Low paid to be deemed as "not working enough"

Graham_Devon

And face having their universal credits cut.

Now, you'd think that this would mean people working 10 hours a week or so. But no, the government look to be planning to crack down on those earning up to £950 per month.....which equates to someone on minimum wage working roughly 32 hours a week.

I supported the tories when they took power, but frankly the support is dripping away day by day. To attack the low paid in such a way when allowing the massive expansion of zero hour contracts etc stinks.

Notice that again, it's all the employees fault and employees will get sanctioned, but nothing is said about the employers. How is an employee supposed to simply go out and get extra hours?

I used to think that people who stated the tories were for the rich were just stating it as a sign of hatred, but this simply appears to confirm those thoughts.

Ramp up house prices, sanction the removal of employee rights for the possibility of bonuses, sit by and watch zero hour contracts rise in popularity and then sanction the little man for not working enough... Thats progress!

Seems like another complete and utter bludner waiting to happen to me.

DWP internal documents seen by the Guardian reveal that people earning between £330 and around £950 a month – just under the rate of the national minimum wage for a 35-hour week – could be mandated to attend jobcentre meetings where their working habits will be examined as part of the universal credit programme.

Some of those deemed to be "not working enough" could also be instructed to take on extra training – and if they fail to complete tasks they could be stripped of their UC benefits in a move which departmental insiders conceded is controversial.

The DWP said that their overall plans for those in low-paid work were not yet definite and recognised that supporting working families to increase their income was a complex area into which the state hadn't previously intervened. But the department estimates there are one million people in this lower-paid bracket.

Not all of those will be forced into jobcentres, with individuals with caring responsibilities or other constraints preventing them taking on full-time work highly likely to be excluded.

The DWP said: "There isn't any real clear, definite plan as to how this [part] would work."

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/sep/06/uk-lowest-paid-classed-not-working-enough

Going4TheDream

The important question is how will it be fairly administered and how much will local/personal circumstances be taken into account of which this article says nothing, so this seems a bit scaremongering from the lefty Guardian.

I personally see nothing wrong for example with a married family man (wife not working/ 2 kids type of thing) who works 25hrs a week and gets some form of benefit being encouraged to look for a 40 hr a week job, even if his total over all income from working alone doesn't increase. (but it shouldnt be less than he gets on benefits and work)

I wouldnt however like to see a single mum of young children be expected to work 40 hrs a week when they already work 25hrs and around school hrs etc .

I suspect this is more about changing attitudes to benefits than money saving really and is it wrong to perhaps challenge the attitudes that have developed over the last 15 odd years where we just hand out money without any expectations, and that people who can, should try and work a little more?

Graham_Devon

So someone should work 40 hours for the same income as working 25 hours?

What for exactly? It's not going to save anyone any money, not going to be positive for anyone and only serves to punish.

Thrugelmir

Graham_Devon wrote: »

.which equates to someone on minimum wage working roughly 32 hours a week.

Where's the incentive to work? Or to force employers to employ people on full time contracts of 35/37.5/40 hours per week.

There's a culture that Brown instigated that needs to be reversed. Allowance should be made within the tax system to provide a living wage. As it's not just the cost of the benefits, but the costs of the army of public sector workers that employed administering them. Tax free pay allowance of £12k would be a start.

Going4TheDream

Graham_Devon wrote: »

So someone should work 40 hours for the same income as working 25 hours?

What for exactly? It's not going to save anyone any money and only serves to punish.

If they are receiving top up benefits that allows them to work only 25hrs but they 'could' work 40hrs and they will be no worse of working the 40hrs then why not? How is this punishing anyone? How many people that dont rely on any form of benefit get up and do this everyday?

I recall when WTC (or whatever it was called ) came in and people worked out they could drop hours and actually work less hours for the same money and be 'subsidised' by top up benefits that many people clamoured to do exactly that. You only have to read some of the threads at the time of other boards to see this. Surely it shouldn't be about personal choice if you are relying on some form of benefit?

I understand that it is difficult in the job market and not everyones personal circumstances will allow them to work a full time job
but the point is shouldn't people be encouraged to work full time if they genuinely can?

Graham_Devon

Going4TheDream wrote: »

If they are receiving top up benefits that allows them to work only 25hrs but they 'could' work 40hrs and they will be no worse of working the 40hrs then why not? How is this punishing anyone? How many people that dont rely on any form of benefit get up and do this everyday?

I recall when WTC (or whatever it was called ) came in and people worked out they could drop hours and actually work less hours for the same money and be 'subsidised' by top up benefits that many people clamoured to do exactly that. You only have to read some of the threads at the time of other boards to see this. Surely it shouldn't be about personal choice if you are relying on some form of benefit?

I understand that it is difficult in the job market and not everyones personal circumstances will allow them to work a full time job
but the point is shouldn't people be encouraged to work full time if they genuinely can?

Ahhh right, I see what you mean now.

The hours though isn't the point. It's how much is earned. Full time or part time doesn't matter.

Whether people can jack in one job and find another job, possibly paying less per hour but paying more hours is the issue. If they can't, they will see their benefits cut. Considering the jobs market at the moment, this seems quite an underhand way to sanction the poorer in society.

The absolute key point to this is that employers are not even mentioned here. The sanctions fall on the employee, the person who has the smallest voice in all of this.

Unless you force employers to pay a living wage, you are going to apply sanctions to people for applying sanctions sake, as with the best will in the world, there aren't enough jobs for all these people to fill.

Ironically, nearly half the DWP workforce will face to possibility of sanctioning their colleagues based on the hours offered and the workforce base. So even the very department suggesting this scheme falls into the pit of employers not offering the level of pay and hours to suffice. A large proportion of the DWP staff are on 30 hours (according to a source I read not long back) paying just over minimum wage. So they will find themselves sanctioning each other.

The NHS is also notourious for part time admin jobs, so many working in the NHS will fall foul.

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

.

The absolute key point to this is that employers are not even mentioned here. The sanctions fall on the employee, the person who has the smallest voice in all of this.

The absolute key point is that it is a poorly written article about a half described proposal with no detail of how it would actually work.

Graham_Devon

CLAPTON wrote: »

The absolute key point is that it is a poorly written article about a half described proposal with no detail of how it would actually work.

Well, considering the DWP state:

The DWP said: "There isn't any real clear, definite plan as to how this [part] would work."

I'd assume it would be quite difficult to discuss how it would work. They haven't denied anything stated in the "poorly written article" though.

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Well, considering the DWP state:

I'd assume it would be quite difficult to discuss how it would work. They haven't denied anything stated in the "poorly written article" though.

so it's a proposal being worked on that may or may not be implemented?

MFW_ASAP

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Ahhh right, I see what you mean now.

The hours though isn't the point. It's how much is earned. Full time or part time doesn't matter.

Ahhh, then you don't see what G4TD means.

The hours are the point. If someone can work full time hours, but chooses to work part time hours, should they receive benefits to 'top up' the income they have lost by not working full-time?

I can't believe you think so.

chewmylegoff

At least it shows they're thinking about how to address the fact that the current system actively disincentivises some part time workers from working full time.