Low paid to be deemed as "not working enough"

chucky

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.

At least you've tried to make a complete song and dance about absolutely nothing then. Thanks for confirming.

chucky

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.

But at least it created a new thread on a bad day for bad economic news.

MacMickster

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.

A person capable of working full time, but currently only working 25 to 30 hours should have to demonstrate that they are actively seeking another job which is full-time before receiving financial support from taxpayers.

If they choose to only work 25 to 30 hours and then expect to have their income topped up by the taxpayer or government borrowing , surely taxpayers should have the right to question that choice.

Graham_Devon

MacMickster wrote: »

A person capable of working full time, but currently only working 25 to 30 hours should have to demonstrate that they are actively seeking another job which is full-time before receiving financial support from taxpayers.

If they choose to only work 25 to 30 hours and then expect to have their income topped up by the taxpayer or government borrowing , surely taxpayers should have the right to question that choice.

I agree.

But what happens when the person is not making an active choice to work said hours or for said pay?

You can only take the jobs that are on offer. If you can't get a job paying enough hours, or paying enough money to pass the threshold laid out, is that a choice?

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I agree.

But what happens when the person is not making an active choice to work said hours or for said pay?

You can only take the jobs that are on offer. If you can't get a job paying enough hours, or paying enough money to pass the threshold laid out, is that a choice?

maybe the answer is here

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."

Loughton_Monkey

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I agree.

But what happens when the person is not making an active choice to work said hours or for said pay?

You can only take the jobs that are on offer. If you can't get a job paying enough hours, or paying enough money to pass the threshold laid out, is that a choice?

Not sure I understand what you mean by "active choice".

Someone offers me a job, so I take it. That's a choice.
He then comes and tells me I'm only needed for 16 hours, rather than 35. I then have to make another choice... take it or leave it. So I take it. That's my choice.

Although I wouldn't use the term "active choice" myself, they were all deliberate decisions I made. Is this what you mean by 'active choice'?

If I keep my head down. Work my 16 hours. Claim Universal Credit. Don't look in the paper for job adverts. Don't go down the job centre to enquire about other jobs. Don't write to other employers with my CV.... then this is also a choice, just as 'active' as above. In a sense, I have 'chosen' inactivity on the job seeking front. It's almost certain that nobody is going to tap me on the shoulder out of the blue one day and say "Oi. Want a full time job?"

My feeling is that in these circumstances I would be 'bang to rights' from the DWP viewpoint.

Apart from slavery, I cannot imagine circumstances in which anyone could be "not making an active choice to work said hours.....". Everyone has a choice to chuck it in or stick with it don't they? Difficult choice sometimes, I agree. Least of the evils and all that. But if you don't like part time, you should be looking for full time just as hard as if you were out of work completely. Not just claiming benefits to make up the difference.

Going4TheDream

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I agree.

But what happens when the person is not making an active choice to work said hours or for said pay?

You can only take the jobs that are on offer. If you can't get a job paying enough hours, or paying enough money to pass the threshold laid out, is that a choice?

Not making an active choice will likely result in the said/proposed sanctions.

Not being able to find a job with extra hours but being able to prove you have tried may well not.

Therein lies the difference, as I have said all along Graham, this proposal seems more about the suggestion that people who 'can' work longer hours due to their circumstances will be 'encouraged' to do so, and in the face of things is that so bad?

We check peoples eligibilty for existing benefits now - review of HB etc every so many months etc, is this really any different?

MacMickster

This seems a good summary, and all seems very reasonable to me.

Claimant commitment
UC has four sets of conditionality requirements according to your individual capability and circumstances.

1.no work-related requirements
2.work-focused interview requirement only
3.work preparation requirement
4.all work-related requirements
If you have a partner you may be placed in a different conditionality group to your partner - for example if one of you has responsibility for a child or is caring for a severely disabled person.

No work-related requirements
You will be placed in this group if you:

are earning above your individual threshold – This is the amount that you would earn at the hourly rate of the national minimum wage if you worked 35 hours a week (or less if you not expected to work as many hours - for example if you have caring responsibilities).
have limited capability for work and work-related activity element (LCWRA)
you receive the carer element or are providing care for a severely disabled person for at least 35 hours a week
are responsible for a child under the age of one
have reached the qualifying age for state pension credit
are pregnant and it is 11 weeks or less before the expected date of birth of your baby
were pregnant and it is 15 weeks or less since the date of birth of your baby
are an adopter (this is for up to one year after adoption)
are aged 16-21, without parental support and are in full time non-advanced education
Work-focused interview requirement only
If you are in this group you will be required to stay in touch with the labour market through attending work focused interviews. You will not be required to apply for or take up a job or engage in work preparation activity. You will be placed in this group if:

you are a parent of a child aged between one and five
you are a responsible foster parent for a child aged at least one
you are a foster parent and a qualifying young person has care needs which make it difficult for you to meet a higher conditionality
See the student section for the definition of qualifying young person.

Work preparation requirement
If you are placed in this group you will be expected to prepare for a move into work, additional work, or better paid work though you will not be required to take steps to apply for or take up this work as a condition of your claim. You will be placed in this group if you are assessed as having a limited capability for work.

Work preparation includes:

attending a skills assessment
improving personal presentation
participating in training
participating in an employment programme
undertaking work experience or a work placement
developing a business plan
taking part in a work-focused health-related assessment

All work-related requirements
If you are in this group you will be required to look for and be available for work. You will usually be expected to look for full time work of 35 hours a week but this can be less in certain circumstances, for example if you have caring responsibilities or have physical or mental health problems.

http://www.disabilityrightsuk.org/universal-credit-uc

The principles of Universal Credit are good. As usual however, the government and DWP will !!!!-up the implementation of it.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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!

It's a nice rant but in principle I assume you don't object to the taxpayer having an expectation that benefit recipients will be taking steps to become independent of taxpayer subsidy?

N1AK

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.

We're talking about them being asked to attend a meeting and/or asked to go on training which it appears will be provided for them. You start your post with a false statement about facing having their benefits cut which immediately harms your credibility.

I'm afraid I don't take particular umbridge at the idea that someone who is asking for money from the government can be asked to try and better themselves so they don't continue to require money that could otherwise be spent on education, infrastructure etc.

I dislike many things about conservatives, while apparently being one of a small group who voted for them because of Cameron and the hope he could modernise them; asking for something in return for the billions we give out in benefits isn't one of the things on that list.