to think most part-time workers don't know what's about to hit them?! (Universal Credit)

(1000 Posts)
aufaniae Thu 31-Jan-13 23:32:41

Do you work part-time and get Working Tax Credit or Housing Benefit?

Did you know that once you're on Universal Credit, you'll be expected to attend the Job Centre to prove that you're looking for better paid work / more hours, in much the same way as unemployed people must prove they're looking for work.

If the Job Centre find an interview for you, you will have to attend (with 48 hours notice) even if it clashes with your paid work.

If you are offered a job with more hours, or better pay than your current one, you will be obliged to take it, even if you have good reason for not wanting to e.g. it's only a temporary post (whereas your current one is permanent) / has no training & worse prospects than your current job / makes picking your children up from school impossible / requires you to travel much further / has nothing to do with the career you're following.

If you don't attend the interview and/or take the job, your UC will be sanctioned, you will lose the UC for months or even years (depending on if it's your first infraction).

You will be forced to continue "upgrading" your job until you earn the equivalent of minimum wage for 35 hours a week.

I suspect there are lots of people (e.g. parents who work part time so they can pick their kids up from school) who will be affected by this, but don't realise it yet.

More info here

pingu2209 Thu 31-Jan-13 23:34:41

Bang goes all the dinner ladies and teaching assistants

aufaniae Thu 31-Jan-13 23:37:07

It'll mean many employers won't want to offer part time jobs to people on UC, as they could at any time be forced to disappear to a "better" job, against their wishes and with little warning.

millie30 Thu 31-Jan-13 23:40:25

What about lone parents? Will they now have to work full time or will that be unchanged? It doesn't mention them in that article.

I think that very, very few benefit claimants have any idea at all about what's going to happen. There are going to be some desperate people out there. Bad times when foolish, ill thought out policies are allowed to start impacting on real people's lives.

caramelwaffle Thu 31-Jan-13 23:42:42

It is good that you are pointing this out.

One small point however; not all part-time jobs are low paid: it is the combination of part-time and low paid that will be affected.

aufaniae Thu 31-Jan-13 23:45:24

caramel I didn't have the space to put that in the title! But yes, it's just about part time work where the person is in receipt of WTC or HB (so low-paid or few hours by implication).

MildlyMiserable Thu 31-Jan-13 23:46:56

How will they be able to police this? Surely if this is true the job centres will no longer be able to advertise part time positions.

Softlysoftly Thu 31-Jan-13 23:47:01

What happens about joint claims ? So for eg 1 partner is pt but above the nmw threshold the other pt but below?

Will just the partner on lower paid pt be put through the Mill?

Bakingnovice Thu 31-Jan-13 23:47:32

Will it apply to single parents?

coribells Thu 31-Jan-13 23:50:42

I am a single parent , work part time 18 hours per week. My hourly rate works out around £15.00 per hour. I get a small amount of WTC . Not sure if ill be affected or not. Any idea?

shock this is news to me too.
I work P/T (3 days a week) but don't get WTC or H/B.
But there will be loads of people who work for the NHS ( like myself).It has alot of P?T workers, many working mothers.

If someone has to attend interviews or look for different hours, or different jobs, they would either end up changing hours to accomodate this (which if they have childcare to arrange would be difficult) or be in the situation of being fired in the extreme outcomes.

And the NHS now has to 'freeze' posts, so they aren't filled.(Not the way to improve things)
How the hell is this beneficial to anyone? angry

MooMooSkit Thu 31-Jan-13 23:51:51

I'm a single parent to, 16 hours a week, 6.46 per hour, will this effect me?

aufaniae Thu 31-Jan-13 23:52:48

This report from the Institute for Fiscal studies says:

"Most recipients (but not the seriously disabled or lone parents with
very young children) earning below a threshold will be subject to
conditionality (i.e. they will be required to take steps to prepare for
work, to look for work or to accept suitable job offers) under a regime
similar to, but probably tougher than, that which currently applies to
recipients of out-of-work benefits. "

I guess then, by omission all lone parents (except those with very young children) will be affected by this, along with all disabled people, except the most "seriously" disabled.

I don't know what their definition of "very young children" or "seriously disabled" is.

ItsAllGoingToBeFine Thu 31-Jan-13 23:55:49

Also anyone who is self-employed and claiming tax credits will also be very seriously affected.

johnnyvoid.wordpress.com/2012/06/23/universal-credit-self-employment-and-the-minimum-wage/

aufaniae Thu 31-Jan-13 23:56:56

"How the hell is this beneficial to anyone?"

It's supposed to incentivise us all to be less reliant on the state, by "encouraging" us to get "better" jobs. hmm

That there are not enough jobs to go round doesn't seem to matter in this equation.

Nor that people may be forced to quit jobs they have trained for many years for, which are valuable to society (e.g. part-time nurse) to take up dead-end jobs with better pay (full time shelf stacking).

Softlysoftly Thu 31-Jan-13 23:59:44

I actually agree with sorting out the benefits system but ffs why attack those that are in work trying? !

quoteunquote Fri 01-Feb-13 00:00:03

This is going to mean that companies will not make part time work available.

this is going to real hit the rural areas, where the job crisis is at it worst.

Roseformeplease Fri 01-Feb-13 00:02:06

I am not sure what is wrong with expecting people to try to work to provide for themselves? Surely, if you can work, you should work as much as possible and earn as much as you need. You can't expect the state to subsidise your choices. Yes, some people can't work for reasons including disability and lack of jobs but, if you can, you should. And being paid to stay at home is now a luxury that we can't afford. Many people, myself included, went back to / sought work when our children were 6 months old as we wanted to support our own families.

I don't get why we now live in a world where people feel they can get angry that the state doesn't have the cash / no longer wants to pay for them to stay at home. This kind of support for parents is only available in a wealthy country and we are broke. But we are lucky compared to people living in real poverty in some other European countries who are even more broke than we are (Greece, Spain etc).

aufaniae Fri 01-Feb-13 00:05:33

It's also going to mean some people end up totally destitute.

If you miss an interview (perhaps because you have an important day in your actual paying job) you will be sanctioned.

If you turn down a job because it's just not suitable (makes getting your kids from school impossible for example) you will be sanctioned.

Some people will find they have lost their UC for 3 years.

Ultimately it will lead to some families losing their homes and/or finding they are unable to make ends meet.

TheSecondComing Fri 01-Feb-13 00:07:22

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

aufaniae Fri 01-Feb-13 00:07:23

Rose can't you see it might not be a great benefit to society if a part-time nurse is forced out of her job, and made to go stack shelves instead?

Madlizzy Fri 01-Feb-13 00:07:43

Ah well, my DH is self employed and I work part time and we claim wtc so looks like we'll be fucked then.

sparklyjumper Fri 01-Feb-13 00:08:03

op what you are saying isn't strictly true. on phone so can't link but you need to be earning the equivalent of 24 hours at minimum wage for a child up to age 12

Shakirasma Fri 01-Feb-13 00:08:58

Looks like we are buggered then. DH is a self employed tradesman, I work 20 hours per week to fit in with the school day. I had fully expected to get a full time job when my youngest started school but he has ASD and it's better for him for me to be around before and after school.

I have worked for my employer for 4 years, earned a vast amount of experience in that rather unique business, earned a decent holiday allowance etc. There is nothing in the budget for extra hours, they are more focussed on cutting back.

I'm going to have to leave aren't I. sad

gallicgirl Fri 01-Feb-13 00:12:02

The trouble with that sweeping generalisation, Rose, is that often part time work suits other caring responsibilities.

If part time workers are forced to work more hours, assuming they can find jobs with more hours, then they will have to pay for child care, putting more demand on nurseries and pushing up prices, thus wiping out any pay increase from working extra hours.
it doesn't say anything about carers so elderly parents may be forced into expensive care homes creating an extra burden on the state.

Also many businesses need part time workers as they need the flexibility. The example was midday assistants - what is the school going to do with them for the rest of the day?

What about shops which are only busy at certain times of the day? They need staff to come in just for a few hours at peak times.

IAmNotAMindReader Fri 01-Feb-13 00:12:45

Universal credit will replace all the other benefits. ESA, JSA any form of tax credits etc. So if you get nay of those in any way it will affect you. The point is to massage as many people off Universal Credit in the same manner as JSA claimants currently are, with the same rules and sanction rights applying.
You will be expected to ask your current employer for more hours and you will be expected to seek more hours and prove it, much like unemployed claimants do.
You will expected to partake in job search review interviews and may even be eligible to be put in for workfare.
www.dwp.gov.uk/policy/welfare-reform/universal-credit/

https://johnnyvoid.wordpress.com/2012/11/11/give-up-work-workfare-new-dwp-guidelines/

The last link explains how the unclear wording of the government legislation could well lead to confusion and be interpreted in a way which means the advisor could threaten sanctions and leave the part time worker no choice but to leave their part time work for a mandatory work acitivity. However now you have voluntarily left your employment and have left youself open to up to 3 years worth of sanctions.

The objections are based around the governments heedless pressing ahead, regardless of objections without closing any of these grey areas and leaving an awful lot of scope for people to find themselves up shit creek depending on their advisors interpretation of the regulations.

Fanjango Fri 01-Feb-13 00:16:36

YANBU to get this mentioned! My oh has just secured a second job to keep us afloat but if he loses so much as an hour we could fall in this bracket. It's bloody scary what this Govt is doing and we, as a country, are sleepwalking towards the most draconian and negative change that any govt has made. With no proper madate it seems impossible to accept that they can do this, but they will and they are!

aufaniae Fri 01-Feb-13 00:17:32

sparklyjumper that's interesting, so are you saying the level for conditionality for a lone parent is 24 hours at minimum wage rather than 35 (up to age 12 of youngest child?)

Do you know where there's more info on that? (The computer I'm on atm is is not very well, googling takes ages!)

flaggybannel Fri 01-Feb-13 00:20:07

thanks for bringin this to peoples attention op!
I have been trying to explain what will be happening with uc to my co-workers and my manager and they either dont believe me or imagine i am making it up.
I have a permanant part-time job that offers training, plus i am a keyholder also the whisper is i would be offered promotion in a few years time when my supervisor retires. If i bailed out now to go to a full time position elsewhere , that may only last a couple or weeks i would end up unemployed at the end of the contract and with no chance of eventally being taken on full -time in my previous post.
I am worried. Very worried.

sparklyjumper Fri 01-Feb-13 00:22:02

I believe so yes, I'm on phone so can't look now as nets useless unless using an app. I think it's 16 hours at min wage until 5 to get the extra bit that would have been WTC, 24 hours.at min wage up to age 12. That's just for single parents. It's still a ridiculous idea that will never work in reality and sadly.I see some terrible times ahead.

pluCaChange Fri 01-Feb-13 00:22:55

But I keep seeing news report after news report on underemployment, in which people are working fewer hours than they'd like. Doesn't that mean there aren't the fuller-time jobs, at least for now? hmm

And why not go after zero-hours contracts first? Probably don't care enough to erase the impression of hypocrisy

Roseformeplease Fri 01-Feb-13 00:26:30

Too late for a bunfight but, what about self reliance? Pride? Doing things for our own families, not expecting others to work so we don't have to? I am happy to pay taxes to support the old, the sick and the weak. However, not sure why I am working supporting my children by working full time and paying for childcare and paying high taxes to support those who CHOOSE to stay at home with theirs. Mine are fortunate in not having ASD but I am not 100% sure that this alone should be a reason not to work and expect state support.

Also, if part time work is all that is available, yet you are encouraged to look for more hours / better pay, what is wrong with that? Why should you have a job that fits in with your child's schooling, paid for by my job which might not. I pay more taxes, you get more benefits - bene, from the Latin meaning good. So I get the hard work and you get the good times with your child. Surely, you should at least be encouraged to try to earn more and be more self-reliant?

sparklyjumper Fri 01-Feb-13 00:28:40

you know what rose, those who look down from a great height have the furthest to fall. Hope you never land on your arse

Clytaemnestra Fri 01-Feb-13 00:29:28

Some of the OP isn't true. For example, there is no way that someone could be forced into temporary work from a permanent role, that is specifically excluded. There are a lot of exemptions around carers and parents with children under 12 as well.

Actual doc is here if people are interested Download a PDF

TheSecondComing Fri 01-Feb-13 00:30:55

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

manicbmc Fri 01-Feb-13 00:31:34

How is anything 'paid for by your job', Rose? Most of us pay taxes just the same as you.

Have a biscuit

You have no idea how things are and how people are struggling.

LadyBeagleEyes Fri 01-Feb-13 00:33:15

I despair of this goverment, I really do.
I've always been 50/50 about Scottish Independence, but I honestly believe, under Cameron's policies, we will vote to leave the UK.
And that makes me sad, it shouldn't be the reason why I would vote for such a momentous decision.
But it is.

aufaniae Fri 01-Feb-13 00:35:39

Google finally cranked up and mumsnet was one of the links (we're everywhere! wink)

Mumsnet Universal Credit Guide

It says:

"Everyone must sign a claimant commitment to receive the basic element of universal credit. Refusal to sign will result in tough penalties; these are still being defined, but may include benefit being reduced or withdrawn for up to three years.
The claimant commitment is designed to show the claimant's willingness to work at short notice and that they are prepared to fulfil all requirements to get them closer to finding work or increasing their existing work hours."

It says the exemptions include lone parents with a child aged under one.

From age 1 to 5, lone parents will be required to attend "work-related interviews" to keep them "in touch" with the labour market.

From 5-13, lone parents need to be looking for and available to do any type of work within school hours. (I guess this is sparklyjumper's 24 hours).

Clytaemnestra Fri 01-Feb-13 00:35:51

Oh and this one is the bit which has the exemptions for children under 12 another pdf

Roseformeplease Fri 01-Feb-13 00:36:00

Been on my arse. Got myself up off it, got a job, made sure I could support myself. Watched my mother, dropped from enormous house with pool to tiny council house, feel sorry for herself aged 40, give up and accept a life on benefits. I believe very, very strongly as a result in the importance of paying your own way as a sure way of having respect for yourself and for others. A life lived expecting anyone else, state or private, to pay your way for you is a shit life. I have always, always worked one way or another and cannot understand anyone who expects to be subsidised to sit at home, work school hours only or have any of the luxuries that are the preserve of the very, very rich.

aufaniae Fri 01-Feb-13 00:36:13

The mumsnet guide also says:

"Particular areas of concern include fears that there will be harsh assessments of people with disabilities and those who are currently unable to work because of illness, that the new benefit cap will hit larger families and people who live in places where the cost of housing is high, as well as there being unrealistic expectations for lone parents with young children to go out to work."

...

"These requirements may be designed to help people into work, but the tough sanctions (fixed period sanctions of 91 days for the first failure; 128 days for the second failure, if it occurs within 52 weeks of the first; and three years for third and subsequent failures, if they occur within 52 weeks of the previous failure) mean that people will be forced into low-paid jobs."

...

"Creating a workforce that lives in fear of losing low-paid jobs may lead to abuses and erode employees' rights. The fact that universal credit will not top-up payments for claimants involved in pay disputes may indicate a bias towards the rights of the employer."

ValiumQueen Fri 01-Feb-13 00:37:38

Reading with interest but on phone so cannot read links. I am currently on mat leave from a permanent post. I have three young children and was hoping to cut my hours when I go back to work. Under tax credits I would be better off financially if I worked less hours due to childcare costs. I am waiting to see what would happen under UC and it is a very stressful time for me. Thank you for this thread.

Viviennemary Fri 01-Feb-13 00:37:49

It doesn't seem to be very clear exactly what is going to happen. And exactly how much people will lose in benefits. Will they actually lose benefits?

JockTamsonsBairns Fri 01-Feb-13 00:41:50

lady we must vote to get away from this!

Roseformeplease Fri 01-Feb-13 00:42:58

No job. I would move to where there are jobs. Look at the Spaniards currently frantically learning German to secure jobs, or the Poles moving all the way across Europe to secure a job, any job. These are the people I admire, the people who recognise that, ultimately, they are in charge of their own destinies and that they should not and cannot continue to be passive recipients of state support when the state has nothing left to support them with.

Not sure why you think I have no idea how things are. I live in an area with real poverty and yet the local work ethic is such that everyone works, when and where they can, even if only seasonally. Those who can't find work move away, start their own businesses or take whatever they can get their hands on. This attitude rubs off on their children who also get jobs, earn their own way and so it goes on.

IAmNotAMindReader Fri 01-Feb-13 00:44:36

That is the point Viviennemary This legislation is rolling out imminently and has so many unclear areas which a job centre advisor will have to interpret. This will mean the same set of circumstances may lead to a vastly different outcome depending on the advisors interpretation.
Claimants, Employers and those expected to advise and enforce this still don't know enough about it and its very late in the day with still no sign of clarity.

ValiumQueen Fri 01-Feb-13 00:45:29

Can anyone tell me what the requirements are for couples, do both have to be earning at that level?

CaseyShraeger Fri 01-Feb-13 00:46:50

Rose, did you grasp the bit where people are expected to chuck in PERMANENT part-time jobs to take TEMPORARY full-time minimum wage jobs (which could be seasonal work over Christmas, for example). So they'll go from taking a small amount of UC in their part-time job, to a couple of months of taking less UC in their full-time minimum wage jobs, to not having any job at all and taking shedloads of out-of-work benefit. I assume you'll have no problem working full time and paying high taxes to support someone who had a perfectly good part time job but as a result of this policy now has no job at all? You'll also be subsidising benefits for the people who don't even get a full-time job but who get sacked from their part time jobs because they are required by the government to take repeated unauthorised absence to go to interviews for full time jobs they never actually stood a chance of getting.

Also I assume you won't mind that your children's school will no longer have dinner supervisors or cleaners -- those are by their nature part time jobs, but it'll be impossible to take on anyone part time (unless they are for some reason ineligible for UC) because they could be required by the government to walk out of their part time job with no notice.

aufaniae Fri 01-Feb-13 00:49:56

Clytaemnestra happy to be corrected. And that's a useful document, thanks.

I'm going on articles I've found online. I can see that document came out after the article I'd read which said there was nothing to stop them making you leave a permanent job for a temporary one; I can see they've now said they won't do that, so that's a relief.

However that's just detail. The basic principle applies. If you can't find extra hours with your current employer, or another job to boost your hours, they can require you to attend interviews at short notice and take up another job with perhaps only marginally better hours / pay against your will, or lose your UC for months or up to 3 years. This is going to affect people massively.

There's a lot of confusion about what's going on, partly because of the speed it's coming out. In that document for example, it says

"We will in due course provide more detailed guidance on how this will operate in practice."

I think this is pretty wooly considering it'll be reality in October!

I've just read through all the documentation for this and it's absolutely barmy.

