Low paid to be deemed as "not working enough"

N1AK

chucky wrote: »

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

I'm not sure if I should be flattered or concerned

I've been on a bit of a crusade the last few days about debating methods; I started to notice my posts were moving away from discussion and towards snide remarks and sound-bites and that disappointed me. We're not all sworn enemies and I think the forum would be 'better' if we remember that (hopelessly naive as that sounds).

wotsthat

N1AK wrote: »

I've been on a bit of a crusade the last few days about debating methods; I started to notice my posts were moving away from discussion and towards snide remarks and sound-bites and that disappointed me. We're not all sworn enemies and I think the forum would be 'better' if we remember that (hopelessly naive as that sounds).

You might be pointing out the flaws in Graham's logic in a nicer way but doesn't it just fascinate you how someone can take the blandest article and transform it, using only the power of a vivid imagination, into a full government policy with worked examples of exactly how it would be administered in practice?

Graham_Devon

From the unemployment figures today...

However, the number of people in part-time work rose to 1.45 million, the highest since records began in 1992 and double the number of five years ago.

Almost a third of men working part-time were doing so because they could not find full-time employment. The corresponding figure for women was 13.5%.

Therefore I'm unsure that people can simply go out and find extra work.

My issue is with sanctioning people who cannot find extra work, as that's what the article implies. I guess the only way to find out if this will be the case or not, and whether it's just a jouranlist we should ignore, is to wait and find out.

But certainly the bedroom reforms caught a lot of people who did actually require a second bedroom. Though I agreed overall with the bedroom policy.

Conrad

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Therefore I'm unsure that people can simply go out and find extra work.

Here in the S/E I hear people making this claim on London radio phone-in's and yet you also get callers, quite often with East European and African accents claiming they and their compatriots find work with ease.

At the same time the whingers phone-in to say there is no work in London, I can walk down roads in London where 'staff required' signs are in many windows.


Honestly, a lot of Brits are workshy and hide behind posting out a few CV's rather than getting off their butts and going into those shops with those signs in them. Furthermore the hand-out me, me, 'everyone's a star / a winner' culture (my own kids teachers repeat this to all the children) causes many natives to consider a dish washers position is beneath them whereas when I started work in the late 80's many of us took such jobs when studying and in our early working lives. I once took a job assembling cardboard boxes for Rimmel lipstick. Claiming from the social was never on our radars, just unthinkable. Another job we did was putting together hail bails on a farm in return for small money and a sausage sarnie for lunch. Just the sorts of jobs Poles welcome now.

Furthermore if Poles can cross continents why cannot someone get on their bike and go where the work is just as past generations managed to, despite personal difficulty? Again the entitlements and me me handouts culture runs deeply in some and there's no way they will put themselves out. Back then you had no choice but to help one another out, for example Gran looking after the kids during the week, but the welfare state caused these relationships to become far less important and instead the hand-out self absorbed culture to rise up.

There is not a jobs ceiling, work begets work - the more who fill the current vacancies, the more new jobs are created due to demand.

All my life the left have told us there aren't enough jobs. 5 millions immigrants prove otherwise. One day we'll all grow up and stop[ falling for lefty myths.

ALIBOBSY

I do wonder what will happen in couples where one partner only works part time to fit around the children. I know there are allowances with children under 5, but what if you are doing school runs for older children. I believe for society as a whole it would be bad news for more "latchkey" kids or kids in "paid care". Surely its better for a child to be cared for by a parent (excluding parents who perhaps aren't taking proper care of the children-but that's an issue for social services).

Sadly like all the cuts this is just another way to help those at "the top" hold onto more cash, whilst the gap between rich and poor grows. TBH no other party has any better ideas either. The reality is the west live in a rich world boosted by oil and the industrial revolution. As the oil goes the chances of each boom in the economic cycle getting back to the previous high is lessoned.

But that's a bigger much more complex argument lol.

I wonder how this issue was dealt with in the UC launch areas?
We are discussing something which is basically speculation tbh.

Ali x

Loughton_Monkey

Graham_Devon wrote: »

....Therefore I'm unsure that people can simply go out and find extra work.

For once I agree. It is not 'simple'. But that doesn't have anything to do with the debate. Work generally comes to those who look for it actively. In my experience, being unemployed and looking for a job is, in itself, very hard and only comes with much time and effort.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

....My issue is with sanctioning people who cannot find extra work, as that's what the article implies. I guess the only way to find out if this will be the case or not, and whether it's just a jouranlist we should ignore, is to wait and find out.

.. as that's what the article implies to you. To just about everyone else, it means that to claim job-seeking related benefits, one needs to satisfy DWP that they are taking enough action. You think it applies to those who "cannot find" work.

Why do you make things like this up?

MFW_ASAP

wotsthat wrote: »

doesn't it just fascinate you how someone can take the blandest article and transform it, using only the power of a vivid imagination, into a full government policy with worked examples of exactly how it would be administered in practice?

Exactly, hence my earlier remarks (ignored by Devon either because he didn't want to answer the question or just didn't understand it):

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

What will?

He's the King of the frothers. Kinda tragically funny really. I wonder if he's such a drama queen in real-life? Can you imagine the scene if the milkman is late, it'd be something out of Macbeth! :rotfl:

N1AK

ALIBOBSY wrote:

I do wonder what will happen in couples where one partner only works part time to fit around the children. I know there are allowances with children under 5, but what if you are doing school runs for older children. I believe for society as a whole it would be bad news for more "latchkey" kids or kids in "paid care". Surely its better for a child to be cared for by a parent (excluding parents who perhaps aren't taking proper care of the children-but that's an issue for social services).

I also agree. However what I take exception to is the idea that my wife and I, who could not afford for one of us to give up working and bring up children in a way we'd be happy with, be expected to pay £20k in tax and NI so that someone else can choose not to work and get paid by the state to stay at home with their child. The current system is a discouragement to financially stable people to have children (paying more tax leaving less income) and an incentive to have children for people who can't afford it.

Anyone who works hard and earns a reasonable income has to make a sacrifice in order to stay at home with their children, why should people who don't be rewarded for it?

ALIBOBSY

Actually found my answer on the citizens advice site, it is made clear that for children under 5 you won't be pushed to work more hours and for children up to 13 you would be allowed to work/look for work for "school hours" only-it even allows for school run time.

It appears from the CA site that if you fall in the group who have to attend for a meeting there will be some sort of chance to negotiate limiting your hours based on caring issues.

Still not much info about the self employed. TBH people who are "really" self employed as opposed to those making declarations to qualify for the benefits would be happy to accept the tax credits assuming you earn at least a min full time wage.

If you get a bad month or even quarter then you would have to live on a lower income or decide to look for different/extra work.

Ali x

N1AK

Graham_Devon wrote:

My issue is with sanctioning people who cannot find extra work, as that's what the article implies. I guess the only way to find out if this will be the case or not, and whether it's just a jouranlist we should ignore, is to wait and find out.

The article doesn't imply anyone will be sanctioned because they don't find additional work GD, it says that they might be asked to attend a meeting, and then they might be asked to attend training. The only people who will face sanctions are those that refuse.

The Guardian is already a pretty anti-austerity and benefit cuts source. They had already emphasised the case against this measure. When you take a source like that and then further up the rhetoric what we end up with is something that likely doesn't represent the reality.