Low paid to be deemed as "not working enough"

N1AK

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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?

Did anything, anything at all, in the Guardian article, or anything else you've read, say that people would have their benefits cut if they can't find a job paying more?

We all know the answer is no, you did not. So why make statements that imply that's what this means when you can surely see it'll be picked up on and focused upon in responses?

If you avoid attempting to mislead, and hyperbole, then we could discuss the actual policy. Personally I'm not entirely sure about the idea. It seems that we could be putting unnecessary pressure on people already doing considerable work and with little prospect of change when arguably we should be looking at how we structure benefits and tax to ensure they'd be better off working more first. That said, if you're working 20 hours a week and claiming more in benefits than you're earning then I think it is entirely acceptable, even desirable, that you be expected to try and earn more.

N1AK

Loughton_Monkey wrote:

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.

Really good post LM. Nice to be able to thank it for once because you didn't feel the need to sneak any insults in there :beer:

duchy

Where it may get farcical is where you have someone working lets say as a classroom assistant as I did- my contract was 5 hours a day 5 days a week. Total 25 hours - Contract 1 Sept to 31 August and paid monthly so at minimum wage or just above with pay averaged out over the 12 months the pay falls below the threshold with ease.

There's no extra hours available as most TAs work class contact hours -eg start after form time/ assembly ....so 9.30 to 3.30 or 10 til 4 with an unpaid hour for lunch.

The TA would be expected to attend meetings to work out how to increase their hours, if in term time how would they do that without taking time off (unpaid so a bit self defeating). Can't see a JC saying you can choose when your interview is.
Would it mean that TAs (and other school support staff) could only be people with dependent responsibilities ? Are schools expected to spend resources training staff only to have them forced to leave once their dependent responsibilities cease ?

Not very practical is it .

Another issue would be - if you've worked for a company long enough to have job security - and move to a fulltime job - you have two years during which an employer can at any time choose to "let you go" without reason. So you could have someone with say ten year's service - move to meet the new requirements ...and be unemployed within months.

Whilst I do believe there need to be better incentives to encourage working-there needs to be 1 Jobs and 2 Common sense -I'm not seeing much of either with this scheme.

chucky

N1AK wrote: »

Did anything, anything at all, in the Guardian article, or anything else you've read, say that people would have their benefits cut if they can't find a job paying more?

We all know the answer is no, you did not. So why make statements that imply that's what this means when you can surely see it'll be picked up on and focused upon in responses?

If you avoid attempting to mislead, and hyperbole, then we could discuss the actual policy. Personally I'm not entirely sure about the idea. It seems that we could be putting unnecessary pressure on people already doing considerable work and with little prospect of change when arguably we should be looking at how we structure benefits and tax to ensure they'd be better off working more first. That said, if you're working 20 hours a week and claiming more in benefits than you're earning then I think it is entirely acceptable, even desirable, that you be expected to try and earn more.

Stop being beastly to Devon.

N1AK

duchy wrote:

Where it may get farcical is where you have someone working lets say as a classroom assistant as I did- my contract was 5 hours a day 5 days a week. Total 25 hours - Contract 1 Sept to 31 August and paid monthly so at minimum wage or just above with pay averaged out over the 12 months the pay falls below the threshold with ease.

But what's the alternative? Just leave someone who is working 25 hour weeks with ~13 weeks holiday a year to continue to claim large amounts of benefits...

You raise some good points about things like ensuring the meetings don't get in the way of work; though we don't know if the proposal will cover that anyway.

The school wouldn't be expected to provide the training as it would be arranged through the benefits services. I don't have any issue with the idea that if schools want to keep good teaching assistants then they should stop cutting back the hours and payment terms for them.

CLAPTON

duchy wrote: »

Where it may get farcical is where you have someone working lets say as a classroom assistant as I did- my contract was 5 hours a day 5 days a week. Total 25 hours - Contract 1 Sept to 31 August and paid monthly so at minimum wage or just above with pay averaged out over the 12 months the pay falls below the threshold with ease.

There's no extra hours available as most TAs work class contact hours -eg start after form time/ assembly ....so 9.30 to 3.30 or 10 til 4 with an unpaid hour for lunch.

The TA would be expected to attend meetings to work out how to increase their hours, if in term time how would they do that without taking time off (unpaid so a bit self defeating). Can't see a JC saying you can choose when your interview is.
Would it mean that TAs (and other school support staff) could only be people with dependent responsibilities ? Are schools expected to spend resources training staff only to have them forced to leave once their dependent responsibilities cease ?

Not very practical is it .

Another issue would be - if you've worked for a company long enough to have job security - and move to a fulltime job - you have two years during which an employer can at any time choose to "let you go" without reason. So you could have someone with say ten year's service - move to meet the new requirements ...and be unemployed within months.

Whilst I do believe there need to be better incentives to encourage working-there needs to be 1 Jobs and 2 Common sense -I'm not seeing much of either with this scheme.

If the TA is claiming no tax payer funded benefits then that's absolutely fine; however the issue is, where they are receiving benefits that they would wouldn't receive if working a normal full week/year.

lazer

My mum works in a shop from 10am to 5 pm 5 days a week - with an hour for lunch so its a 30 hour week

As above when would she have the time to attend to job centre appointments - in theory it could be 9am but would that leave enough time to travel to work?

The problem is that there is not enough time and not enough staff at the DWP for everyone to meet.

But as for TA's - is there any reason they can't work during the summer break etc, they could attend the jobcentre during summer break.

If someone doesn't attend the jobcentre will there full Universal Credit be cut, if so - then I think its wrong, but what they can do is assume 35 hour week on minumum wage and base the tax credits on that instead of actual earnings.

System

What about people who could move to a higher-paid job, but choose to remain at a lower less demanding level because it suits their nature? Aren't they depriving the economy of their talents, and avoiding tax that ought to be levied from them according to their abilities?
Apart from taking a job from someone who couldn't get any better and would need it?

chucky

N1AK wrote: »

Did anything, anything at all, in the Guardian article, or anything else you've read, say that people would have their benefits cut if they can't find a job paying more?

We all know the answer is no, you did not. So why make statements that imply that's what this means when you can surely see it'll be picked up on and focused upon in responses?

If you avoid attempting to mislead, and hyperbole, then we could discuss the actual policy. Personally I'm not entirely sure about the idea. It seems that we could be putting unnecessary pressure on people already doing considerable work and with little prospect of change when arguably we should be looking at how we structure benefits and tax to ensure they'd be better off working more first. That said, if you're working 20 hours a week and claiming more in benefits than you're earning then I think it is entirely acceptable, even desirable, that you be expected to try and earn more.

I'm sending this post to Martin Lewis for post of the month on this forum.

N1AK

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

What about people who could move to a higher-paid job, but choose to remain at a lower less demanding level because it suits their nature? Aren't they depriving the economy of their talents, and avoiding tax that ought to be levied from them according to their abilities?
Apart from taking a job from someone who couldn't get any better and would need it?

A fair point, there is no definitive right answer on where to draw the line. I actually think it is a shame that we don't make the most of our human capital, however I think any interference in the job choices of people who aren't asking for anything from the government would be extremely unpopular and finding a way to do it would be extremely difficult.

That said, just because a case can be made for that but we don't do anything doesn't mean we shouldn't do anything at all. There's an expression for that: Letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.

If the best reason to not do something is that it isn't the perfect, but non-viable, solution then we should definintely do it.