I work PT Mon-Wed and DP works PT Thurs-Sun so that we don't have to fork out for childcare. Our wages wouldn't support it, we can't go to work and leave a toddler. What's the choice?

Roseformeplease Fri 01-Feb-13 00:54:02

But, as someone above said, no one can be forced from a permanent role into a temporary role, that is specifically excluded. And the part time workers at local schools all seem to have several jobs which they fit around each other (e.g dinner lady / school cleaner / private cleaner / carer) . So I didn't miss it, I just noted that, as above, the OP is wrong and that is excluded by the legislation. If this were the case, I too might take issue with it, but it is not.

And, of course things are paid for by workers. The government doesn't get money for benefits, defence, duck houses, roads, etc from anywhere else. It all has to come from taxation in one form or another. So, yes, I do pay for these things, as do all taxpayers (ie most people).

LadyBeagleEyes Fri 01-Feb-13 00:55:56

It is becoming the deciding factor for me Jock.
And I'm not a rabid Scot, I see the union as mostly a good thing.
But it's like the Thatcher years, where a Government with no mandate to govern in Scotland managed to disenfranchise a whole nation.
We voted a Scottish Parliament because of the fiasco of the last Tory Government. I think now, with the policies that are in place, Scots will vote for Independence.
And it's not hating the union, or the English, I for one will just do anything to get rid of this Government.

Fanjango Fri 01-Feb-13 00:58:31

Good God..Don't leave us at the mercy of the Tories, Scotland! Without you this county is Doomed, I tell ya!!

Viviennemary Fri 01-Feb-13 00:58:54

I must say I was a bit shocked to read that only lone parents who have a child under one will be exempt from attending job interviews. What is the rule now if you are a single parent? I didn't think you had to get a job if you had a child. Or is there a rule? But as far as I could see the new system will be phased in until 2017. So it's not as if everybody will go on to the new system this April.

Fanjango Fri 01-Feb-13 00:59:29

County = country! Doh, batteries in keyboard on the fritz blush

ProPerformer Fri 01-Feb-13 01:08:00

Ok .... I'm a big one for arguing against paying for people to 'sit in their arses on benifits when they are capable of working' but the people affected here are working to help support themselves, but just chose to do less work so they can spend time with family etc. and claim a little bit of money to help them do that! Why should we begrudge them this time that they'll never get back with their families? (And for 'non-workers' I think it's fine for disabled people, people with pre-school age children or similar not to work but do think if kids are at school etc then why not work?)

On a personal note I work PT (10 hours a week) so I can spend time with my son and focus on my music. I do not claim any benifits as DH works just enough hours that I don't have to - I work for 'pocket money' and my own sanity! If this legislation goes ahead, I'm worried that as others have said, places will stop offering PT employment all together so I'll have to either not work (BORING) or give up on my music which is a 'sideline job' for me, but only when I get the gigs! (My DS will be in school by then, so that not so much an issue!)

ProPerformer Fri 01-Feb-13 01:10:12

Also other reasons like 'school pickup' etc for myself and other parents are a worry if people are 'forced' to work full time.

NatashaBee Fri 01-Feb-13 01:11:34

When I moved to America a couple of years ago I thought the US job market was scary (you can be let go at any time with no redundancy pay, usually you start a job with 10 days holiday per year, no sick pay). I'm actually starting to think I've had a lucky escape from the UK. I can't believe that families where one person works FT and the other PT to fit around childcare, will be penalised. That's shocking.

LadyBeagleEyes Fri 01-Feb-13 01:18:34

Now of course the Government has to persuade the companies to offer the full time jobs too.
All the major retail outlets mostly offer part time, it's cheaper for them.
And considering big business are the ones that call the shots those days there will be no winners apart from the huge corporate companies.
We're going back to Dickensian times.

Jinsei Fri 01-Feb-13 01:21:18

This doesn't affect me but may affect some of the staff in my team. I really don't know if they are aware of the changes. Can I get my facts straight?

I have two members of staff who are single, no kids, PT workers (around 20 hours per week). They both earn a tiny bit less than they would on minimum wage for 35 hours a week, but the difference is quite small - maybe around £100? One has a mortgage so presumably no housing benefit, the other is in private rented accommodation. I have no idea if they get WTC, but I assume they would if they were eligible. Am I right in thinking that this will impact on them? Could they be forced to leave if offered more hours elsewhere?

I also have a PT worker who is married, with kids. Earns about the same as the other two but don't know what her DH earns or whether they would qualify for WTC. Is there a chance that she could also be affected?

Would like to warn these staff about any potential impact but don't want to scaremonger unnecessarily and I don't really understand the whole UC system yet. Haven't even got my head around tax credits. blush Any guidance would be helpful.

aufaniae Fri 01-Feb-13 01:22:57

ValiumQueen about how couples / single people will be assessed:

"The introduction of ‘in-work conditionality’ through the requirement to prepare, look, and be available for more or better-paid work is a new concept.

The intention is to apply it to claimants below a ‘conditionality threshold’. For most claimants, the threshold will be set at the weekly national minimum wage for a 35-hour week. At current levels, this would be £212.80 for single claimants over 21, and £425.60 for couples (before tax). Claimants with young children, caring responsibilities and work-limiting health problems would have a lower threshold, equivalent to the weekly national minimum wage for the number of hours they are required to be available for work, as set out in their claimant commitment.

Claimants above the threshold would not be subject to conditionality. Those below the threshold would be subject to all the work-related requirements, including both members of a couple, unless one was already in full-time work. There will need to be (inevitably complex) rules on the calculation of pay, where it fluctuates."

From this page on the Child Poverty Action Group website

aufaniae Fri 01-Feb-13 01:29:44

Jinsei a good starting point could be the Mumsnet Guide to UC and then some of the more official docs linked to on this thread.

aufaniae Fri 01-Feb-13 01:35:04

Jinsei my understanding is that if your single worker is in receipt of WTC, they could be forced to attend interviews at short notice or take a new job - or lose their UC for a period. If the difference in money is small, it's possible they may chose to lose their UC I guess.

For your worker with kids, it depends how old her kids are, and what her husband earns. If they didn't have kids their threshold would be around £425 a week. As they have kids it'll be lower than that, depending on how old the kids are. Not sure what though!

Mosman Fri 01-Feb-13 01:39:59

I have two members of staff who are single, no kids, PT workers (around 20 hours per week)

This is the problem. I'm sure they don't qualify for anything at all actually but why the hell should two people who are able bodied with no responsibilities be working part time and be topped up by the state ?
It's the mind set that's wrong, I had two jobs when I was 19 and was at university.
A couple where one is at home with the children or working around school hours needs another person out there doing 40 hours a week otherwise they will get nowhere in life and handing out tax credits has proven that for so many. We now have grown men behaving like little children refusing to support the families they've created - we have one in our family so don't tell me they don't exist, because why should they the state picks up the tab.
And employers will be getting a kick up the arse when their profits drop. Tesco's et al will realise if they don't pay wages then there tills will be empty because the governments money won't be in there any more.

TheDetective Fri 01-Feb-13 01:59:44

Mosman. My DP would have fallen into that category. He works in a supermarket. He has been there 4 years. He can only get part time contracted hours. He has asked over and over for more and been told no. There are very few FT workers in a supermarket. It's usually just managers. He used to get near enough FT hours with over time but this time last year they just cut back on all overtime and now no one gets any.

For us, it's lucky I have a well paid FT job. Or we would be fucked.

People want FT work. Employers aren't giving it. He would be stupid to leave a pretty secure job even though it is PT. Sometimes it feels like we are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Anyway, now we have a baby, he will just stay doing his basic hours. We've given up with any hope of him getting a FT job in any supermarket.

garlicblocks Fri 01-Feb-13 02:03:18

Marking place. Good thread, Aufaniae.

Mosman Fri 01-Feb-13 02:43:45

So he needs a bar job or a call centre job too [shrugs] where's the problem ?

Eliza600 Fri 01-Feb-13 02:58:12

The proposals sound similar to the way we lived and worked when I was in my twenties and thirties (in the 80s) and is a move for the better, in my opinion.
When I was a young mother there were no tax credits, housing benefit etc. If you didn't work the bills didn't get paid. I had a main job and a second job for many years in order to keep afloat and keep a roof over our heads. I worked as a nurse and did agency nursing on my days off. I paid a childminder to look after my child whilst I was working and it didn't do him (or me) any harm.
Yes, it was difficult at times - I was always tired and often had to do housework, ironing etc throughout the night.

Re. the issue of a 'part-time nurse being sent to stack shelves', the more likely scenario is that she would simply take a second part-time job to bring in more money.

Younger people these days need to plan their homes, finances, family and plan for their futures as we did years ago, not simply have children expecting the shortfall in income to be topped up by tax credits etc.

What is wrong with expecting people to have some pride and to support themselves fully? Surely you should work as many hours as necessary to earn as much as you need for your living expenses.

The last 20-odd years have sadly seen a culture of entitlement creeping in and hugely taking root - the country can't afford it.

LucieLucie Fri 01-Feb-13 03:09:37

The new child care ratio increases which have been announced are because of the welfare reforms and universal credit.
More Mothers will be forced to put their children into child care hence the reason more child care spaces need to become available in nurseries and childminders -preparing for the influx.
Life in Britain for many is going to get very tough.

mirai Fri 01-Feb-13 03:35:06

Oh for goodness sake! Read the document!

We will never require a claimant to leave a permanent job for a temporary one, even where the temporary job offered significantly higher wages.

Diddydollydo Fri 01-Feb-13 04:14:34

Well Rose you sound and absolute peach. Luckily for me this doesn't affect me but I have a friend who has 4 children (1 and a set of triplets) and works school hours to be able to take and collect her children (shame on her eh?)one of whom has very specific medical needs. Her husband buggered off without a word last year and she has no family. So tell me, what should she do with her children, leave them on their own? She's a bloody brilliant mum and does her absolute best to be mum and dad to those children, they don't even know where he is. I have always worked and hope I always will but I will never be so far removed from what some peoples circumstances are like that I have no compassion or empathy for someone who is struggling. You haven't a clue.

Mosman Fri 01-Feb-13 04:20:33

From 5-13, lone parents need to be looking for and available to do any type of work within school hours.

So your friend will be absolutely fine then

TheDetective Fri 01-Feb-13 04:33:36

Mosman, for many people taking on another part time job would be almost impossible. Many employers just give you your shifts. You are expected to be available for whatever is given to you. In the NHS for example, shift work us just given to you. No consideration for if you have a second job.

DPs work just used to give him his hours on a Monday for the following week.

No one gives a crap about their employees these days. Ten a penny, aren't they?

ValiumQueen Fri 01-Feb-13 04:39:01

Thank you for answering my question OP I think we as a couple should be ok then. Not that it is right that others won't be.

Diddydollydo Fri 01-Feb-13 04:40:06

Mosman I can't get into the link,her triplets are in reception (4) would she be still be OK because they are at school?

Mosman Fri 01-Feb-13 04:47:25

Diddy, she will be fine nobody is expecting her to work other than school hours, that's not unreasonable is it ?

Thedectective Your situation is no different from thousands of other couples but it is often the mum working part time, I don't see how you are going to be any worse off under this at all tbh.

Does anybody know how this will affect our situation ?

Reading the links etc it says that self employed people would declare their income every month and if the earnings are too low in a month have to apply for other work?

We are both self employed in the same company our projects tend to take a couple of months so we get a lump sum which lasts us a few months until the next project is completed. So would we have to look for other work in those months where our income is effectively £0 ?.

ThinkAboutItOnBoxingDay Fri 01-Feb-13 04:57:36

Mosman, i'm guessing Thedetective was responding to 'get a bar job <shrugs>'

Doing two shift jobs would be nigh on impossible in my experience. Both employers will just announce shifts a week in advance and expect you to show up. Bar work is usually available evenings and weekends only (suits bars as this is busy time) so this could fit with a low paid day job but won't work with a 24 hour shift pattern. Or even a 16 hour shift pattern used in most supermarkets. Unless one consequence of this will be employers are prepared to give up flexibility to keep workers. Possible but unlikely.

Mosman Fri 01-Feb-13 05:01:10

I can only speak from my experience whilst at university during the last down turn, which i concede was nowhere as bad as this one, but I had a call centre job paying £15,000 a year 7am until 11am, four hours studying and then on to a bar job from 6-12pm and came out with a better degree than many who did nothing but "study". I'm not super woman but you do sometimes just have to make it work, it took about a year to find this magical combination but i didn't stop until i did.

Oh and also if you withdraw your claim for tax credits etc do you still need to go through this ? Of I'd it a case of leave us alone and we will leave you alone?

Mosman Fri 01-Feb-13 05:34:53

From what I can gather if you don't want anything from them they can't make you look for a job it's only if you require government support.

Fairylea Fri 01-Feb-13 05:53:01

Where are all of these school hour jobs?

And what happens during school holidays?

I am not asking this because of me as I am lucky enough to be a sahm at the moment but I really don't understand where the conservative government think all these jobs are going to.magically appear from.....

sashh Fri 01-Feb-13 06:13:54

No job. I would move to where there are jobs.

Please Rose tell me where I can rent an adapted property? In fact find an adapted property to rent somewhere in Europe.

In the past I have moved for work, that is how I have lived in 4 UK cities in my adult life, but I didn't have children sitting GCSEs or need to live near family.

I'm losing out big style because I am working for 5 weeks.

I have been on Incapacity Benefit for a while on and off, off being when I have been able to work.

I have been offered and accepted 5 weeks work. The pay is good and working conditions also good. It is costing my £15 a day to travel to work.

I will not be paid until the end of the month, but my benefits stopped the day before I started working. I asked for a loan to help with travel. There is no such thing available, you can only make a crisis loan application for food.

A combination of credit card and friends lending money has allowed me to work.

In the past when this ended I would go back on IB, but now I will have to make a new claim for ESA, and this will be paid at the lowest level, not because my health has improved, but because this is the rule now.

You do not know what is going to happen in the future. Benefits are a safety net, and I am so grateful to all of you paying taxes (as I do, IB is a taxable benefit) as a society we should be keeping that safety net.

Fairylea Fri 01-Feb-13 06:33:48

So Rose ... no job / move to where there are jobs.

How does someone who lives in say Norfolk move to somewhere like London for example where rents and mortgages are higher with no job and no income except benefits to get one of these jobs?

Cuckoo land.

Fairylea Fri 01-Feb-13 06:41:35

Sorry also meant to add its all well and good suggesting securing a job before moving but when people have literally peanuts to do a food shop for a week how on earth do they fund travel costs for attending interviews some distance away?

treaclesoda Fri 01-Feb-13 06:42:13

I find the whole 'get off your bum and move to an area with better job prospects' mentality incredibly short sighted. For one thing, if you have very little income, the sheer cost of relocating would make it all but impossible. Plus if everyone did it, there would be increased pressure on housing in those areas.

But perhaps more importantly, what is the benefit in the long term? My DH and I could earn more money if we relocated to mainland UK. So we'd pay more tax, and we'd satisfy the 'get off your bum and move' brigade. But we'd leave behind two sets of elderly parents. Who would look after them? When they start needing day to day help, believe me, I'll be saving the state a fortune by doing the majority of it myself if its possible to do so. (And that's without even taking into consideration the emotional side of things, and the importance to many people of their family ties.) The cost/savings equation is nowhere near as simple as it first seems.

As it happens, I am a SAHM and DH works fill time, and we're very fortunate to be in a position where we're not eligible for any benefits anyway, but who knows what the future holds?

ledkr Fri 01-Feb-13 06:44:52

Who will fill the part time job vacancies when people have gone off to work on full time tescos?
I worked part time as a sw for years when I was a lone parent of four dc.
I cut down from ft when xh left us. What else could I do? I had to shop, cook, clean,taxi and emotionally support four children!
It pisses me off when lp get hammered because its harder for them to work ft and what about the children who have to be in childcare all the time even their school holidays? Then when it's parents day off they will be busy doing essential tasks.
I'm married now and share childcare and all household tasks with dh so the children get time too.
The govt need to put more effort into ensuring absent parents pay their flipping way rather than putting more pressure on the resident parent.

fuzzpig Fri 01-Feb-13 06:46:38

This is really confusing. I looked at a couple of the links and can't get my head around it all (brain fog)

I work FT at the moment, but on Tuesday I have an interview for a PT position in the same company. Might seem crazy that I'm deliberately trying to cut my hours (from 37 to 16) but last year I was diagnosed with a disability. If I keep doing FT I will not get better - I am stuck in a cycle of working for a couple of weeks and then having a relapse, then going back, getting ill again...

DH has been out of work for 2 years and is now on JSA looking for a job as he's had an operation and is officially fit to work. However he can't really do FT either, because that will mean I have to do all childcare/school runs etc, and I am currently not well enough for that either.

I have no idea what's going to happen; I gather in the short term we will lose WTC and get IS instead as I'm going below 24hrs? But after that?

Our DCs are 5 and 3. I don't get DLA and I'm not sure I'm that likely to although I will apply. We rent privately but are on the housing register. We get some HB, WTC and CTC.

If anyone can translate all this for me I'd be really grateful, my mind is too addled to understand any of it right now. Have a hospital appt but will be back later.

mercibucket Fri 01-Feb-13 07:00:28

Wtc - what's that if not a subsidy to business so they can get away with paying below a living wage

Now people are going to have that prop taken away and see how very little their company has got away with paying them

Wtc has been subsidising business for over a decade and is a disgrace. Sadly, I fear our govt has decicded qe will compete with low wage weconomies rather than skilled economies.

meadow2 Fri 01-Feb-13 07:01:31

I think if someone isnt disabled/sn families this isnt thst bad.You can have 5 years where you dont gave to do anything, then only have yo work 24 hours jntil the kids are 12.The childcare can be claimed back.I feel lucky I was born when I was, so when I had kids we get subsidised childcare.

Mosman Fri 01-Feb-13 07:05:37

I know i've been trying not to laugh you will be forced to upgrade your job how flipping awful, forced to improve your circumstances and take home pay lol

catsmother Fri 01-Feb-13 07:13:44

The lack of basic human empathy shown by some on this thread is a fucking disgrace.

The vast majority of lower paid people want to improve their circumstances and take home pay - of course they do. But there are simply NOT enough jobs out there for everyone who wants to do that.

KatyTheCleaningLady Fri 01-Feb-13 07:15:35

I agree with the poster who said WTC subsidises employers. Tesco gets cheap shelf stickers paid for by taxes, and the workers become more reliant on the state.

I would rather see money put into funding childcare so that parents can work. And I would rather see the safety net for the disabled and vulnerable strengthened. But I agree with Rose and others who are saying that people should have to hustle and strive to make ends meet.

merrymouse Fri 01-Feb-13 07:16:09

underemployment affects 10.5% of British workforce

I think there are quite a few people actively searching for more work and finding that there is none available.

