universal credit sanctions.

lovinituk

BigMac400 wrote:

What if someone has had a low stress min wage job for years now that they love but are not getting the hours or income that UC require? They will really be put under pressure to work more, sounds cruel.

So they are already working, but have to be like all those people signing on and prove they are looking for more work?

Benefits shouldn't be there to enable anyone to live a cushy comfortable life. People need to understand that if want higher hand outs they need to work for it. If they choose they don't want to and would rather stick to their cushy job then they need to learn to live off those wages.

SailorSam

IDS was on the Bbc NW news earlier, the reporter was trying to ask him about all the faults in the system with claimants complaining; the unions; the staff who had to administer it and even Govt departments. As usual he said he didn't recognise there was anything wrong and it was so easy for the odd bad report to give the wrong impression. He said there was another Govt report due out tomorrow and he was sure it would now say the system is working well.
I'll look out for that tomorrow.

lovinituk

BigMac400 wrote: »

At the moment there are countless families with one or both parents working near min wage jobs total hours less than 35wk.

So when UC hits their area, they will suddenly be pressured to get more hours or more pay?

And why the hell not? Many people who don't get benefits work far more than 35 hours a week. Why should those on benefits and fit to work be any different?

Benefits should only be there for the people that actually NEED them, not for those that WANT them just so they can work less hours.

BigMac400

SailorSam wrote: »

IDS was on the Bbc NW news earlier, the reporter was trying to ask him about all the faults in the system with claimants complaining; the unions; the staff who had to administer it and even Govt departments. As usual he said he didn't recognise there was anything wrong and it was so easy for the odd bad report to give the wrong impression. He said there was another Govt report due out tomorrow and he was sure it would now say the system is working well.
I'll look out for that tomorrow.

"He said there was another Govt report due out tomorrow and he would make sure it would now say the system is working well."

SailorSam

BigMac400 wrote: »

"He said there was another Govt report due out tomorrow and he would make sure it would now say the system is working well."

He couldn't actually say that, even though it may be true.

BigMac400

keaton wrote: »

I've found this, though its very complicated, to me atleast-
http://refuted.org.uk/2014/02/27/housingelementsanctions/

Just shows what a mess UC is turning out to be, its failed before its even started.

bloolagoon

You do realise that 35 hours a week is part time. If no disabilities or young children why not look for more hours?

Bogof_Babe

bloolagoon wrote: »

You do realise that 35 hours a week is part time. If no disabilities or young children why not look for more hours?

Is it? 9.00-5.00 with an hour for lunch, five days a week, was considered full time when I was working.

bloolagoon

Bogof_Babe wrote: »

Is it? 9.00-5.00 with an hour for lunch, five days a week, was considered full time when I was working.

37.5 hours is the minimum I know of. Most are 40 hours. 8.30 - 5 or 9- 5.30

Bogof_Babe

bloolagoon wrote: »

37.5 hours is the minimum I know of. Most are 40 hours. 8.30 - 5 or 9- 5.30

Depends on the type of job I suppose. 35 hours was the norm for office work.