays for the food on their table?


Btw genuinely interested - the people who support not working for £180 pw over benefits - are you claiming benefits or do you really have that amount of empathy? I can't find it to advise someone to turn down a full time job because it doesn't pay a high wage who is reliant on benefits.

HappyMJ

Okydoky25 wrote: »

Bit late on this thread and may have been covered but OP have you in the last two years done any voluntary work?

Also I thought benefits were there for those who can't find work soif the op decides it's not worth his while will the benefits not be cut which in turn would mean it was I fact worthwhile for the op to tke the job because in reality he should be a lot worse of when he's got no job OR Benefits?

You can refuse to take work if it leaves you worse off and the decision will not affect any means tested benefits. A claimant would have to do a better off calculation with the jobcentre to prove that they would be worse off.

princessdon

HappyMJ wrote: »

You can refuse to take work if it leaves you worse off and the decision will not affect any means tested benefits. A claimant would have to do a better off calculation with the jobcentre to prove that they would be worse off.

Oh so op could be sanctioned as clearly he is better off?

Hiccups_2

sniggings wrote: »

instead of throwing out a line that we have all heard before how about sticking to the facts here, he is on £72 a week, unless you reduce his rent to less than he needs to rent somewhere how much do you suggest should £72 be reduced by to make this job worth while?

How about paying a decent wage for a days work, £6.08ph is a joke.

I haven't read the whole thread but just thought I'd join in with the debate. The problem with pushing up the minimum wage is that it would drive up inflation, making the whole economy less competitive (compared to other countries) and would probably lead to failing businesses and more job cuts when people decide to outsource. Some low skilled work is simply not "worth" the higher wage.

However, I don't think the OP's issue is about not having enough money because as I think he stated, he is £30 better off. His issue is that after having to do nothing to get that money, he now suddenly has to do something to earn that money. So this is about his own perception of the the effort he has to put in and the value of that money.

I don't think there's an argument for reducing the level of benefits, but cases like the one above might suggest that benefits should be time limited, which happens in other countries, so that there is always an impetus to get back into work and for work to be seen as the only way to sustain a guaranteed income. I bet the level of entrepreneurship in countries with restricted benefits is much higher than it is here.

Of course, some people will be genuinely affected by not being able to find work after the time period and in those cases perhaps help could be given on a discretionary basis with more assistance to get into work or a voluntary position.

The housing market and high rents (buy to let landlords) also need to be re-aligned. Unfortunately, it seems the current situation regarding people's reluctance to gain employment (through fear of losing additional benefits) is also pushing up rents, because it is a guaranteed source of income for landlords. The housing market is overinflated and seems in part to be subsidised by the state.

IMO, there should be a cap on the rent (paid by the state) to landlords, then the landlord can choose to either have an empty property or accept a lower rent from someone on benefits. In theory, this would assert a downward pressure on rent and demand for properties.

Also, to the OP, I don't think a fitness instructor would need to be "active" all day. Surely, most of the time would be spent "supervising" and assisting people on gym equipment rather than using the equipment yourself?

kingfisherblue

Assuming that the OP's potential job is in St. Helens, where he lives, and referring to cycling to work and back - although it is a reasonably sized town, it isn't vast. I live on the southernmost side of St. Helens and my in laws on the northernmost side - a total of eight miles. So cycling to work and back doesn't sound unreasonable to save public transport costs (which are silly, IMO, unless you buy a monthly pass - and it might be possible for the JC to help with the purchase of one for the first month).

Also, wouldn't the OP receive a 'back to work' payment, to help with work clothes? And possibly a weekly payment as well as he has been unemployed for a long period of time? (or have I dreamt that?)

t0rt0ise

I think the OP has probably become one of the institutionalised unemployed. So it's just a matter of doing something different, no matter if he'll be better off, it's the difference that makes him feel uncomfortable. It's also why people stay in awful jobs and just moan about it instead of applying for other jobs to get out.. they are institutionalised and afraid of change.

So the OP should know that he'd soon get into a new routine and find that it becomes the norm for him after a couple weeks and he should just take the plunge and do it.

dandelionclock30

I think really employers need to be paying a decent wage not expecting people to continue to live in poverty really. The NMW is taking the pXXX really and needs to be higher to make it worthwhile for people.
If OP wants to wait to get something a bit better paid then you cant blame him really. I can see his point of view.
Instead of having a go at the poorest in society perhaps look at the scumbag employers who treat employees like rubbish and expect them to put up with working often in difficult jobs for crap pay.

SandC

If OP you were to get that job the possibilities for the future are endless....

You may meet the love of your life in that gym. Maybe she works there, maybe she's a customer. Either way she wouldn't even cross your path if you are jobless. When that love of your life wants to live with you, even if she's on min wage too then your household income goes up to £24k and the bills will be shared. She might have worked at other gyms and still have contacts and knowledge of better things coming up..... if she's a member she might still have those contacts. Working at the gym you'll be right there in the thick of the new 'thing' and that gym might just pay for your further training... or subsidise it.....

I know this is just blabbing on but it's just one teeny scenario that won't happen if you're sitting at home.