KatyTheCleaningLady Fri 01-Feb-13 07:16:29

Oops. Stackers not stickers.

KatyTheCleaningLady Fri 01-Feb-13 07:19:53

I think we get some wtc now. I am self employed and my husband will be joining me. We may take a hit with wtc. But I still think it's better that way.

I just wish the government would subsidize child care rather than Tesco. Not everyone is lucky to have grandparents to help like we do.

Jinsei Fri 01-Feb-13 07:30:41

This is the problem. I'm sure they don't qualify for anything at all actually but why the hell should two people who are able bodied with no responsibilities be working part time and be topped up by the state ?

Because they can't get more hours even if they want them? Both of the staff I mentioned would love to have more hours, but we haven't got a budget to pay them so they aren't available. It's too simplistic to suggest that it always boils down to laziness.

Jinsei Fri 01-Feb-13 07:32:52

Thank you OP for answering my question. I will have a look at the MN guide. Like so many other changes that this government has introduced, it's my distinct impression that nobody has thought through the full implications. sad

LouMae Fri 01-Feb-13 08:10:28

Surely the vast majority of schools have breakfast and after school clubs nowadays? My DS has to attend them, as do many others. I'd prefer him to not have to, but in my mind being an LP I don't have that option- I should work full time to provide for him- why should I expect others to subsidise my time at home with him? I find that notion a bit morally bankrupt.

treaclesoda Fri 01-Feb-13 08:17:06

None of the schools in my area have breakfast or after school clubs.

No Lou. Breakfast clube etc is only provided patchily still and it costs. You know how much it costs! It's not an option for every earner.

Alittlestranger Fri 01-Feb-13 08:31:37

The principle of this is correct but the DWP hasn't decided any of the rules yet. Most of the original OP is just speculation.

If you're pissed off, write to your MP, explain to them why it's crazy.

Roseformeplease Fri 01-Feb-13 08:32:56

Thank goodness I am not alone. I was finding this thread rather a lonely one last night.

Yes, you can travel from Norfolk. Many people commute 4 hours plus per day. Or you move, you make do, you rent a room short term until you can move your family.

Yes, you get a 2nd job, pay for wrap around childcare. Sorry, the state can't subsidise you to care for parents. I was working and saw little of my Dad in his final years. That is very, very tough but he would have shot me had I given up work to care for him - he too was ploughing his own furrow.

The minimum wage, in fact, has cost jobs. We used to run a small business (hotel) and it went up year, on year meaning we had to do with fewer staff, do more ourselves or tighten our belts elsewhere (food costs, etc). Where we might have been able to employ more people, we just had to work the ones we had (and ourselves, unpaid, in debt) a little harder. The reality is that one of the ways out of mass unemployment is through small businesses but people are so entitled now. The want the business to run around their needs: you do have to work evenings, weekends, nights, during school hours, after school hours - just whatever gets you the cash to provide for you and yours.

Someone mentioned being relieved at moving to the USA. Now that is a system without a genuine safety net - we are a long, long way from that and yet people complain.

expatinscotland Fri 01-Feb-13 08:45:29

The US does have a welfare system, including providing healthcare for children - even in very conservative states like Texas.

And shock a minimum wage! AND, you can sue your employers for exploitation.

Most states, too, don't tax the living hell out of you, either.

expatinscotland Fri 01-Feb-13 08:53:01

81p/litre of petrol (whose price affects the price of food and public transport). And set to rise! Way to go, Tories! You're all about fucking 'hardworking' anyone.

expatinscotland Fri 01-Feb-13 08:53:50

'Surely the vast majority of schools have breakfast and after school clubs nowadays?'

Hhaahaaahahaahahaahhaaaa!!!

noddyholder Fri 01-Feb-13 09:00:25

What sort of a country are we living in when we are suggesting commuting 4 hours living in rooms away from home and working all the hours god sends just to exist? Life is passing people by andit is precious and short.

Fairylea Fri 01-Feb-13 09:03:14

None of the schools in my area have breakfast or after school clubs.

The nurseries are shocking despite being labelled outstanding. I wrote a recent thread about one I went to visit. I reported it to ofsted.

If I travelled from Norfolk to London (a 2 hour commute each way) where am I supposed to find childcare from 6.30am to 7pm roughly everyday. Just playing devils advocate here.

Am I supposed to completely unsettle my child between several forms of childcare and an ever increasing ratio of workers at nursery just because the government makes a minimum wage unliveable?

I thought the conservatives were supposed to support families. Well they aren't.

treaclesoda Fri 01-Feb-13 09:07:18

the state can't subsidise caring for elderly parents?

People who care for elderly parents are subsidising the state not the other way round. If everyone lot their elderly relatives to rely on state care, the system would collapse. And that's leaving aside the human misery aspect of having hundreds of thousands of elderly people lonely, isolated and relying on poorly motivated 'carers' for their only human contact.

From what I can see reading around this morning if they bring this in our company is going to be in serious trouble in fact on the point of closure. We would be expected to look for other work while working on projects (as they take longer than a month so we have a few months of no income - as far as I can figure even if we are living off a lump sum from 2/3 months before they count this as no income for the next 2 months?).

You cannot run a company full time while doing another job presumably also full time or faffing around going to interviews etc?!

We employ three other people part time who would also presumably be running off attending interviews - how the hell is that going to work.

aufaniae Fri 01-Feb-13 09:12:40

"Like so many other changes that this government has introduced, it's my distinct impression that nobody has thought through the full implications."

I think you're spot on. This government is governing by faith (in their ideologies), certainly not evidence based policies.

What will happen to the people who have had their UC stopped for 3 years? What will happen to the children whose parents have lost their benefits? What are they supposed to do? Many will be made homeless and/or destitute if they go ahead with imposing sanctions. Dark times sad

forevergreek Fri 01-Feb-13 09:13:31

I think it's a good idea. We have two preschool age and work over 110 hours a week between us. it's what you do. If you don't have enough hours find more, search for more, ask for more. Some hours they are in childcare, some we over lap between us so someone's at home, some we work when they sleep. 1-3pm and 7pm-midnight 7 days a week gives us 49hours to work without any childcare.

People with school age surely have 9-3 free ( say 5 hours to allow to getting to and from work or home). So that's 25hrs a week.
If a lone parent works from home 7pm-midnight 7 days that's 30hrs.

55hrs a lone parent could work with no childcare if they found something suitable.

I know where I work is looking for 3 people all at 45 hours a week. It's double/ triple min wage minimum ( more for certain positions) and no one has applied. You have to be in the office some time in the week ( say 20hrs) but the rest could and is allowed to be done at home easily. Work is out there, yet why aren't people taking it.

aufaniae Fri 01-Feb-13 09:21:08

forevergreek you reckon lone parents should be working 55 hours a week?! shock

"Work is out there, yet why aren't people taking it." I have no idea what your company is doing wrong in advertising that job, but it's absolutely untrue that work is out there but people are choosing not to take it. We are in a recession and there are many fewer jobs than applicants.

Your maths isn't great either. If school is 9:00 to 3:30, and they have to travel half an hour then they can't start at 9:30. But a half an hour journey to work is rare if you work somewhere like London (where the jobs are!). If you have to travel say an hour and a half a day to your job then those hours are considerable lower. Then factor in 4 children (perhaps triplets as the poster above stated) at 3 different schools because of age and one with SN. Can you see now how it's starting to get very difficult?

DreamingOfTheMaldives Fri 01-Feb-13 09:25:30

Where is this job based forevergeek and what are they doing, particularly the one at triple minimum wage? Genuine question as I'm looking for jobs at the moment. Being able to work from home part time would be great as I'm currently self employed working from home and my PFDog is used to having me around!

I'm amazed that no one has applied. All jobs I see advertised on Reed etc have shed loads of applicants

Mosman Fri 01-Feb-13 09:27:18

We can all think of a million reasons why people shouldn't/cannot work, how about we start assuming that they aren't incapable and go forward from that stance ? Most of the reason are pie in the sky for the majority of people - how many do we all really know with triplets for example ?
The incentive - 80% childcare costs, sure start, free college courses they all failed so what are peoples solutions for certain sections of society to get them back to work ?

dikkertjedap Fri 01-Feb-13 09:33:13

Rose they way I look at it, in current society it only matters that the rich can get richer and remain as indignant and self-entitled as they always have been and the rest can go to hell.

There is no integrity left anywhere, not in politics, not in many businesses (most notably but not solely the financial sector), not in sport (look at all the doping scandals), it is a society without a moral compass who likes to trample on those who have the least. It is a society which consists of the self-entitled grabbers and the rest who have to pay the price.

redbobblehat Fri 01-Feb-13 09:34:40

i'm not sure about this, because on one hand i do know several people who could work more hours, and one person even said why work fulltime when you can work part time and get the same money as working fulltime
which does seem strange the system allows people to do this, only work say two days per week when your perfectly able to say work five

but it seems highly unfair people that have children that have certain needs are being crewed over again

so when will this begin then?

Jinsei Fri 01-Feb-13 09:35:24

I do a lot of recruitment in my job. Can't think of a single vacancy in the last couple of years for which we haven't had at least 50 applicants. Sometimes we get 150+.

It's all very well saying that there are jobs out there. Of course there are jobs. But there are more people out there competing for those jobs than there are jobs available. The maths is quite simple.

Alittlestranger Fri 01-Feb-13 09:36:28

Forevergeek your post depresses me. It's exactly this kind of hair shirted attitude that allows the Tories to plough through with this crap. Why are you not outraged that you and your partner have to work so many hours between you? Why no focus on getting better paid work and up-skilling people so that they don't have to work longer hours? There's no sense here, no strategy, it's just playing people like you off against your neighbours.

Turning the clock back 100 years should not be a sign of progress but that's exactly where we are heading.

And Mosman these people are in work, they're just not working hard enough according to the govt. They're using the childcare costs, the SureStart ett, just not for 37.5 hours a week.

CloudsAndTrees Fri 01-Feb-13 09:37:01

People who care for elderly parents are subsidising the state not the other way round.

That there is a perfect example of completely the wrong attitude. Why shouldn't people have to expect to care for their elderly relatives in the way they expect to care for their young children?

I appreciate that people will need practical support to work at the same time as caring for elderly relatives, but they need support to care for young children too. No one is denying that that support should be available from government, it absolutely should be available in a civilised society. But there is a difference between support and having the job done entirely for you.

I don't think any of these measures (apart from those that negatively affect disabled people) are anything that plenty of people aren't already living with. Lots of single parents already work school hours. Lots of families with children already have two parents working full time.

If, and I realise it's a big if, access to childcare is improved, and if support for childcare costs is available, then I really can't see the problem with expecting people to work to support themselves rather than relying on the state. These measures will affect a lot of people, but not in a way that lots of people aren't already living with.

expatinscotland Fri 01-Feb-13 09:37:23

'I know where I work is looking for 3 people all at 45 hours a week. It's double/ triple min wage minimum ( more for certain positions) and no one has applied. You have to be in the office some time in the week ( say 20hrs) but the rest could and is allowed to be done at home easily. Work is out there, yet why aren't people taking it.'

Where is this? What skill set is needed?

MoreBeta Fri 01-Feb-13 09:38:47

As usual this Coalition has made a dogs breakfast of what is actually a very good idea called Universal Benefit (UB) and instead bastardised the idea into something called Universal Credit (UC).

The UB is a well regarded academic/economic idea that has been around for many years. The crucial feature of UB is everyone gets it whether rich or poor, on work or unemployed or retired. It replaces all benefits and is the bare minimum amount someone needs to live on. Like family allowance, free state education, the NHS it is accepted widely by the population as an entitlement that underpins a fair society AND simple to administer. It would be paid for by removing the tax free personal allowance, capital gains tax allowance and savings made in the tax/benefit system from lower admin and fraud.

The Universal Credit on the other hand is means tested, requires armies of people to monitor and administer it and is in effect a subsidy to employers who can pay less than the market rate for employees because the state tops up pay via UC.

A UB would mean no one had to take a job but if they did the employer would have to pay them enough to get them out of bed. In fact wages would rise and employers would have to offer contracts and hours of work that the employees found acceptable. Zero hours contracts would disappear.

I believe Ian Duncan Smith talked about UB in the past but what we got was UC. It really is a disaster in all sorts of ways and isn't even good economics.

forevergreek Fri 01-Feb-13 09:39:38

London based, design/ programming profession ( these are graduate jobs), but the news states that x % of graduates can't find work etc .

I'm not saying 55hrs should be worked by a lone parent, I'm saying it's possible. Therefore it's possible to work the 24hrs required.

A nanny would be my answer for triplets plus one. Around £12per hr gross in London will cover all 4, ( £3 each). Min wage is £6.19. Someone with 4 children at work as specified. Could work 9.00am-5.00pm earning £49.52 a day. -£24 childcare = £25.52 profit a day. They could work 3 days therefore getting min 24hrs work at £75 profit, and will still receive benefits ontop as meeting the requirements. It's not going to be money growing off trees but it's not working at a loss and is a contribution to family funds. Over time hopefully they wages will increase. Even better they may start off over the min wage.

expatinscotland Fri 01-Feb-13 09:40:24

'Turning the clock back 100 years should not be a sign of progress but that's exactly where we are heading.'

Too right!

expatinscotland Fri 01-Feb-13 09:43:12

'London based, design/ programming profession ( these are graduate jobs), but the news states that x % of graduates can't find work etc .'

Of course! I'll apply today, since I had no experience of design or programming!

C'mon, everyone, let's all flood into London at once.

redbobblehat Fri 01-Feb-13 09:43:14

why don't the goverment force businesses to pay people a living wage?
that what i want to know

oh its easier to scapegoat the poor, the easy target

expatinscotland Fri 01-Feb-13 09:44:31

Nail hitting head, MoreBeta.

Alittlestranger Fri 01-Feb-13 09:45:33

45 hours a week!? On low pay. I'm sorry, that's a crap way to live, it just is. Let's not pretend that this is an acceptable situation to have to be in and let the welfare state merrily die a death. Full employment is an aspiration I completely back, but it should be employment with decent pay and conditions. Some jobs will always be low skilled and poorly paid, and so you will always need a top-up for people working them. I don't support flogging people until they break.

forevergreek Fri 01-Feb-13 09:46:49

And we work those hours for the choices we made in life. We chose to have children, we chose to live in an expensive city/ nice area etc. therefore we work the hours to accomadate. Personally I don't know anyone in either of our professions who works less than 50hrs each ( hence over 100 if both working)

When our children reach school age we can adjust our hours so we aren't working to midnight and take advantage of the daytime hours more.

I'm not against anyone doing whatever they like, but I do think we can't complain against the government encouraging people to be more self supportive.

Meglet Fri 01-Feb-13 09:48:19

Lots of schools don't offer breakfast and after school clubs. At the DC's school after school places have to be booked far in advance and they are full nearly every day.

I earn over the minimum wage and work 18hrs per week so I'm hoping I'm just going to scrape in over the threshold. There are good prospects with my current employer in a couple of years as my supervisor is heading towards retirement and I can pick up more work and maybe a few more hours, I'm also studying OU which will tie in with work. But I will only work full time when I've got the kids to Uni in 14yrs time, until then I will be there to support them. I was the child of a FT working single parent and it left me very vulnerable after school (bullying, self harm, CAHMS, total balls up of my education despite being very bright), I won't do that to my children as I want them to do better in life.

How will the big supermarkets deal with the loss of PT workers?

Alittlestranger Fri 01-Feb-13 09:49:31

MoreBeta to be fair Universal Credit isn't an extension/bastardisation of Universal Benefit. IDS never aspired to introduce a Citizen's Income etc and UC's philosophy comes from an entirely different place. It's just the word "universal" has confused people.

expatinscotland Fri 01-Feb-13 09:53:33

'And we work those hours for the choices we made in life. We chose to have children, we chose to live in an expensive city/ nice area etc. therefore we work the hours to accomadate. Personally I don't know anyone in either of our professions who works less than 50hrs each ( hence over 100 if both working)'

More fool you, and them.

BornInACrossFireHurricane Fri 01-Feb-13 09:54:21

Right, I find this confusing.
Could anyone clarify how a relative of mine will be affected please?

Lone parent, youngest is 13 and she works 20 hours a week (teaching assistant) also studying degree part time. Receives housing benefit, tax credits etc.

Am I right in thinking she is 4 hours short?

Alittlestranger Fri 01-Feb-13 09:57:52

Born they haven't set the rules yet so no one can credibly tell you. This won't happen initially under Universal Credit and DWP are still deciding who to target and exactly what they will have to do.

This is still on the drawing board, which means still time to change it. Wouldn't it be nice if we had a benefit change which didn't only get attention a couple of months before it came in?

FairyJen Fri 01-Feb-13 09:59:29

I admit I'm on the fence about this. I left a good job in the midlands and we as a family relocated to London. Dp is working ft long hours and his wage covers pretty much rent and council tax that's all.

I have one school age child and am in mat leave. When I return to work it will be pt as both mine and dp's jobs have unpredictable hours and if we both got stuck in meetings or court we would struggle to find child care.

We are not on benefits and each month is a struggle so I do know how hard it is.

however I was brought up to believe that you make your own way in life and that working is not just for financial gain but also self esteem etc. I like to think our dc are learning the importance of working hard and getting a good education through our example.

When I return to work our situation will obviously improve and this is through our sacrifice now.

It drives me mad that some people dp's sister feel that they should stay at home and not work to claim benefits and actually get more annually than we do currently. Yet in paper they are seen as the poor lower class when we are seen as well off.

The system is fundamentally flawed but so is society's attitude when it comes to entitlement.

forevergreek Fri 01-Feb-13 09:59:59

We aren't fools, we all live a nice life with no complaints. It's everyone around us who has 101 problems with the world.

Alibabaandthe40nappies Fri 01-Feb-13 10:01:34

This should have the effect of driving up wages and conditions as companies realise that in order to retain staff they have to increase hours and wages.

forevergreek there are jobs here too that no-one seems to want. All some way above minimum wage.

Alittlestranger Fri 01-Feb-13 10:04:04

FairyJen, again, this isn't about targetting people who are staying at home, it's about people who are in work but on lower earnings so still entitled to tax credits and housing benefit.

expatinscotland Fri 01-Feb-13 10:05:07

Are they not wanted? Or are they jobs to suit a particular skill set that people might not have?

lazybastard Fri 01-Feb-13 10:05:26

Don't know why I'm posting this will probably be flamed.

