Low paid to be deemed as "not working enough"

mazza111

The thing is though, a lot of hours are being cut all over the place, so someone may have started on a 40 hour week is now losing a day and down to 32 hours. I'm sure most decent family men would love to work 40 hour weeks, but in some places the job market is quite dire.

Don't get me started on zero hour contracts.

MFW_ASAP

mazza111 wrote: »

The thing is though, a lot of hours are being cut all over the place, so someone may have started on a 40 hour week is now losing a day and down to 32 hours. I'm sure most decent family men would love to work 40 hour weeks, but in some places the job market is quite dire.

Don't get me started on zero hour contracts.

Which was also raised by G4TD:

Going4TheDream wrote: »

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 remember in the 80s recession. My dad lost his job as an engineer and ended up having 2 jobs to make up his hours/money. They didn't all these tax credits and other benefits in those days so he didn't have the option to just take one job and have Joe Taxpayer pick up the slack.

mazza111

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

Which was also raised by G4TD:



I remember in the 80s recession. My dad lost his job as an engineer and ended up having 2 jobs to make up his hours/money. They didn't all these tax credits and other benefits in those days so he didn't have the option to just take one job and have Joe Taxpayer pick up the slack.

We had to move to the South East to find any work, just wasn't much up here at all back then. Think we've recovered a bit, but still high unemployment. I just wish I was still fit enough to work in all honesty.

Graham_Devon

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

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.

If someone chooses to work part time and earn less, using the fall back of benefits, then I'd have no issue with them being told to work more.

However, this will apply to far more than just that group of people.

It would apply, for instance, like I said, to some working a run of the mill 25-30 hour job in the NHS, who, therefore may have to find another job and leave the NHS job unless they accept the sanction. As it's unlikely they will be able to find a top up job at 2-5 hours a week to knock them over the threshold.

MFW_ASAP

Graham_Devon wrote: »

However, this will apply to far more than just that group of people.

What will?

antrobus

mazza111 wrote: »

The thing is though, a lot of hours are being cut all over the place, so someone may have started on a 40 hour week is now losing a day and down to 32 hours. I'm sure most decent family men would love to work 40 hour weeks, but in some places the job market is quite dire.

Don't get me started on zero hour contracts.

Doesn't look like it. Total weekly hours worked is 32 hours, up 2% on the year, but much the same as it has been for the past 10 years or so.

ruggedtoast

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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.

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

The clue is in the title though. Conservatives, what are they trying to conserve? Landed gentry, class divide, rich and poor, social division.

I'm not sure at it's core Toryism even allows for the possibility of a relatively equally distributed society. Not that Lab or Lib are much better, they all subscribe to the neo liberal model of trickle down.

Going4TheDream

Graham_Devon wrote: »

If someone chooses to work part time and earn less, using the fall back of benefits, then I'd have no issue with them being told to work more.

However, this will apply to far more than just that group of people.

It would apply, for instance, like I said, to some working a run of the mill 25-30 hour job in the NHS, who, therefore may have to find another job and leave the NHS job unless they accept the sanction. As it's unlikely they will be able to find a top up job at 2-5 hours a week to knock them over the threshold.

It [STRIKE]would [/STRIKE] could apply, depending on their circumstances for instance, like I said, to some working a run of the mill 25-30 hour job in the NHS, who, therefore may have to find another job and leave the NHS job unless they accept the sanction. As it's unlikely they will be able to find a top up job at 2-5 hours a week to knock them over the threshold.

There thats better and less dramatic, as the reality is we don't know how it will be applied and who it will be applied to and the criteria for it being applied, and if it will even happen at all. At this stage it is all assumption

Graham_Devon

Going4TheDream wrote: »

It [STRIKE]would [/STRIKE] could apply, depending on their circumstances for instance, like I said, to some working a run of the mill 25-30 hour job in the NHS, who, therefore may have to find another job and leave the NHS job unless they accept the sanction. As it's unlikely they will be able to find a top up job at 2-5 hours a week to knock them over the threshold

It would apply to some NHS workers.....

Same as saying "it could apply dependant on circumstances" isn't it? Just with less words...

Loughton_Monkey

Graham_Devon wrote: »

....But no, the government look to be planning to crack down on those earning up to £950 per month.....

It's time someone cracked down on sensationalist journalism as penned by the Guardian, and also cracked down on those idiots who exaggerate it.

The clue is in the 'truth' bit that they slot in the middle to avoid being sued for libel:

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.

You see? Mandated to attend where they will be examined.

Why on earth do you believe:

One million of Britain's lowest paid employees will be classed as "not working enough" ...

Which is a bare faced lie.

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.

I think sensationalist journalism should be cracked down on.