I work part time, we didn't claim anything until DH was made redundant last year when we had to claim CTC to survive. We have both been spending a lot of time job hunting with no luck. So in what I thought was a positive move I applied to do nursing training. It is something I have wanted to do since school and I hope it will improve my employment prospects longer term. My boss has refused me more hours but has promised flexible shifts to work round my training so will at least still be working a bit. Course plus work and commuting I will put in about 80 hrs per week plus studying.

My question is will I be forced to quit my training and be stuck in a NMW job for the rest of my life? Disclaimer DH will continue with his job hunting.

Jamillalliamilli Fri 01-Feb-13 10:05:27

Those who talk about how it used to be, seem to have forgotten that while the MC may have been able to stay on the right side of ‘respectable working parent’, many others had to deal with the realities of illegal baby farms, children exposed to industrial environments, trying to sleep at mums work, being carried between jobs at night, preparing for school in the toilets, along with illicit factories, half rate piece work, cash in hand, latch key kids, children left unattended at night, and squatting as a way of surviving. Many still are.

This government wants people to be self-sufficient, but society is very quick to get upset at the realities when people with lower choices are. Choose what sort of world you want, because you can’t have it both ways.

forevergreek Fri 01-Feb-13 10:06:52

And in life you just adjust. So when dh was made redundant, I worked more to accomadate. When I went on maternity leave with a drop in wages, dh took on overtime to allow for that.

It's difficult, life is. But worth it for the life it creates. If people can afford to stay at home or work v v part time without the need for government support then fantastic, but with the need I would constantly be looking for ways to not need it.

The benefits should be for the times when it's really needed. Such as if you loose a job. But you should be doing your utmost to dig yourself out of the need asap

FairyJen Fri 01-Feb-13 10:08:36

I know it's about part time workers however up thread a poster stated that people would nt be made to leave permanent jobs for temporary ones etc. so if a person can work ft and support themselves rather than be supported by the state then they should!

Mosman Fri 01-Feb-13 10:08:46

This should have the effect of driving up wages and conditions as companies realise that in order to retain staff they have to increase hours and wages.

I said that three pages ago but it didn't seem to fit in with the woe is me crowd.

Off the top of my head I can think of one young mum who is working her ass to set up her business and one mum who is single, by choice hasn't worked for 9 years and is now going to contribute to society by training to "do piercing" god help us but hey she's having a crack. There needs to be a way of supporting them without keeping the likes of my younger brother in the style he's become accustomed to working 16 hours a week - if it suits him.

MrsMushroom Fri 01-Feb-13 10:09:24

What hours are classed as part time please? And what is classed as full time?

Alibabaandthe40nappies Fri 01-Feb-13 10:11:32

These are ordinary jobs expat. Warehouse work, cleaning, labouring and also admin/office work. Some are outside of office hours, but would in theory suit a family looking for a second job to fit in around childcare/school/one person working standard hours.

DH was short of work for over a month over Christmas (self-employed), and we were sitting down and planning how many of these jobs we could pick up between us while managing school runs and not needing childcare. A 6 month project came through for him the next day, but if it hadn't there was work out there. I genuinely don't understand why there should be any unemployment in this area when these jobs are available.

BenjaminButton172 Fri 01-Feb-13 10:12:36

I haven't been on Mumsnet for a while. Been dipping in and out. But i had to come back on to comment on this thread.

This is my situation.
I am a single parent to a school age child. I am on an 8 hour a week contract(2 days a week). However my work also expect me to keep another 2 days free incase they need me. There is no chance of getting a bigger contract because of the type of work that I do.
I am looking for another job with more hours but how am i meant to get a second job when i am only really fully available 3 days. Most employers expect you to be flexible and work when they want you to work. And where i live the only jobs that are available are under 12 hours a week.

Also my job requires a lot of people for a short period of time. It would not work if there were less people on longer hours. And what happens when someone is off sick. It leaves the business in the lurch.

A few people on here are very naive and think that everything is straight and simple. There are millions of people in this country and every single person has a different situation.

BenjaminButton172 Fri 01-Feb-13 10:15:54

Another point. The more part time positions available more people are employed. If companies are forced to employ full time staff they will employ less people. How can this be right for our country?

BornInACrossFireHurricane Fri 01-Feb-13 10:18:54

Thanks ALittleStranger

Alibabaandthe40nappies Fri 01-Feb-13 10:19:13

Benjamin - but this is precisely the situation that should be gradually eliminated. You can say legitimately to your employer - I cannot leave myself free because I need to work X hours a week. If you want me available then you will have to pay me.
Because everyone will be in the same boat, they cannot just move onto the next person.

The job market will adjust.

I'm not saying the situation is perfect, because it isn't and I have huge concerns around people with disabilities being brought under the same rules because we know that there is huge prejudice out there and that the playing field is not level in the slightest.
But if it adjusts the mindset to 'how can I do the most work possible and earn the most I can', rather than 'what is the absolute minimum I can get away with doing', then that has to be a good thing.

I agree with MoreBeta I would have liked to see this idea go further and be a true Universal Benefit, but there would be screams of horror at the idea of giving money to the 'rich' and no-one would even give the idea sensible thought.

Jamillalliamilli Fri 01-Feb-13 10:19:37

This should have the effect of driving up wages and conditions as companies realise that in order to retain staff they have to increase hours and wages

I suspect more companies will do what my large well known one did, force the night cleaners and similar PT workers to become supposedly self-employed in order to keep their jobs.

happyinherts Fri 01-Feb-13 10:19:53

Do you know, I'm struggling here to wonder which is worse. The government's plans for UC or some mothers attitudes. I am totally disgusted.

No, it is not okay to work 45 hours + with or without commute when you have young children and it may be feasible for a week or two, but emergencies happen, school holidays happen, illnesses happen, - I tell you what happens, problems? But of course we as a society don't care about that, don't sympathise, don't empathise at all. We just say "Well, I have to do it, so can you." It's not that simple. It's making the life of the workers even more stressful than it is already. There aren't enough full time jobs everywhere for everyone.

I really don't understand why the 'I'm alright Jack' attitude prevails. A disability, a redundancy, a loss of working hours can happen to any of us at any time. We need to be in this together. Wasn't that what was supposed to happen - all in this together?

I think the government proposals stink, they're short sighted and will create more problems than enough - but some posters attitudes on here are worse. Economics wont make family income add up - never will, but that's okay because you can cope. Don't forget - we're not talking about the 3 generations of workshy let's knock out a couple more kids for the benefit families here - we're talking struggling working families. Pick on those who warrant being picked on.

Alibabaandthe40nappies Fri 01-Feb-13 10:20:56

JustGetting - there is a piece of legislation called IR35 which deals with disguised employment, which is what you are describing. Anyone put in that position should go immediately to the taxman.

MrsMushroom Fri 01-Feb-13 10:21:08

can anyone tell me what the cut off is? What is considered part time?

Molepom Fri 01-Feb-13 10:26:01

Oh for FUCKS SAKE.

I'm trying to look for a job, trying to educate myself so I can go self employed to work around ASD and ADHD DS and the gov just make it harder and harder. I'm a single parent as well.

Jamillalliamilli Fri 01-Feb-13 10:26:03

Alibabba I and many others are well aware of the law, going to the taxman see's you lose your employment all together and the fines levied on the employer are irrelevant, you're still without the work that was letting you stay out of the benefit trap and still be a parent. if you're a parent carting a child at heel with you, you're also highly blackmailable.

aufaniae Fri 01-Feb-13 10:30:56

"This should have the effect of driving up wages and conditions as companies realise that in order to retain staff they have to increase hours and wages."

It's great that you think driving up wages and conditions is a laudable aim. However if you think anything the Tories are proposing is aimed at helping employees you are mistaken. Their policies benefit big business at the expense of employees, the self-employed and small businesses.

For a start, employers will be able to make use of the free labour of people on the Mandatory Work Activity program - they can get tax breaks to employ people for up to 6 months without paying them a penny (they'll be working for their benefits). This will drive down conditions and make part-time work harder to find.

They are also currently proposing to make it much easier to allow employers to sack people, to shorten redundancy consultation periods and to bring in other changes which erode worker's rights.

Can I ask a question on behalf of my sister? They currently get CTC and a small amount of WTC (they don't get HB/CT as they live with my dad at the minute). Her dd is 5 in october. I've been reading it for her and, as I understand it, in order to still qualify for that she would need to register with job centre and be actively seeking employment won't she?

lazybastard Fri 01-Feb-13 10:33:20

Is anyone able to answer my question? Will I have to give up my training and therefore job prospects?

Alibabaandthe40nappies Fri 01-Feb-13 10:34:23

I have just copied this segment from the document.

*b) We will however ensure in all cases the conditionality requirements we place on a claimant will be compatible with their paid employment, so that no-one will have to forego paid work to fulfil their conditionality.
c) In addition,unlike out-of-workclaimants,working claimants will not be required to be available to take up work or attend an interview immediately where that would not fit with the claimant’s existing contract of employment.*

So all this talk of having to drop everything and rush off to an interview, or else lose their benefit is a load of bollocks.

Of course this needs debating, but it is irresponsible in the extreme aufaniae to start a thread like this and give incorrect, or at least incomplete information which means that people are going to be scared unnecessarily.

I'm really worried about this. I work 20 hours a week for NMW. DD is 3. I am starting a degree in April for a minimum of 16 hours per week.

Dd has health problems that require Dr and hospital appointments roughly every 3 weeks. She is too ill to attend nursery about 20% of the time (vomitting etc)

My job is evenings and weekends which suits me perfectly so I can care for dd when she is ill and her dad can care in the evenings while I work. I can also be available for every Dr app, hospital app, random blood tests etc that she needs.

But under UC could they force me to get another job during the day? Which I would probably be sacked from for all the time I would need off for dd. And make me lose doubly by paying for childcare she is often too ill to use?

For example, last January dd attended nursery twice. Then she was hospitalised for a month and bed ridden for 2. She next went to nursery in April. Thank god I wasn't paying for the 11 hours, and had a job flexible and understanding enough to help me through.

Meglet Fri 01-Feb-13 10:41:06

This will probably force employers to raise wages in the same way the banks shared out the money the government pumped into it a few years ago.

The government are too buddied up to big business to do anything to really rock the boat. I doubt Dave will be off to Phillip Green to ask him to raise the Top Shop wages to well above the minimum wage.

happyinherts Fri 01-Feb-13 10:46:56

All those of us that are really worried about this -

Let's not come on here and chat about it and ask each other questions.

Let's write, email, phone our MP's, make nuisances of ourselves, get this all out there in the public eye and let everyone who it won't effect realise exactly what this government is aiming to do.

This UC idea has strayed off track. It isn't going to be implemented in the same form as was originally discussed and like I said earlier people's circumsntances change and it can and will effect more people than ever thought.

Let's all be in this together and start doing something about it.

Miggsie Fri 01-Feb-13 10:52:11

Well I'm disabled and work part time - because if I work any longer I have a physical collapse - I need those non work hours for therapy and physical exercises to keep me going the rest of the time.

If I worked longer hours I'd have a physical collapse - last time it lasted a year and I'd be out of work and on benefits - cutting my income to the point we'd have to sell our house.
The government would lose my tax that I pay and I'd lose my pension.

Not sure how this would benefit me, society or my immediate family: short or long term.

Anyone who says I can work full hours is welcome to come round to my house where I will arrange for them to break both their legs every 6 months - then see how they manage.

aufaniae Fri 01-Feb-13 10:53:04

"Let's write, email, phone our MP's, make nuisances of ourselves, get this all out there in the public eye and let everyone who it won't effect realise exactly what this government is aiming to do."

Great idea.

"Let's not come on here and chat about it and ask each other questions."

I totally disagree with this however! I think coming on here to chat about it and ask each other questions is very important. There will be many lurkers here as well as the people posting and most of us are learning new things about how it will work. It helps to talk about it.

I for one have learnt that things have moved on a bit since the first article I linked to and got info from!

The best thing IMO we can all do however is try to make sure the Tories are voted out at the next election.

aufaniae Fri 01-Feb-13 10:54:19

Also, one point of this thread was to raise awareness amongst the many people who will be affected by the new changes, but don't realise it, or don't know how they'll be affected.

Jamillalliamilli Fri 01-Feb-13 10:55:06

Alibabba, can I also point out that the Tail end Charlie’s hidden from view, were going to be protected by the law and employers made to give us/give us back employees rights when the legislation was first announced, whiuch is how it slid in without an outcry.

But it never happened did it? We became the bad guys, ‘cheating’ the contactors rights and employees safety systems, not the employers who gave us no real choice.

IR35 punishes the whistle blower, taxing them at an employees rate and denying them SE expenses, it rarely goes after the employer, and when it does the fines are derisory, the whole system just leaves the poor bloody worker up the creek punished for trying to stay working round their children’s needs.

Alibabaandthe40nappies Fri 01-Feb-13 10:55:18

Yes that would be a good idea. Then Labour really can bankrupt us and leave us in the position of Greece, where there is no money at all for anything. We will all be so much better off hmm

FriggFRIGGisPoorlySick Fri 01-Feb-13 10:55:43

Bollocks bollocks bollocks!

DP works full time and earns around £15k per year.(before tax)
I work part time,at weekends for 16 hours I get min wage one day,and time and a half on the other,which means my monthly salary is around £400.
I have a chronic health condition which means I am in pain and exhausted 90% of the time.

We get working and child tax credit.

We have 2DC, 4 year old is at school and 2 year old is home with me during the week,with DP one weekend day and grandparents on the other weekend day (DP works 6 days a week so can only have them one day)

This is already a bit of a struggle,we have a mortgage to pay...we can't afford to put the DC into childcare,not that I'd be able to work anymore hours,I'm already ruining my health...what the hell will happen to us?!!

FairyJen Fri 01-Feb-13 11:01:13

It goes without saying that labour need to be bought back into power. With their secret bunker full of cash etc as a nation we'll be laughing when they come back!

Oh wait.....

aufaniae Fri 01-Feb-13 11:03:38

Alibabaandthe40nappies that point (about people having to leave paid work to attend interviews) has been widely reported on the net, however if it's incorrect that's great, thank you for pointing that out, it's useful info.

Part of the problem with all this is that the government are forging ahead with implementing this without releasing the detail (as they still haven't worked it out it would seem!).

It makes it very confusing! There are a lot of articles about this which are, I guess, filling in the gaps with assumptions. I will resolve to check my sources better next time!

However the main point stands, and it's important people understand this is happening as many don't:

People in part-time jobs who claim UC and earn less than MW full time (or fewer hours in certain conditions, e.g. if you have kids) will be classed as "underemployed" and required to prove they are seeking more hours / better pay, and can be required to take new jobs against their will, or lose UC.

Don't most jobs have a three to six month trial period, whereby your employer can let you go for any reason they want to, at any time? So in fact moving people onto temporary contracts is exactly what this will do?
I am doing workfare at the moment, the place I have been sent to is an npo so fair enough, but I appear to be doing work instead of the person who is employed to do it? nevermind the fact the organisation seems to be run by people who can't fund their backsides with their hands
Since October, I have applied for over three hundred jobs, I've had ten interviews and I still don't have a job.
That design one mentioned unthread sounds right up my street but as I don't have a degree is there any point in me applying?

nametakenagain Fri 01-Feb-13 11:11:08

The policy will drive down wages because more people will be available for work, not the other way round.

It would be unlikely for a Tory government to try to raise wages, now, wouldn't it? Big business wants lower wages, and fewer employment rights in order to increase profits. Anything else would be against its ethos.

Alibabaandthe40nappies Fri 01-Feb-13 11:12:00

Of course the government want wages to be higher, because then we all pay more tax.

aufaniae Fri 01-Feb-13 11:12:21

SouthernComforts is your degree full time or part time? If you're full time I suspect you won't be affected by this as you will be getting a student loan instead.

Do check wil your local council about council tax though - when council tax benefit disappears, some councils will do away with the council tax exemption for students. (That's another one I think people will be surprised about, when they're expected to pay council tax for their DCs at uni).

If you degree is part-time then I suspect it may well affect you. I would advise making contact with the Student Support people at your uni asap (don't wait till you start). They will have staff there specifically to help students with finance issues. I'm also doing a degree and the Student Support people at my uni have been great.

aufaniae Fri 01-Feb-13 11:15:19

"Of course the government want wages to be higher, because then we all pay more tax."

Alibabaandthe40nappies I'm afraid you're not living in the same world as the rest of us! It would be lovely to have such a rose-tinted view of this government, but it's not the reality I'm afraid!

They are on the side of big business. They want to make it easier for companies to hire & fire, to get access to cheap or free labour.

When they talk about doing away with "red tape" they often mean doing away with workers' rights.

When they talk about making companies more "competitive" they often mean with lower wages.

Raising wages for ordinary working people is not on their agenda!

Mosman Fri 01-Feb-13 11:16:46

People in part-time jobs who claim UC and earn less than MW full time (or fewer hours in certain conditions, e.g. if you have kids) will be classed as "underemployed" and required to prove they are seeking more hours / better pay, and can be required to take new jobs against their will, or lose UC.

Yes. But only jobs that improve their position.
You can still work 10 hours a week because it fits around your study/life style/whatever but you won't be supported financially for those choices. And rightly so.

FriggFRIGGisPoorlySick Fri 01-Feb-13 11:17:41

I'm so confused.
I know this will probably affect me but I don't understand how exactly.
How can I plan for this if I don't know what's about to happen?

nametakenagain Fri 01-Feb-13 11:21:22

We pay the tax at the rate the government sets (any government), it doesn't have to wait for our wages to go up.

Viviennemary Fri 01-Feb-13 11:23:53

I didn't hear about students not being exempt in some areas when the changes come into place. But what I don't think is fair is this. A PhD student could be on £14,000 a year grant. Pays no tax on this and pays no council tax. Person on £12,000 a year pays tax and council tax. How on earth can this be right. I think students on a student loan should be exempt but not all categories of student.

aufaniae Fri 01-Feb-13 11:24:49

Mosman, the jobs will not necessarily improve people's position.

You may choose to be in a low-paid job as you know long-term it's got great prospects (which equates to more money for the tax payer overall).

You could be forced to leave this job to go clean floors, in a company with no prospects, as the cleaning job is more hours a week.

That does not benefit the individual or society as a whole.

Part-time nurses could be forced into unskilled jobs if they can't get more hours at work. How does that help anyone?!

lazybastard Fri 01-Feb-13 11:26:54

Oh well I guess nobody knows the answer. Suppose I trapped in NMW til I drop dead. Thou shaky not try and better thyself and all that.

Here was me thinking that after a year of unsuccessful job hunting I had made positive steps towards finding the light at the end of the tunnel. However no, I'm lazy and irresponsible. sad

expatinscotland Fri 01-Feb-13 11:30:27

'when council tax benefit disappears, some councils will do away with the council tax exemption for students. (That's another one I think people will be surprised about, when they're expected to pay council tax for their DCs at uni).'

I never understood this exemption. Do students not use council services then, same as anyone else?

aufaniae Fri 01-Feb-13 11:38:05

"I never understood this exemption. Do students not use council services then, same as anyone else?"

This is a very short-sighted question as they are not students forever!

The idea is that enabling young people to study we end up benefitting as a society as we have a better educated population. Also, from a financial point of view, if people can get qualifications then they get better pay long term and so we get more tax overall. Also, when students used to survive mainly on grants (from the government) it was a but silly for money to be going in circles!

It's about taking a long view about what's best for society.

If we make it easier for the less well off to study, we'll have a bigger pool of people applying. I'd rather my surgeon was the best available, rather than simply the one with the richest parents wouldn't you?

IfNotNowThenWhen Fri 01-Feb-13 11:39:00

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

Alibabaandthe40nappies Fri 01-Feb-13 11:39:51

lazy - no-one knows yet. There is a clause in the document that says 'if claimants fall below the conditionality they must show that they are either trying to find additional income, or are improving their prospects of getting work in other ways'. That is fairly vague, but does suggest that studying will be taken into account.

None of this happens until October, and it will be phased in. You could be most of the way through your training before you are affected in any way.

shesariver Fri 01-Feb-13 11:44:06

God this is so depressing, both what the Tories plan to do and some of the attitudes here.It wont affect me as I work full time but its so awful that it will have such an effect of real peoples lives and the Tories seem to be a juggernaut that is just going to keep going and going. Im a Mental Health Nurse and I know recruitment is frozen mostly in my trust (Glasgow), but recently there were 7 Band 5 jobs advertised - and there were over 150 applicants. This is unheard of. Ladybeagle I have to agree with you, Im no supporter at all of Scottish Independence but this might be the final straw for me to.

lazybastard Fri 01-Feb-13 11:44:49

Ok so perhaps the fact I am studying full time in a vocational course may hopefully give me temporary exemption so I can finish. I'll be applying for every job going when qualified. Would be anyway even if I wasn't legally compelled, it is the whole point of doing this, to work.

IfNotNowThenWhen Fri 01-Feb-13 11:45:46

Please don't leave us Scotland!!

aufaniae Fri 01-Feb-13 11:50:18

"Please don't leave us Scotland!!"

Yes, please don't! We'll be stuck with the bastards forever then!

bringmeroses Fri 01-Feb-13 11:55:45

Sounds terrifying.

Ifnotnowthenwhen - IMO the background problem is that a proportion of the working class are not working and there is a perception that some (not all) are/were having an easy life at taxpayers expense, so public opinion is not as liberal as it was. I read something about a family 'just scraping by' on benefits but two of their weekly "essentials" was a carton of fags and sky TV; stuff like this doesn't engender sympathy.

It seems the govt is trying to find ways of making sure that people who are not earning much FT are not subsidising those choosing to earn less PT. I think this is a different kettle of fish entirely as working is working IMO and there are many very valid reasons for working PT and/or on MW for a bit. Yes the country is broke but it also seems illustrative of a public opinion backlash against anyone receiving govt help.

expatinscotland Fri 01-Feb-13 11:58:26

I just asked a question, auf. hmm

And tuition fees are a far greater barrier than council tax. At any rate, the full exemption is probably going.

Great post, IfNot.

OTTMummA Fri 01-Feb-13 11:59:05

It says that for couples who have children under 13 yOu can select one of you to be sanctioned with conditions to employment as per lone parents, so in school time etc, does that mean because DH works I can still work pt? Without this malarky impacting on us? How many hours would I have to do, 24?

ssd Fri 01-Feb-13 12:04:35

whats the rules for couples, one working full time on £19k one working part time on NMW, does anyone know?

Scrazy Fri 01-Feb-13 12:23:12

So it means that you have 2 able bodied adults in a household and between them they are expected to earn £217.00 a week and if they don't then a switch to UC will mean they are encouraged to find work to do so, and people are up in arms about this because???

Viviennemary Fri 01-Feb-13 12:40:42

It would be helpful to know what kind of sums of money are involved. I don't think it should be a choice that people should expect to be heavily subsidised so they can choose to work part-time. How can this be fair on people struggling to cope with a full-time job. The whole thing has gone mad.

garlicblocks Fri 01-Feb-13 12:47:52

Haven't finished catching up with thread yet, but some of these replies are just like "Let them eat cake"!

Wrapround childcare, nannies, two-hour commutes, breakfast clubs, moving from the sticks to the city??

These are workers who wages are so low they need topping up by the state, remember.

The train fare would be more than the wages. Ditto the breakfast club and childcare. Poor people cannot move from a cheap area to an expensive one.

Moreover, local authorities and the DWP will be empowered to make people in need of rehousing go to live in cheaper areas. By definition there are fewer jobs in these areas.

MissVerinder Fri 01-Feb-13 13:08:31

I'm getting a log cabin on an island somewhere and going off grid.

This is the most ridiculous thing I ever heard. Ever.

aufaniae Fri 01-Feb-13 13:15:21

Sorry expatinscotland if I made you feel under attack, I didn't mean to!

aufaniae Fri 01-Feb-13 13:19:19

"whats the rules for couples, one working full time on £19k one working part time on NMW, does anyone know?"

AFAIK they take the household income rather than the individuals.

"The introduction of ‘in-work conditionality’ through the requirement to prepare, look, and be available for more or better-paid work is a new concept.

The intention is to apply it to claimants below a ‘conditionality threshold’. For most claimants, the threshold will be set at the weekly national minimum wage for a 35-hour week. At current levels, this would be £212.80 for single claimants over 21, and £425.60 for couples (before tax). Claimants with young children, caring responsibilities and work-limiting health problems would have a lower threshold, equivalent to the weekly national minimum wage for the number of hours they are required to be available for work, as set out in their claimant commitment.

Claimants above the threshold would not be subject to conditionality. Those below the threshold would be subject to all the work-related requirements, including both members of a couple, unless one was already in full-time work. There will need to be (inevitably complex) rules on the calculation of pay, where it fluctuates."

From this page on the Child Poverty Action Group website

calandarbear Fri 01-Feb-13 13:20:55

Right, I've actually joined mumsnet to comment on this after long time lurking.

My DH earns around 15 and a half thousand a year, we claim CTC and WTC. I stay at home with my youngest who is 3. The tax credits are just about equal to 15 hrs NMW.

So when youngest starts reception (Sept 2014) I have always planned on getting a 16 hr contract. Hopefully in a school as I am a qualified nursery nurse and pre children worked in a mainstream school as 1 to 1 support for children on the austism spectrum, but I am aware these jobs are getting more difficult to come by and I may have to do something entirely different.

At this point we would stop claiming tax credits as we would not need them. Am I correct to assume that these UC problems wouldn't apply to us as I wouldn't be claiming them? So couldn't be forced to work longer hours because we would not be getting extra support.

On a more general note I think it is a good idea to sanction people who have no intention of working but seems utterly ridiculous for people who have jobs to have to chop and change on the job centres say so.

garlicblocks Fri 01-Feb-13 13:21:00

Alibabaa and aufaniae, policy documents released last summer did indeed say that part-time workers on low pay would be treated exactly like JSA claimants, with full conditionality and requirements to drop permanent jobs in favour of temporary ones.

The fact that this has now been reviewed is an example of this government's enthusiasm for pushing through the most dramatic changes to Britain's economic and social structure in nearly 100 years, without proper consideration of how it will work. The rules are still being written - eight months before coming into effect.

As disability benefit claimants will know, they're perfectly happy to continue finessing the rules after implementing changes, meaning none of has a clue what criteria we are supposed to fulfil in any given month.

The computer system to administer UC still doesn't work, by the way. It has been designated unfit for purpose and Mr Duncan Smith was asked to delay the rollout. He decided not to, implementing more beta trials instead. Consequently, you might find that your area has been chosen for trials and you're on UC before October - using a faulty system, with contradictory guidelines in place of rules.

I realise this is hard to believe unless you're a benefit dependent, in which case you've already been through the phase of incredulity and are now resigned to a nightmarish obstacle course of insane bureaucracy, but try and get used to it. And consider organised protest.

CloudsAndTrees Fri 01-Feb-13 13:22:38

People in part-time jobs who claim UC and earn less than MW full time (or fewer hours in certain conditions, e.g. if you have kids) will be classed as "underemployed" and required to prove they are seeking more hours / better pay, and can be required to take new jobs against their will, or lose UC.

That is the principle of the thing, yes. I am really struggling to see the problem with that.

As long as they apply the right exemptions (which they may or may not) then what's so bad about people supporting themselves as much as they possibly can?

You say people can be required to take new jobs against their will, but since when has will had anything to do with it? Should people get to choose to do whatever they want in life and be supported by the state no matter where they choose to live or how many children they choose to have?

Because if that's what we are fighting for, maybe I should change my mind. I won't bother going to work. I'll stay home all day and mumsnet and maybe do a bit of voluntary work if I feel like it. After all, that's 'my will', and the government, and other people, should support it. hmm

aufaniae Fri 01-Feb-13 13:30:37

garlicblocks that really useful, thanks for the clarification.

aufaniae Fri 01-Feb-13 13:31:30

CloudsAndTrees you can't see the problem with people who have trained for years to be a nurse for example, being compelled to go mop floors?

jojane Fri 01-Feb-13 13:34:56

I don't know how accurate it is but policy in practice website has a universal credits calculator, put In Your details and it calculates what you will be entitled to, shows you how much better off you are by working as oppose to not etc. looks like we are entitled to more than what we currently get and no sanctions, I would give it a go you might be surprised!

IfNotNowThenWhen Fri 01-Feb-13 13:35:08

This is not really about the nuts and bolts of who will get what and who won't.
What it is, in fact, about is a massive ideological shift in this country, driven by the current ultra right wing government and filtered down through the media.
This move to UC will not save the country money, it will cost billions, but that is quite clearly not the point.
It is a shift from the idea of universal welfare for those who need it in order to even up the inequalities in society, to the idea that society should, naturally, be unequal.
It is question of making us forget that the welfare state has transformed ordinary people's lives since 1948 (and I had grandparents old enough to remember what things were like before) and that, when people pay national insurance (the clue is in the name) that insures them against hardship and extreme poverty.
What this current government wants us to start believing, with their attacks on council housing and the NHS, is that no-one deserves a stable home, enough to eat, a heated place to live, free healthcare.

Wages have just not gone up. Instead we got tax credits-INSTEAD of wage rises, so they they can tell us "oh, well, you don't actually deserve this money.
Clever.
Even cleverer to use "benefit claimants expecting something for nothing" as the national bogeyman to blame for the country's ills. Hey, it means we forget to blame the long run of banking de-regulation, and the banks for betting on a sure loss and crashing the world economy like a line of dominoes.

This way, those who are not quite on the bottom rung, whose lives are getting tougher and belts are getting tighter, can agree to the removal of any expectations of a welfare state for those on the rung below.
Lets just hope they don't ever need help, eh? Because pretty soon we will be back to the 1930's, and the help won't be there.

And, by the by, regarding "something for nothing" in my 20's pre dc I earned up to 1k a week. I have paid a lot of tax, I will pay a lot of tax again, so any suggestion that my tax credits are "free money" can, quite frankly, fuck off.

FairyJen Fri 01-Feb-13 13:36:34

I don't auf they might not be million floors forever...

ItsAllGoingToBeFine Fri 01-Feb-13 13:36:41

It's not as simple as getting off your lazy arse and getting a job.

If every person currently not working for whatever reason suddenly decided to get a job, they couldn't. There are I think tens of thousands more people unemployed than there are jobs available.

Mosman Fri 01-Feb-13 13:36:43

CloudsAndTrees you can't see the problem with people who have trained for years to be a nurse for example

You can't see anything wrong with people who've trained for years to be nurses being under utilised working less than 16 hours ?

jojane Fri 01-Feb-13 13:36:46

Surely the NHS as an arm of the government will have to rearrange its staffing to fit in with the universal credits criteria, it would not be a very good example to private companies otherwise.

FairyJen Fri 01-Feb-13 13:37:02

*mopping!

Not million where the hell did million come from!

CloudsAndTrees Fri 01-Feb-13 13:50:52

If mopping floors pays more than the nursing job, and the nurses lifestyle needs more money to maintain it, then no, not really.

If a nurse wants to be a nurse and nursing doesn't pay very much, then he or she will either need to get enough hours to do the job they want to do, or make life choices that are sustainable on the wage they have chosen to have. Or, a nurse could get a supplementary job in a care home or similar if they want to maintain their nursing registration. Or, their partner (if they have one) can earn enough so that they don't have to claim UC.

I think it's a bit emotive to apply this to nurses though.

LabelsGalore Fri 01-Feb-13 13:51:45

What might happen (and might actually be what the gov is hoping for) is that people on part time work will stop claiming UC so they aren't forced into doing something they do not/can not do.

Solve so much problems doesn't it? Less people claiming benefits, less paperwork. What else can you ask for? hmm

LabelsGalore Fri 01-Feb-13 13:52:43

But Clouds the you have the massive problem that you have a country with no nurses! Would you want to go to an understaffed hospital with all the issues coming with it?

minouminou Fri 01-Feb-13 13:55:07

I wondered that, Labels.
If it weren't for the sinister ideological shift ifnot so eloquently outlined, it wouldn't be a half bad policy lever. A section of claimants who would, say, lose only a few quid a week if they stopped claiming UC would probably be alright and would save a lot of paperwork etc.

It's not going to pan out like that, though.

CloudsAndTrees Fri 01-Feb-13 13:58:16

Jojane, that website is interesting. UC looks fairly generous to me!

LabelsGalore Fri 01-Feb-13 13:59:17

And this is not emotive to talk about nurses. Loads of them are working part time.
Just as there are loads of other type of jobs that requires part time work. We just rarely think about them but they do help a hell of a lot. They help us all having an easier life.

Let's say, what about my window cleaner. He isn't making a lot of money, claim UC and has been told that he has to go this pert time/full time job for the next 3 months. During that time... well my windows won't get cleaned or he will be loosing the customers he had spent years getting...
Now of course the problem is, no one will want to be a window cleaner again (too risky/unstable etc...) so I won't get my windows cleaned (not an issue, I can do it myself) but my PIL won't either (and they can NOT do it themselves).

To add to the mix, most of the employment is NOT in big companies but in small businesses. The same businesses that needs part time workers to survive/thrive. No part time work (because too dangerous for the workers) means that you are stifling the businesses at the very core of our economic growth.
That is, if you don't actually decide that it's OK to just write off a good part of the population and expect them to jump through hoops 'just because'.

minouminou Fri 01-Feb-13 13:59:38

It's like we are all being prepared to do without the safety net, while still paying the same amount of tax and NI.
If our tax rate was reduced, so people had more spare money to get insurance for job loss etc, then fair enough,

Anyone see tax cuts for the middle and lower earners soon? Eh?

CloudsAndTrees Fri 01-Feb-13 14:01:08

Not all nurses have part time contracts!

Understaffed hospitals would come about as a result of not enough nurses being employed, not because of UC!

LabelsGalore Fri 01-Feb-13 14:02:01

Or if you still get some part time worker, you will get a lot of change, people who are unskilled (it takes time to train someone to a specific job), therefore less productive.
Without talking about the number of hours lost by the company.

How is that going to be a benefit for the country as a whole?

jojane Fri 01-Feb-13 14:02:38

Not sure how accurate the figures are but they must have got some info from somewhere, wouldn't just totally make it up.

mmmerangue Fri 01-Feb-13 14:03:48

I have only read the first few posts. You have just scared the shit out of me, and I will be back later to research properly. Someone please tell me OP is DailyMailPropagandizing so I don't need to have a heart attack right about now.

Back later...

garlicblocks Fri 01-Feb-13 14:04:17

rearrange its staffing to fit in with the universal credits criteria

Aye, so what that means is all minimum-wage jobs being full time or fixed shifts.

I can see an ideological justification for all the reforms - except the Work Programme - in that, on paper, they would force the labour and housing markets to readjust themselves. There are two problems with this: firstly, nearly all the readjustment is being forced onto the 'demand' side - workers and tenants - leaving enterprise and housing owners free to milk it as hard as they can. Secondly, people whose wages have to be subsidised by the state don't actually have the flexibility required to play a market so, being powerless, many will become prey to exploitation. If the changes go ahead as intended there will be more homeless, more crime and an us/them social divide that will be very hard to come back from.

In a buoyant economy, the coalition's principles could have worked. At this time, though, they are only contracting the economy still further so the negative outcomes will be more pronounced.

IfNot, your posts today are great!

CloudsAndTrees Fri 01-Feb-13 14:04:33

Part time work can be done by people who have school age children, people who have more than one part time job, people who have partners who work full time.

There are plenty of people available for part time work, and there will still be plenty of part time work available. Not everyone claims benefits!

bringmeroses Fri 01-Feb-13 14:05:29

Ifnotnow can you clarify the "it won't save the country money, it'll cost billions" comment?

And we have a massive national debt - but I've got this from the media, I'm ashamed to say not clued up enough to argue this from a position of great knowledge - and I thought the idea of UC was to create more fairness (so full time workers aren't subsidising part timers who've chosen part time work) and save money?

Am I a gullible minnow swallowing the media hype hook line and sinker?

ILikeBirds Fri 01-Feb-13 14:06:37

It's not hours alone that matter though. They're not going to make a nurse working 16 hours per week work twice as much in a minimum wage job instead as there's an earnings element that sits alongside the working hours requirement.

freerangelady Fri 01-Feb-13 14:08:50

Interesting from a small employers perspective. We specifically designed our shift pattern for our 6 employees to run between 9 and 3 for 16 hrs to attract the mums. We pay just above nmw. If people stop taking jobs like ours we have an easy solution - we'd just employ 3 full timers. Problem is, in our business that would mean a lot of wk ends and antisocial hrs if we had to rota full timers which means we can't get British staff (we have tried before) and would have to go down the Eastern European route.

Alibabaandthe40nappies Fri 01-Feb-13 14:09:42

Ifnot there is nothing 'ultra right wing' about this government. It is too far to the middle, which is why we have this fudge.

min - lots of people that this applies to are no longer paying any tax because the threshold has been lifted to almost £10k per annum, by this government. So the tax cut has already happened.

LabelsGalore Fri 01-Feb-13 14:10:22

Understaffed hospitals would come about as a result of not enough nurses being employed, not because of UC!

Unless all the nurses who are working PT have been forced onto 'other jobs'.
Or unless it is impossible to find nurses (Full time or PT) any more because there just aren't enough of them.
This could be either because people who use to work as nurses decided it's not worth doing that any more (long hours, lots of issues in the NHS etc etc I know so many people on the NHS who have either leave or are dreaming to do so. Such a system will tip them over the edge tbh). Or because they have lost their qualification. Eg If a nurse stops working for a certain amount of time, they loose their 'qualifications' therefore can't work as a nurse again, unless they take on exams etc...

The reality is that this system WILL move people in certain type of job and WILL move people out of certain job (that will be seen as undesirable) because of UC. And this will have some effect on all of us (I am thinking tradesmen, people who work from home, any home carer type of skim, care at home system etc etc...)

minouminou Fri 01-Feb-13 14:11:26

Does anyone think this could lead to more on-site crèches and so forth? Obvs it'll cost more to start up, but what would long term effects be?

I'm not the workd's greatest economics person, so be gentle and imagine you're addressing a six-year-old.....

Alibabaandthe40nappies Fri 01-Feb-13 14:11:44

freerange - but maybe you will be able to if the people who choose to do part-time and get tax credits at the moment no longer have that option open to them?

aufaniae Fri 01-Feb-13 14:12:42

mmmerangue when you read the thread you'll find out that some of my OP is wrong as I based it on an old article and some stuff has changed since then. The basic principle is right however.

For example I said at the start that people would be forced to leave permanent jobs to take up better-paid but only temporary contracts. Apparently this was what government policy did say last summer but they have changed the guidance on that point since then.

It's confusing for all of us, as the government have announced this before ironing out the detail, and are forging ahead despite even them not yet knowing how it will all work!

The basic principle however is this: if you work part-time and are in receipt of UC you may well be considered "under-employed" and you will be required to prove you are looking for better paid work / more hours. The job centre will be able to force you to leave your current job to take up a better paid one, even if the prospects are worse in the new job.

CloudsAndTrees Fri 01-Feb-13 14:14:04

Freerange, your post is interesting, and very sad. If your part timers are all claiming tax credits, then yours is one of the businesses that people on here complain about having to subsidise. I don't share that opinion btw.

Hopefully measures like UC would mean that British workers would be encouraged to work the hours they need, even if they have to compromise on the hours they work. If not, then the problem lies with the British public, not government policy.

freerangelady Fri 01-Feb-13 14:14:53

Ali - that would be a good thing out of this then. It's a dirty job (livestock farming) that we have found many many local youngsters just turn there noses up at.

Darkesteyes Fri 01-Feb-13 14:16:14

Going back to earlier in the thread i had a similar experience to Meglet. In the 80s when i was growing up both my parents were working full time. In 1987 when i was fourteen i was being VERY badly bullied at school.
I tried to talk to my parents about it but my dad said "well what have you done to provoke them"
And my mum just didnt want to know.
After one VERY bad day at school i found some whisky in their drinks cabinet and some boxes of paracetomol and sat at the table and began drinking. Before taking the first pill DB came home unexpectedly,saw what i was doing and freaked out.
He phoned DM at work who then had to come home. And SCREAMED at me because she had to leave work.
This is something which will probably be repeated up and down the country. Having to acknowledge that the bullying wasnt my fault or caused by me would have meant them having to take time off work to do something about it. Which they didnt want to do or couldnt afford to do!

Eliza600 Fri 01-Feb-13 14:16:37

"These are workers who wages are so low they need topping up by the state, remember"

No-one has wages 'so low they need topping up by the state'.
If a person is poorly paid then it's up to them to find better paid work or to take a second job. It should not be the state's responsibility to top up peoples' earnings.

Whatever happened to personal responsibility and pride? It should be up to the individual to provide for themselves.
People who have had children without a back-up plan of any sort (in case of divorce, illness etc) should not be reliant on the govt. to sort out the mess for them.
Maybe they should man up and accept that yes, they may have to work 70 hours a week for a few years to get themselves financially sorted. I did it for years and it didn't do me any harm.

I am not against benefit payments, but imo these should be restricted to the genuinely unwell, needy and elderly people, not to people who would simply prefer to spend more time at home.

CloudsAndTrees Fri 01-Feb-13 14:17:29

The job centre will not be able to force you to leave your current job to take up a better paid one even if the prospects are worse.

You might be told that if you choose to earn less than you are capable of earning then you won't be propped up in your choices by being given free money, but no one will be forced to do anything. At least no more forced than people are already when they take a job to fund their existence.

CloudsAndTrees Fri 01-Feb-13 14:19:54

Right Darkest. Your parents being unsympathetic and unloving towards you is all the governments fault hmm

I'm sorry you had the experience that you did, but your parents are to blame for it, no one else.

Darkesteyes Fri 01-Feb-13 14:20:21

I cant belive the lack of empathy on this thread. A lot of part time employers DO expect their workers to keep themselves available on their day off. And if you stand up for yourself and say that you cant because you cant afford to, they will just find someone whose spouse is already working and so can afford to be fucked about.

meadow2 Fri 01-Feb-13 14:20:36

I never get it when low earners say they cant work as if your on low wage you get childcare element and then notmal tcs and it covers all your childcare.

CloudsAndTrees Fri 01-Feb-13 14:23:14

People who choose part time work just because they prefer it to working full time when there is nothing stopping them from working full time, don't need empathy. They need to pay their own way in life and live by their choices.

aufaniae Fri 01-Feb-13 14:23:17

CloudsAndTrees one of the reasons so many people are on benefits is the extortionate price of housing in this country.

If you were faced with the following choice:

a. continue in your present job with prospects but lose UC, meaning you can't cover your rent and your family will become homeless

or

b. take the new job with no prospects, get to keep your home.

Wouldn't you feel like you were being forced to take option b.?

I think a better way is:

c. Leave the first person in a job they want, and give the new job to someone who really wants it!

Darkesteyes Fri 01-Feb-13 14:23:39

Clouds where did i say in my post it was the Goves fault. You do suffer from "putting words in other peoples mouths" disease dont you. Thats the second time youve done that to me this week!
Im simply pointing out that the issues raised in this thread will cause more stress in households which COULD lead to the kind of situation like the experience i had.

Alibabaandthe40nappies Fri 01-Feb-13 14:24:09

darkest couples have got to earn about £1700 a month between them to meet the conditions of UC. Even at NMW that isn't 2 full-time jobs.
And anyway, lots of parents both work full-time and chose not to be arseholes to their children. I'm very sorry you had a shitty childhood, but that was entirely down to your parents, not this or any other government.

aufaniae Fri 01-Feb-13 14:24:25

Darkesteyes I'm sorry you had to experience that sad

calandarbear Fri 01-Feb-13 14:24:28

*No-one has wages 'so low they need topping up by the state'.
If a person is poorly paid then it's up to them to find better paid work or to take a second job. It should not be the state's responsibility to top up peoples' earnings.*

I absolutely agree with this, however I was happy to take advantage of the situation with Tax Credits that allowed have allowed me to stay at home whilst my children were at home but I have no problem with getting a part time job (that will easily equal and probably exceed the amount we get in Tax credits) once DD is at school. Although I do think it is ridiculous to change the rules re part time work and benefits so suddenly I do think that if both adults in a family are working they could probably cope without benefits if they tightened their belts a little.

happyinherts Fri 01-Feb-13 14:24:58

"People who have had children without a back-up plan of any sort (in case of divorce, illness etc) should not be reliant on the govt. to sort out the mess for them"

I hope you're not trying to infer here that only the higher paid should have children and working parents who work just as hard but earn less shouldn't have a family - that's totally out of order.

CloudsAndTrees Fri 01-Feb-13 14:25:22

I wouldn't be in that position if the 'new job' existed. I would automatically have taken the job I needed to provide for myself and my children over the job I would have preferred in the first place.

maddening Fri 01-Feb-13 14:28:40

I am going back to work soon - my ds is 2 - would I be allowed to have 2 part time jobs? Like a weekday part time and then a different weekend or evening partime?

Darkesteyes Fri 01-Feb-13 14:29:20

Thanks aufanie.

CloudsAndTrees Fri 01-Feb-13 14:29:45

Im simply pointing out that the issues raised in this thread will cause more stress in households which COULD lead to the kind of situation like the experience i had.

Well, you didn't point it out very clearly, but I'm sorry if I took your post in a different way from how you intended it.

Households are already living with the stress of having two people working full time. On the whole, they manage it without neglecting the needs do their children. There is no reason why these measures should lead to the type of situation you experienced unless the parents involved are already pre disposed to being uncaring towards their children.

aufaniae Fri 01-Feb-13 14:31:10

CloudsAndTrees so you would always take a better paid job rather than one with prospects. Why? That doesn't help your family or the tax payer!

Surely it makes more sense to take a job which is low paid at first, but you know it'll lead to a well paid job if you prove yourself, rather than one which pays marginally better at first but no prospects of promotion?

FairyJen Fri 01-Feb-13 14:31:12

I think the point happy was that some people seem to have the believe that they and their lifestyle are untouchable and bad things will never happen to them and so make no preparation ie savings. The mentality does seem to be that it doesn't matter if the worst happens as we can go on benefits rather than families making their own back up to support themselves through difficult times and for some this will mean limiting the number of dc they have and the type of lifestyle they lead.

Mosman Fri 01-Feb-13 14:31:27

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

CloudsAndTrees Fri 01-Feb-13 14:31:28

Maddening, that will depend on what you and your partner earn.

Xales Fri 01-Feb-13 14:32:20

It is very nice of them to say people won't be required to leave permanent work for temporary.

What happens if the new employer decides you are not suitable within a 3/6 month probation period. Then you go claim JSA/income support and take more out of the system.

They can also now sack you up to 2 years with out reasons.

IfNotNowThenWhen Fri 01-Feb-13 14:33:16

bringmeroses Any massive change in the way a government department is administered will always cost a LOT to implement. The current system is made up of the DWP, the HMRC, and local councils, each providing a separate element of benefit assessment.
To scrap this and re-train thousands of employees, plus the IT changes won't come free.
This whole thing is a very negative policy. Punish those who seemingly have things "too easy", and make their lives even more insecure by telling them to move, or change jobs, while disregarding the impact this will have on families.

Treaclesoda upthread mentioned the fact that many p/t workers(who are mainly women) are actually carers, for example caring for elderly relatives.
In fact, they are being the "big society" David Cameron has gone a little quiet about lately..

We do need to reduce the deficit. Perhaps by closing the loopholes that allow huge corporations to dodge tax, and by investing in infrastructure, supporting small business, creating apprenticeships for young people.
Not making hard working single mums, who spend all their time doing sums to see if they can afford dinner money after the gas bill has gone out, jump through hoops.
I WOULD get another p/t job. I would work in a pub, or do cleaning. Can someone look after my kid for free while I am out from 5 pm until midnight? Thought not.

aufaniae Fri 01-Feb-13 14:34:26

FairyJen no, the point is that people can't always forsee all eventualities.

That's the point of paying National Insurance - that we all have basic protection if the worst happens to us. It's a great idea, and it's being eroded.

People don't have to think they're "untouchable" to not see disaster around the corner, even when they have tried their best to prepare for it.

CloudsAndTrees Fri 01-Feb-13 14:34:30

CloudsAndTrees so you would always take a better paid job rather than one with prospects. Why? That doesn't help your family or the tax payer!

Of course it helps my family and the taxpayer!!

It helps my family because they are provided for, and it helps the taxpayer because I'm not expecting them to fund the family that I chose to create!

If I don't get to improve my income potential because I chose to have children before I was capable of earning NMW, then that's my fault. It's not up to anyone else to pay for my children.

CloudsAndTrees Fri 01-Feb-13 14:34:57

Should have said capable of earning more than NMW there.

Viviennemary Fri 01-Feb-13 14:35:12

Why is housing and the cost of living so expensive. When people are on low wages. It is because of the overuse of subsidies. It has not been good for the economy. And has allowed private firms like Tesco's to pay low wages knowing they will be topped up by benefits. Now I am against that.

Alibabaandthe40nappies Fri 01-Feb-13 14:35:37

Maddening - in theory yes you could have 2 part-time jobs. Those jobs in combination with whatever your partner earns would have to take you above the threshold, or if you are an LP then a lower threshold applies.

Xales - that is a risk wherever you are though, whoever you are.

Alibabaandthe40nappies Fri 01-Feb-13 14:37:32

Vivienne - very good point. Also, unrestrained housing benefit has pushed up rentals and therefore contributed massively to property price rises.

CloudsAndTrees Fri 01-Feb-13 14:37:57

What happens if the new employer decides you are not suitable within a 3/6 month probation period

Why would they decide you're not suitable unless you really aren't suitable, or you are doing a shit job?

Employers aren't just sitting there waiting to hire people then fire them after a couple of months for the sake of it. Presumably before they get to the position of choosing who to hire for certain jobs, they have shown at least some capability of judging who would be suitable for the position they are offering?

FairyJen Fri 01-Feb-13 14:42:30

auf my understanding tho is that this targeted at people who are capable of working ft and thus providing for themselves rather than rely on the state.

If people weren't so self entitled and just did this already anyway as its the right thing to do there would be more money in the pot for those in genuine need.

I don't expect people to plan for every single eventuality however for example if your willingly havin children knowing before their born ( so not in difficulty due to losing job etc ) that you can only afford them if the state is paying I think this is slightly irresponsible and not fair on the parents ( such as the ones up thread ) who end up working 50+ hours to support their own children and those children subsidised by the state

Scrazy Fri 01-Feb-13 14:45:43

Many people have trained for various jobs but in the event of not being able to find one they do other jobs in the meantime. Lots of EU workers are employed mopping floors when they are full trained in other professions. They cannot claim benefits when they are new here so...

Also this concept of being forced against their will. What on earth. I don't particularly like getting out of bed early and sitting in one seat at work for 8 hrs a day, it's against my will but we do it because we have to.

meadow2 Fri 01-Feb-13 14:48:12

I am really surprised at there not being breakfast/afterschool clubs available in some areas.There are lots here,but its probably because we have lots of polish people.

MrsBethel Fri 01-Feb-13 14:49:27

AFAIK it won't be compulsory to claim Universal Credit.

If you'd rather do a lower paid job, or do fewer hours for personal reasons, then you can.

Xales Fri 01-Feb-13 14:50:21

It's not a risk if I have been employed in my current job for more than 2 years and they have to go through procedures if they want rid of me rather than just getting rid with in the 2 year period.

ProphetOfDoom Fri 01-Feb-13 14:59:44

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

aufaniae Fri 01-Feb-13 15:01:21

Xales I'm not sure what point you were replying to there, but are you aware that the government is trying to make it much easier for employers to sack people?

garlicblocks Fri 01-Feb-13 15:01:41

I have no problem with getting a part time job

So many people have said this! Why don't they get off their arses, think the world owes them, I worked 2 jobs while at uni (I did, too, as it happens.)

Have you noticed there aren't enough jobs? The official figure is now 12 applicants for every vacancy, iirc, and you can see recruiters on this thread saying they get 50-150 applications per post.

When you can't get your earnings up to the required minimum the DWP may hound you, force you to spend a set number of hours a week on their shite new website which tracks your activity, make you go to useless employability programs ... and send you texts telling you'd earn more if you worked more! Obviously this is costing a great deal of money.

Alibabaandthe40nappies Fri 01-Feb-13 15:01:46

Matilda it sounds like you will be well over the threshold.

Viviennemary Fri 01-Feb-13 15:13:37

How could you be better of financially not working Schmaltzing. This is what I never understand. And in any case the government has promised nobody will be worse of when they work than when the don't work. So I suppose that's something.

garlicblocks Fri 01-Feb-13 15:18:31

the government has promised nobody will be worse of when they work than when the don't work

The government promises many things ...

"The DWP found that 1.8 million main earners in a family will be worse off if they take on extra hours under the reforms than they would be now. Another 300,000 secondary earners will also be penalised for taking on extra work under the scheme.

"This means up to 2.1 million people would be better off refusing the offer of extra work under the Universal Credit, 600,000 more than would be better off if they agreed to take on more hours."

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9741033/Universal-Credit-2-million-will-be-better-off-refusing-work.html

mmmerangue Fri 01-Feb-13 15:28:48

Ok, I'm back, I've had a more thorough (if not indepth) read and I am not quite shitting a brick as big as the one I was before.

My DP works full-time in a low paying job which he may well lose on Monday due to budget cuts and restructuring (council employee).

I work part-time as a waitress. We receive WTC and did get childcare element to cover some of DS's 2 3-hour nursery slots last year until I had a bout of ill health and my hours were cut. These help us survive. They do not pay for us to have a flashy car; but for my DP's petrol to get to work. They don't pay for meals out, but for meals on the table at home. They buy my son's shoes and clothes and keep our heating on. We do not have prospects of holidays, university, or owning our own home at any point in the near future.

I have a degree and yes, I have chosen a low-paying job in order to provide motherly care to my DS in his first few years. I could have worked 90-hour-a-week internships for god knows how long with the hope of somehow getting a fairly-paid advertising job. As a Pregnant single (advertising creatives work in pairs, not romantically single) applicant I can guarantee there would have been better, easier applicants every day of the week. SO I got an immediately paying and flexible job instead.

My are currently between 10-13 whereas they were between 16-25 before i got ill. This means that the childcare element (for which both parents must work over 16 hours a week) was cut and we are struggling to find it, however DS loves nursery and I do not want to deny him it now he has settled in sad Hopefully the hours will rise again at some point. I have said to my boss that at some point I would like to work more (30-40 hours) and would put DS in childcare to fit around lunchtime shift; but it would obviously need to be set shifts and arranged to fit around childcare. She is very accommodating as she has young kids of her own, but the hours just aren't there without her taking them from someone else, and is understandably wary of me getting ill again. Shifts are generally announced a week or 10 days before you might be working them, sometimes less, as is the case in most low paid jobs. And the days you work depend on the days they are expecting to be busy, which depends on the whim of the customers and when they book! Regularly I am asked to go in early, stay late etc. It is only a small restaurant so a change in bookings can mean a change in hours at very short notice. And I like my job and like to be accommodating, within reason. So much of this is just unfeasible to someone with un-confirmed shifts like mine.

I would not take another job if that would put my prospects of getting more hours at my current job in jepoardy - it seems I will not be required to phew.

"Advisers will also take into account other benefits of the claimant’s current employment, especially those that are particularly relevant to the claimant’s circumstances, before imposing any requirement to take an alternative job, for example, we would consider whether someone with caring responsibilities had the right to work flexibly. *We will in due course provide more detailed guidance on how this will operate in practice.*"

I have to say this paragraph from one of the documents linked fills me with a sense of dread. It makes me think, OK, I can probably reason my way out of this if it is not feasable for me. I am educated, I know how to access relevant information, I have a brain in my head, and am good at verbal and written communication. What about someone in my position without the ability with words that I have? Will they be able to make the same case conherently? What about that last sentence? Can they post legislation without having all these details sorted? O.O

Considering the amount of people falsely claiming benefits with no will or desire to work, ever, I find it shocking that the gov't that said they would make this 'impossible'; while taking care not to 'lose the middle classes in the restructuring'; will be taking from hardworking parents in this way. Although, if it all came to the crunch, If my partner keeps his job then I would have to take the option of turning down the benefits. My job keeps me sane...

Sorry for the essay. This will probably roll around my head all night. It is confusing and I hope it all turns out ... not as bad...

bringmeroses Fri 01-Feb-13 15:37:11

Ifnotnow I completely agree it will punish a lot of the wrong people. I think the government seems intent on supporting businesses, big and medium mainly, to drive economic recovery and this is being sold as a cost cutting measure longer term which it may well not be short term. I don't think it's right to penalize people who are genuinely in need.

But I don't think it's fair that people should be able to work less than they could reasonably work, and get benefits funded by people who are working full time. If someone needs to do the school run or be a carer, this should be taken in to consideration when they are assessed and allowances made.

No, nurses should not have to be cleaners so they can earn fractionally more per hour and so meet UC criteria. I hope enough common sense will be applied that people's roles will be taken into account?

Is it possible to 'throw' a job interview so you don't get it if you don't want it??

ValiumQueen Fri 01-Feb-13 15:42:26

I have read through the document in full. Because I will have three children in childcare, I cannot afford to go back to work full time due to the cap of assistance towards childcare of 70% of £1300. My monthly bill will be almost £2000. If I go back to work part time and therefore cut childcare costs by almost half, I will be considerably better off.

aufaniae Fri 01-Feb-13 15:43:20

"Is it possible to 'throw' a job interview so you don't get it if you don't want it??"

Well technically I suppose you could give it a go, but it would be dishonest and therefore far from ideal!

That reminds me of the Spud interview scene in Trainspotting.

Clytaemnestra Fri 01-Feb-13 15:48:52

Can I ask, if there are no part time jobs, and people can't get them, then they won't be sanctioned will they? Surely you only get sanctioned if you are offered a job and don't take it? So, if there are no jobs, no sanctions, and you'll keep getting universal credit. If there is a second job, why wouldn't you take it?

HappyMummyOfOne Fri 01-Feb-13 15:49:39

Theres a lot of scaremongering on the net where people have not actually read the full rules.

Employers wont stop offering part time posts as students, those who dont rely on state help etc will simply take those roles.

The rules for UC are quite fair, its a luxury to stay at home or work part time where your household income isnt enough and the state needs to step on. For a long time people have seen this as an entitlement and now the new government are expecting people to support themselves as much as possible they are seen as the bad guys.

It will have a good effect on the future genetation if less state helpmand more self reliance.

UC is a benefit you claim not an automatic action so those that want to claim state assistance does so knowing there are rules just like the current benefits have rules. They needed tightening as far too too many people choose to work little or had children with no means on supporting them and personal responsibility seems to have gone out of the window for many.

FairyJen Fri 01-Feb-13 15:51:22

Well said happymum

Nancy66 Fri 01-Feb-13 15:52:00

good post Happymummy

bringmeroses Fri 01-Feb-13 15:52:02

aufaniae I know I love that scene!

Also in the film Office Space, a guy is hypnotized into feeling completely relaxed about his stressful job, he then acts like he doesn't give a sh*t about how he comes across in his assessment interview. His bosses are so impressed at his confidence that he gets a promotion.

garlicblocks Fri 01-Feb-13 15:54:00

Is it possible to 'throw' a job interview so you don't get it if you don't want it??

Yes, of course. But look at how it's got you thinking like a cheat.

bringmeroses Fri 01-Feb-13 15:56:11

Happymummy Yes! Hopefully everyone taking personal responsibility will take the stigma out of being a young parent as well. I know a few older generation people who think that if a girl is below a certain age and pregnant, she must have got herself in that situation just for the benefits.

bringmeroses Fri 01-Feb-13 15:58:20

garlic it was just theoretical, I wasn't planning a strategy for myself, thankfully.

I wondered whether it was possible as I can imagine it would be worthwhile 'cheating' if the alternative was role was untenable.

garlicblocks Fri 01-Feb-13 16:01:36

It doesn't matter whether you were thinking theoretically, really, bringmeroses. Point is this 'simplified' and 'fairer' system is already so ridiculous that it prompts instant thoughts of how to get around it.

When you treat people like fraudsters, they start acting like fraudsters. Sometimes you leave them no option.

bringmeroses Fri 01-Feb-13 16:11:55

I think that people have always thought of ways to get round any systems, whether its claiming more benefit than you're entitled to or throwing a sickie for a hangover, fudging hours on a timesheet, or doing personal stuff like lots of MN surfing on company time.

garlic would you keep things the way they are? Why is the system so ridiculous? Genuine interest, I am learning a lot here.

LabelsGalore Fri 01-Feb-13 16:12:28

Employers wont stop offering part time posts as students, those who dont rely on state help etc will simply take those roles.
Very fair comment. Those who already are well enough not to need support will be able to continue as they were and earn a bit more money for the family (ie mum with a partner who works full time). So those people will be fine yes. The ones who are struggling and therefore needing some help ... well... they will have to 'pay their way' to receive some help. Because let's be honest, seeing as the system is working now, we all know that people will be made to apply for jobs that aren't suitable for them (and at the same time are loosing precious time on the employers pov by turning up to interviews and doing their best NOT to get the job) etc...

In effect, this is a system that is favourable to families and people who are married/in a partnership. (Exactly what this government has told is desirable).
It is favourable to people who have a high ish education (and therefore a higher paid job). And it is completely unfavourable to women (and esp single mums) but I suppose this is also in line what what the Conservative ideology who has said that women should be at home anyway....

noddyholder Fri 01-Feb-13 16:23:42

But all this is just words and forms as from what I see there are very few jobs!

lazybastard Fri 01-Feb-13 16:31:25

I think some people are making many wrong assumptions. Not all part time workers made a completely free choice to do so, not all part time workers are sitting on their arse and not job hunting, no matter what you want to believe it is harder to get your second part time job, not all people now needing help to didn't have backup plans.

We were both in full time jobs earning just above average wage each, we also had savings. We didn't claim TC, nor did I claim CBJSA when I was made redundant. 6 months in I was offered my current part time job which meant not paying for childcare. I admit I eased up on job hunting at this point but only because DH worked and we thought foregoing holidays was a small price to pay for not needing childcare.

I stepped up job hunting again when DH was made redundant applying for anything and everything same as DH. Neither of us have had any luck yet and our savings were used up in the 9months it took the benefits people to sort out their series of cock ups. We want to work but cannot take a job where commuting plus resulting childcare is greater than the pay, it would bankrupt us. There is a big difference between working for less and paying to work. Only the independently wealthy can afford to pay to work.

If only those who can be 100% sure they will suffer some set back that means they need help should have children then quite frankly the human race is rapidly heading for extinction.

FairyJen Fri 01-Feb-13 16:35:20

Warehouse work?
Cleaning?
Shelf stacking?
Delivery (leaflets/food etc)?
Fruit picking?

So nothing what so ever at all that you could possibly do? Really?

ProphetOfDoom Fri 01-Feb-13 16:36:36

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

lazybastard Fri 01-Feb-13 16:36:55

I didn't say there was nothing I could do, I said we hadn't got any of the jobs we have applied for.

FairyJen Fri 01-Feb-13 16:44:19

So are you applying for the types of jobs suggested above?

HandbagCrab Fri 01-Feb-13 16:45:31

I very much doubt any of the folks bleating about how hard they work and how everyone else should do 100hour weeks have never worked min wage for longer than a degree. But it's fine to condemn others to working long hours in low paid menial work as an ideology apparently.

I'm part time. I would have thought this would be a good thing in Britain plc as I'm one of those awful gold plated public sector workers so by being part time I cost the hard working tax payer less money. Now the hard working tax payer wants people like me who earn less to work full time - maybe we could do full time hours for a part time salary? Perhaps we could offer to do our jobs for workfare and scraps? Would the hard working tax payers on this thread be grimly pleased by that? Maybe I should pay in just for the privilege of being able to work for the public! Hard work is its own reward after all.

There but for the grace of god unless you've a couple of mil stuck under your mattress. I'm pretty sure everyone on this thread is closer to the royle family than the royal family whether they believe it or not.

Viviennemary Fri 01-Feb-13 16:46:35

Thanks for explaining Schmaltz. I don't know either what it will cover either. I think it should be made more clear to stop people from worrying. And made clear when it will come into effect for them.

FairyJen Fri 01-Feb-13 16:48:37

Surely tho you are ( not you personally ) destined o a life of menial work if you don't bother to educate yourself and get a degree in the first place tho?

If that's the case then perhaps you shouldn't complain how shit the wages are.

garlicblocks Fri 01-Feb-13 16:54:32

garlic would you keep things the way they are? Why is the system so ridiculous?

Hell, no, I wouldn't keep things the way they are! This isn't the thread for floating imaginary political ideas, though.

The system is ridiculous because it's predicated on two falsehoods: [1] There is plenty of work; [2] Those who claim benefits are lazy, scrounging shysters who've got to be kicked off their greedy arses.

I find [2] especially revealing, as Cameron claimed DLA for Ivan despite having no need for the money. The steady flow of MPs expenses scams and undeclared interests, etc, right down to their impassioned defence of their 70% restaurant subsidy, indicates that their own grasping attitude has informed their assumptions about the people who pay them - and their expenses.

The Welfare Reforms involve heavy-handed interference, patronising micro-management and detailed monitoring. They are paying big corporations £billions of taxpayers' money to carry this out (ineptly.) Are those corporations improving our lives, collectively or individually? I don't see it.

lazybastard Fri 01-Feb-13 16:55:10

I have a science degree so have applied for jobs as science technician, cleaner in local factory and again in hospital, assistant in bakers, doctor's receptionist, hotel receptionist, admin assistant, call centre operator, applied to Tesco, Sainsburys, Asda, Aldi, Lidl and Boots, warehouse assistant amongst others. I suppose that's not enough for you though, over 700 jobs so far on top of working, studying and being a mum yet I am still lazy. It is not how much you earn that indicates how hard you work.

FairyJen Fri 01-Feb-13 16:58:58

I'm not trying to suggested your lazy lazybastard <-- irony of name there!

Tweak your cv to take off the science degree. I know people who did this and who then got offered work. The logic was that by being massively over qualified you would ( understandably ) have no loyalty to a low paid cleaning job for example of a science tech job came up.

Try this and see if it works. I'm not sayin this is fair btw but I know people who have found work after doing this

lazybastard Fri 01-Feb-13 17:01:57

I've already done that fairy but still nothing one of the applications I actually got a reply for said they'd had over 250 applications.

skullcandy Fri 01-Feb-13 17:03:12

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

lazybastard Fri 01-Feb-13 17:06:39

There won't be more PT jobs IMO, since there are not enough FT jobs people will need 2 if not more PT jobs.

FairyJen Fri 01-Feb-13 17:07:09

Well in that case lazy I'm sorry things are so shit for you and I hope something comes up soon

CloudsAndTrees Fri 01-Feb-13 17:08:00

What do you mean skullcandy?

I'm not sure I understand what you meant, but if you claim child tax credits then you do claim benefits, and you will be one of the people expected to upgrade.

I agree with you though that its not a bad thing if more part time jobs become available for people that don't claim benefits. But there does need to be full time work available for people, or there won't be more people getting part time jobs, there will be more individuals that have two part time jobs.

skullcandy Fri 01-Feb-13 17:10:15

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

FairyJen Fri 01-Feb-13 17:10:53

skull you will be affected cb and ctc are types of benefit.

garlicblocks Fri 01-Feb-13 17:11:02

I love this persistent faith that there are jobs if you'd only make more effort or a different effort!

4,890,930 people receiving key benefits.
389,889 unfilled vacancies.

https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/reports/lmp/gor/2092957698/report.aspx

So, when the unfilled vacancies are all filled, what is it that the other 4.5 million are doing wrong, exactly?

Alibabaandthe40nappies Fri 01-Feb-13 17:13:09

garlic - in which case very few people are going to be affected. They will only sanction if people refuse a better paid job, or refuse to apply. If people are applying for work but being turned down then they will still get UC despite being below the earnings threshold.

noddyholder Fri 01-Feb-13 17:17:43

My son is 18 and had his first p/time job over xmas at sainsburys. He loved it earned money for once and got on well with everyone. Once it was over it was over and his boss said this year was the first time ever that they hadn't been able to keep on any of the xmas staff as saturday or evening. There are just no jobs

GregBishopsBottomBitch Fri 01-Feb-13 17:18:45

Im a lone parent to a five year old, no school clubs, before or after, childcare is quite scarce where i live, but while shes at school, i could easily do 24 hours a week, if my commute wasnt too long. im on the mandatory work scheme as im on CSA, im doing 20 hours. I just wonder what will happen if i cant find childcare an issue somedays. i dont have any friends or family who can do it, as they all work too, if they could make it feasible with hours, or childcare more available it might not be so bad, and maybe if there were jobs available, that offered more than 24 hours. This is why i hope to get term time work.

lazybastard Fri 01-Feb-13 17:19:05

The problem for me is there is only one thing more soul destroying and humiliating than job hunting and that's attending the job centre for someone to point out what a failure you are. I've only been there 3 times and they were not good experiences.

Speaking of which how are they going to fit in that many appointments? Bet they haven't thought of that.

We had someone apply to our workplace (residential dementia home) for a job as a carer and they weren't even considered because they had a degree. The reason being that they would probably move on when they got a better offer hmm
So out of work graduates may not even stand a chance to work part time.

GregBishopsBottomBitch Fri 01-Feb-13 17:21:11

Lazy, oh boy, do i know of that experience, life sucking sneerers, makes me shudder.

VestaCurry Fri 01-Feb-13 17:24:15

Am with garlicblocks

lazybastard Fri 01-Feb-13 17:27:51

Exactly feet that's why some of us end up going against our nature and lie on our CVs.

mercibucket Fri 01-Feb-13 17:32:27

Why don't some posters seem to understand the concept of a depression? I know it's technically being called a triple dip recession, but we are staring at a depression

One of the things that happens in a depression is - there aren't a lot of jobs

This is not an individual failing. Unemployment in a depression is not a personal issue, it is a societal issue.

I agree with the poster who said some of these posts smack of 'let them eat cake'

IfNotNow - excellent post. Yes, this is an ideological war, it will not save money, nor is it about saving money, it is about shifting the terms of reference.

The post-war changes would never have happened if the tories had been re-elected after the war. Now we are heading back to the pre-war settlement - big business is looked after, we are left to fend for ourselves. We do not have to accept this.

sunshine401 Fri 01-Feb-13 17:45:27

Working people are not paying taxes just for benefits angry Why does everyone think that?? OO because that is what your told!! Get some sense.

Molepom Fri 01-Feb-13 18:02:30

The government refuse to admit this is a depression and has been for a while because they don't want panic or revolt from the general public - or to be more precise, loose THEIR jobs from a vote of no confidence. They will use and abuse ANY bunch of figures they can come up with to lessen the blow each quarter and the only way they have been able to do this so far is with the word "recession". A double dip recession, soon in my opinion to be a tripple dip, is bad enough, a tripple dip will only cause them to argue amongst themselves further and not actually takle the problem that is staring us all in the face. Banks and big businesses.

Anyone with an once of common sense knows we are in a depression and will be for a long time yet and we can all sit here and find a hundred ways or more to get us out of it but until big business and banks start pulling their weight and actually start seeing the bigger picture, we are screwed.

This is my opinion and I recognise it has it's faults, maybe many, so don't shoot me.

ssd Fri 01-Feb-13 18:03:26

so this is the reality of me having to work more hours at short notice

I work 24 hours in a mw job

I work set hours, I've asked for more hours for ages but am told every week there is no more to be had

So I go into work and get told by the job centre I need to go for an interview tomorrow for another job

So as well as scrabbling together childcare ( I have no family here to help out), I tell my present employer I wont be in tomorrow for a few hours as I need to attend an interview

My boss is pissed off, she needs to get an agency in to cover me which costs the company double what they pay me, she starts to see me as unreliable and is put off offering me more hours if they ever became available

So do I get paid at work for the few hours I'm attending an interview the job centre has found for me?? Do I hell, my work dont pay sick pay, they wont pay me for an interview as me claiming UC isnt their problem.

So I earn £6.19 an hour, I pay someone to mind the kids whilst I leave early for this interview, I dont get paid for the hours I missed at work....and I'm now being seen as unreliable at my job.

And this is progress?

CloudsAndTrees Fri 01-Feb-13 18:11:04

Except that won't happen, because if your child is under 12, you won't be sent for interviews by the job centre because you just said you are working 24 hours.

sarahtigh Fri 01-Feb-13 18:15:55

ssd it said up thread that rules say you do not have to attend interviews with job centre or for a new job which interfere with your present paid work, this has been said a few times but there is conflicting info on thread re what is going to happen as government changed mind

also for a nurse to have to leave nursing job to mop floors they would have to be working very few hours as even entry level ursing is at least 2.5 times NMW

ssd Fri 01-Feb-13 18:20:57

thats better thanks sarah

taketheribbon Fri 01-Feb-13 18:32:35

A couple of years ago, I was looking for part-time work. Around 70% of the jobs I looked at had a little clause in the job description which read "some evening/weekend/antisocial hours work may be required. Candidates must be able to be flexible". My husband was working abroad on a six-monthly contract, so I was, in effect, on my own with a small child. How could I be 'flexible'? Who would look after my child when I was called in of an evening? Or on a day which was not my normal working day (nurseries around here are over-subscribed and you cannot just call one morning hoping they'll have a space).

This was for part-time work.

I fear that we will have a situation in this country where the only people who can afford to take the part-time work are those whose partner earns enough to support the family anyway. So the rich get richer.

I know, let's send all the nursing home carers, the teaching assistants, the cleaners, the dinner ladies, the hospital porters and anyone else who works bloody hard for minimum wage here.

DrCoconut Fri 01-Feb-13 18:39:09

Haven't read the whole thread but DH will be studying full time as of September. I understand that under current rules we won't get the childcare element of TC due to the loss of his salary because he will be classed as unemployed. Where does that leave us with UC? I work 29 hours and earn about £21k. DH will get some student support according to the SLC calculator so this is not a snap decision, we have planned it so that we will manage, it's just a question of exactly how tight our budget will be!

aufaniae Fri 01-Feb-13 18:41:38

FairyJen

"Surely tho you are ... destined o a life of menial work if you don't bother to educate yourself and get a degree in the first place tho?

If that's the case then perhaps you shouldn't complain how shit the wages are."

Are you really saying that ordinary working people - in both skilled and unskilled jobs should accept wages that are not enough to live a decent life on?

So, people in the trades, hospital porters, teaching assistants, admin assistants, shop keeper, the people who clean our streets etc etc - if they didn't get a degree they should just put up or shut up?!

Did you really mean to be so callous?

FairyJen Fri 01-Feb-13 18:44:33

Not callous no. Just pointing out a different side to the aurgument. Playin devils advocate if you like

aufaniae Fri 01-Feb-13 18:48:06

DrCoconut is your DH doing a degree? If so he'll be classed as a full-time student, not unemployed and you are probably entitled to a Child Care Grant (unless they're changing that too!)

taketheribbon Fri 01-Feb-13 18:48:31

Oooh, and I've just realised that if I had my time over again, I would be drilling any potential suitor as to his earnings capacity before I even agreed to go out for a drink with him.

Women like me are going to be warning our daughters that it would be best to find themselves a man of means, just in case our daughters, like many of us, find an overwhelming need to be there for their children.

DrCoconut Fri 01-Feb-13 18:51:32

He's doing HND full time over 2 years. He can then top up to a degree if he wants to. Not sure if my earnings rule us out of childcare grant or if it's his that they go on?

lljkk Fri 01-Feb-13 18:52:58

Tweak your cv to take off the science degree.

This was discussed on another thread & someone pointed out that it's a form of fraud, deceit in order to make pecuniary gains, or some such.

I really don't understand where the conservative government think all these jobs are going to.magically appear from.....

Couldn't agree more. But I still think there's a lot of scare-mongering in this thread. The government can't afford to be that control-freak in how they implement the changes, for start.

ssd Fri 01-Feb-13 19:08:33

taketheribbon, but what would you advise women like me to say to their sons? Marry someone who works full time and seems to be healthy so they dont cause you to need benefits?

If only life was as straightforward , eh!

Roseformeplease Fri 01-Feb-13 19:10:10

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

taketheribbon Fri 01-Feb-13 19:10:11

ssd, you're right. That was discriminatory of me. I think I would advise any parent to tell all their children not to accept an offer of marriage from anyone who wasn't working full-time in a job which paid quite a lot more than minimum wage!!

lazybastard Fri 01-Feb-13 19:13:41

Thing is llj if I only apply for jobs that require a degree then there are not enough to apply for but when I apply for others then many employers won't even read further when they see you have a degree. Tbh fairy I sometimes think that studying for a degree was the stupidest mistake I ever made.

lazybastard Fri 01-Feb-13 19:15:55

Taketheribbon even that is no insurance, Dh and I used to earn a lot more than now.

ssd Fri 01-Feb-13 19:26:38

taketheribbon, I thought I was sensible when I met dh, he told me he drove an 80k volvo.....wow I thought.....later I discovered he was a bus driver grin

lljkk Fri 01-Feb-13 19:36:36

I feel your pain, LB, I have a PhD, 18 years of work experience, some of it prestigious, and I'm applying for the most basic low paid admin jobs. My cover letters say how that admin job fits with where I want to get to eventually, but due to long gap in employment I know I need to start from the ground up, like any fresh school leaver would be doing. So no reason to think I'll be moving on any faster than they would.

Latara Fri 01-Feb-13 20:00:10

What will happen to me? I wish i hadn't clicked on this thread because i feel more depressed now... I get DLA & WTC & i work 2 shifts (16 hours) as an HCA.
I can't work more than that because i'm recovering from mental health problems (including Psychotic symptoms) which worsen with stress of any kind.

I'm already struggling a lot so does anyone know what happens with people like me?

Latara Fri 01-Feb-13 20:01:16

PS i'm a single young woman with no children too.

Beautifulbabyboy Fri 01-Feb-13 20:03:38

Rose - oh Rose. That is what is so tragic, ifnotnowwhen has correctly summed up your posts, and you just don't realise it. You have no idea how your opinions are the product of manipulation by UK Plc. We need to stand shoulder to shoulder with our fellow man, not hate him. There are plenty of people to hate, but they are not the ones on your level, they are the ones further up the tree.

lazybastard Fri 01-Feb-13 20:17:26

There is another problem with the rhetoric. Many employers believe the lazy, irresponsible etc tag and automatically discount people who are unemployed or underemployed no matter how much previous experience they may have. The employer loses out on a potentially excellent employee and those who have been made redundant face an even more difficult struggle to get back into work.

In a fair world they would be able to compete on a level playing field. There are thousands of highly qualified and/or experienced people being made redundant in the current climate.

Roseformeplease Fri 01-Feb-13 20:21:20

"Beautifulbabyboy" - rents? Not mentioned by me. Nor working conditions. None of this is in any of my posts. This is really, really surreal and weird. Are you talking to/about someone else? I am sorry, but I really don't get it. Are you inferring these things from my posts because they are in your heads? So, very weird. And if you see these things in my posts, which are not there, then how do you deal with the world in general which must be a pretty scary place if you keep SEEING THINGS.

garlicblocks Fri 01-Feb-13 20:32:17

Latara, you should be an exception. They haven't clarified how they'll determine what hours you're eligible to work; no doubt it will involve some forms and a spurious 'examination' grin

Beautifulbabyboy Fri 01-Feb-13 20:38:31

If not now when - this is the first time I have felt compelled to write on a post, and I need your help. At what point do you give in and think explaining the link between council house sell offs, private accommodation over-reliance and housing benefit is just too hard; alongside working tax credits being the method by which employers were allowed to keep wages artificially low; to big businesses knowing that part-time staff cost less to employ and therefore not allowing people to work full time; to people believing that the crisis was caused by the poor when it was created by the rich who now refuse to payback.

Rose (and similar posters) - I am exceptionally lucky with a very wonderful life. It saddens me that you truly truly don't understand the mockery the system is making of your life. Sacrifice yourself at the wheel of hard graft, no one will thank you for it when you keel over, they will just find another body to fill your shoes and doff the cap.

CloudsAndTrees Fri 01-Feb-13 20:58:10

Beautifulbabyboy, your posts are incredibly patronising. People that have different opinions to yours on this subject may agree with you on many others. Why are you coming across as if you have some divine knowledge and as if you believe everyone who doesn't see it your way is misguided and foolish and can't possibly come to their own opinions without having been to the Tory party conference?

This has been an interesting debate about something that is fundamentally quite basic - people that work more hours should be better off than those that work less, and people who need to should support themselves as far as they are able with as little financial assistance from the government as possible. Or not, depending on your viewpoint. But both ways of looking at it are valid.

PeppermintLatte Fri 01-Feb-13 21:09:29

I depise this government & its bullying against those who weren't born with a silver spoon stuck up their arse or those who were not lucky enough to find themselves in a really well paying job.

I have a child under 5, i work 2 days a week whilst i fork out alot of money to put her in nursery, i'm self employed, earning about £50 per week after expenses, i'm going to be FUCKED.

I'm off to uni, to get myself in shit loads of debt, with the desperate hope that it'll lead to a well paying job eventually so that i can tell cameron the dictator to stick his universal credit up his arse.

At the moment i have also started volunteering for the labour party, i'm becoming a member and if i get my way will eventually run for council. Someone who knows what it feels like to struggle, someone working class needs to start speaking up for the rest of the working class who try their best.

QueenOfCats Fri 01-Feb-13 21:09:31

I work 18 hours a week, get CB and a small amount of WTC. I don't get CTB or HB - how will this affect me?

QueenOfCats Fri 01-Feb-13 21:14:25

Oh, and CTC

Beautifulbabyboy Fri 01-Feb-13 21:15:14

I think I am being patronising but it is born out of sadness more than anything else. If the working classes stood together we could achieve so much so that people wouldn't have to be slaves to work, sacrificing their health, families and lives in the process. These reforms aren't about making people more accountable able they are about increasing the shackles around your own neck. Hating your fellow worker whilst the rich are allowed to wander scot free is just so wrong.

And as it happens, I do have quite a loot of knowledge on this subject. My family is very wealthy, I would be having dinner in the House of Lords tonight if I were not in bed ill. A family member is courted by leading politicians hopeful (ever wrongly) he may sling them a donation. I volunteer in the Citizens advice bureau because (a) I don't have to work to maintain a wonderful lifestyle and (b) by doing so I see the implications and understand the true effects of these changes as a whole.

We all need food, heating, fuel and a home. All the companies that provide these have just posted massive new year profits. All these companies can only do this with the subsides of housing benefit and working tax credit. If they paid more, accepted less profit, there would be no need for universal credit. There are currently 2.7 million unemployed (approx - depending on figures) and we want those that do work to work more - it's crazy.

Beautifulbabyboy Fri 01-Feb-13 21:22:22

Good luck peppermint latte. I really hope you get to achieve what you want, crossing my fingers and toes for you! There is one set of rules for the rich and one for the poor. I see both sets of rules and it makes me scream in frustration. The dice is so heavily weighted against the working person.

PeppermintLatte Fri 01-Feb-13 21:25:46

beautifulbabyboy thank you. What a great post from you, you sound like a good person with values.

CloudsAndTrees Fri 01-Feb-13 21:26:06

I completely agree with your last paragraph. The way that wealth is distributed in this country is disgusting.

But this

These reforms aren't about making people more accountable able they are about increasing the shackles around your own neck. Hating your fellow worker whilst the rich are allowed to wander scot free is just so wrong.

I don't agree with. I don't think that expecting people to do more to support themselves when they could is about increasing shackles, I think it's about increasing personal responsibility. The NMW could be raised to £10ph with the cost of everything else staying the same, and we would still need some kind of incentive to make people pay for themselves as much as they possibly could.

I think it's quite sad that you think that people who don't completely disagree with the whole concept of UC are people who hate their fellow worker. I don't think they do. They might harbour some resentment about people who choose the easier option when they themselves have chosen the harder one and are still struggling, but that's not the same thing. And those people can still resent, or disagree with, those at the top of the income scale at the same time.

lazybastard Fri 01-Feb-13 21:34:58

It's divide and conquer beautiful. However we must recognise that many of us are considered not worthy of being alive never mind having a life.

I read a workhouse report from the 1880s it complained that the inmates were "allowed the needless frivolity of bread" this is what we have regressed to.

Compassion is no longer considered a virtue but a failing. Success is measured by how many people you can destroy or at least kick while they are down to keep them there.

Roseformeplease Fri 01-Feb-13 21:43:48

And yet more words being put into my mouth.....so odd. Have reported those who persist in misrepresenting my views.

Beautifulbabyboy Fri 01-Feb-13 21:49:16

Lazybastard and peppermint - see you on the next workers march through London!! That quote from the 1880s scares me in its prevelance today.

All I ask is that anyone reading this realises the system is not weighted in favour of the working man or woman. That what we should strive for is everyone working less for a better share of the spoils of treasure. If instead people insist workers scrap it out for crapper jobs, longer hours, worse pay, the only result will be the silver spoon in my mouth getting sadly bigger as the evil Cameron and sidekick George will pass more of the profit my way.

On that note - the flu has done me in. Off to sleep.

lazybastard Fri 01-Feb-13 21:59:58

Hope you feel better soon beautiful.

I can't believe I'm saying this but I am actually considering joining the labour party, not a thing I would ever have thought I would say.

Ramsay MacDonald was the son of a farmer educated in the local charitable village school. He was also illegitimate which stigma wise was a big thing those days. Can anyone imagine someone with a similar background becoming PM today?

MariusEarlobe Fri 01-Feb-13 22:02:54

We are in a test area, area to quote our council we are being introduced to UC in April to iron out problems and issues for the rest of the UK roll out, outreach thanks..

I'm self employed lone parent. screwed

PeppermintLatte Fri 01-Feb-13 22:10:07

beautifulbabyboy how refreshing that someone in a privileged position feels this way. How about you running for PM?!!

Lazybastard same here, I'm surprisingly joining.

MariusEarlobe you have to do a thread reporting back to us to let us know how it's going. I wish you luck.

garlicblocks Fri 01-Feb-13 22:16:41

Beautifulbabyboy - at what point do you give in ...

People generally have a hard time seeing the big picture, which you summarised rather neatly. They often feel patronised when you try to show it to them. But it's still worth carrying on and not giving up!

lazybastard Fri 01-Feb-13 22:19:25

You only give up when you're dead, giving up is not an option.

garlicblocks Fri 01-Feb-13 22:20:23

The NMW could be raised to £10ph with the cost of everything else staying the same, and we would still need some kind of incentive to make people pay for themselves as much as they possibly could.

I disagree 100% with this, Clouds. It's sad that you have such a dismal view of ordinary people.

MariusEarlobe Fri 01-Feb-13 22:25:59

Can I ask, if I were to go to uni I would as a lone parent get housing benefit and child tax credit, creditable about under UC?

rainrainandmorerain Fri 01-Feb-13 22:30:48

5dcs (and other self employed) -

Universal Credit as it stands will royally fuck us up. For a start, we will have to submit MONTHLY accounts. Even if we already do quarterly vat etc. This is because UC will be paid monthly.

Often if you are self employed, your monthly income and expenditure can fluctuate a lot. Some months I earn nothing. Other months I earn several thousand. Sometimes a high earning month would show up as very little profit purely because that is the one month when I buy some expensive kit, as an allowable expense.

None of that matters on an end of year tax return - it only shows income/profit/loss for the year.

But under current UC proposals, earning nothing or a little in one month (they have not yey decided the actual cut off yet, afaik) would have me hauled in to the job centre and made to attend interviews.

This is how the reward the self starters and small time entrepeneurs, who set up as self employed INSTEAD of trying to scrape by on benefits without working.

monstermissy Fri 01-Feb-13 22:32:41

Ok I work 20 hours a week over five days in a school. I have three school age children. So if I have to leave that job and work full time. I then have to pay 3.50 every morning for little two to got to breakfast club. 13 quid every night for after school club. 16.50 a day. That's just term time. 6 weeks of the summer holidays how much will that cost to keep them in some holiday club where they won't get to do much and mostly indoors all summer. I couldn't afford it. Then what happens? Once they are older I will be first in the que for getting a full time job but my issue is the childcare.

Is def 24 hours or just 'during school hours'???

Oh I'm a lone parent, I love my job but once the kids are older I won't need a term time job so will look to change to full time. I'll have to get a evening job maybe, I had one before but my children got very upset with never seeing me and all the different places they were shipped to every night, not getting home till late on school nights, never being able to do school clubs or swimming lessons etc etc

ssd Fri 01-Feb-13 22:38:50

agree with garlic there

clouds, where do you get this view point from? I was brought up in a council scheme and I have known a few folk who don't want to work. But the majority always worked, or strived to work if they were out of a job. For every person I know who refused to work, I could name ten who worked and paid their way, or who tried to get a job if unemployed.

where do you get your viewpoint clouds...and rose?

is it from hearsay, the media or actual people you know?

rainrainandmorerain Fri 01-Feb-13 22:39:54

Btw - the other thing which will be a disaster is how payroll information is shared (for PAYE workers).

monthly payroll info will be sent to HMRC (known for their appalling admin and inefficiency). That info must tally with information sent by the employee's BANK (and banks never make mistakes, do they).

All of this is handled by a new IT system (even better).

If anything goes wrong and this info about pay is not communicated perfectly, then it will screw up that month's UC payment, and be a mess that has to be sorted out by the claimant. Presumably by phoning HMRC. On one of their premium rate phone lines.

MariusEarlobe Fri 01-Feb-13 22:49:39

I found something on a government site that says

conditionality regime does not require a lone parent to take a job that does not fit with school hours

So for me I live in a village, dd starts at 9, no breakfast /after school care.

So I find work in town 1 I won't be able to get there until 10 and would need to finish at half 2
Town 2 is an hour bus journey and buses every half an hour so wouldn't get there until 11, finish at 1 to get back in time presuming I am near a bus stop.

Hence I'm self employed.

rainrainandmorerain Fri 01-Feb-13 22:54:48

marius - do you know how self employed will be affected by UC? (I posted about 5 posts before you....)

MariusEarlobe Fri 01-Feb-13 23:03:12

From what I have been told you will (after a year) have to be making the equivalent of National minimum wage or be subject to the same conditions as unemployed people.

I have also been told that people will have to prove their business is worthy before even being allowed to be SE but no idea if that's true.

I do wonder if the self employed will just inflate their earnings instead....

ClippedPhoenix Fri 01-Feb-13 23:05:32

They are "proposals" they are not written in stone.

Scaremongering is at it does.

lazybastard Fri 01-Feb-13 23:06:17

I thought they wanted to encourage business start up to drive the economy? Is it not common for businesses to take time to start making a good profit especially due to start up costs etc?

Bakingnovice Fri 01-Feb-13 23:10:26

I wish there was more compassion and empathy. It seems everyone is stressed and pushed to the limit. The UC is going to be a spectacular disaster. It's going to be a nightmare to administer. And once again, it's workers who ate being punished. I want to see the generations of families who have never worked, and do not intend to, back to work. Yes, anyone abusing the part time system should be made to work harder. But first we need to concentrate on those families who have never, and will never work.

I feel for every working family this is going to affect. Expecially single mums who are the most hard working group in our society.

rainrainandmorerain Fri 01-Feb-13 23:11:39

Kind of, Marius - the problem is that on a month by month basis (which is how self employed people will have to submit accounts to HMRC to qualify for UC) then many of us will show a fluctuating income which may put us under minimum wage for a month, or two - but not when taken as an average across the whole year.

This could be just down to when we are paid (I get paid lump sum fees at the start and end of a project - not monthly) - or a month when I have a reasonable income but high capital expenditure. So would show very little profit, or even a loss - for that month. But not across the whole year.

zebrafinch Fri 01-Feb-13 23:13:15

currently tax credits entitlement is based on income when universal credit comes in the child tax credit component will be rolled into it and your household capital will be taken into account. Anyone with savings above £6000 will be affected even if they were trying to save for a deposit on a house

MariusEarlobe Fri 01-Feb-13 23:14:41

Thanks rain.

What's to stop SE people saying they have earned more though?
Lots of sales are cash based, you don't take your customers name and address.

lazybastard Fri 01-Feb-13 23:16:54

It sounds to me as if this will cost more to administer than it could ever save even at best estimates. Cock Ups will lead to suicide, illness due to malnutrition, hypothermia, inability to afford prescription medicines etc. Hardly make the people concerned more employable.

zebrafinch Fri 01-Feb-13 23:17:16

cannot link but for those interested here is a dwp document if you google
Universal credit and capital rules

Darkesteyes Fri 01-Feb-13 23:19:41

Baking novice employers abuse the part time system too e.g. by saying your part time job is Monday Tuesday and Wednesday. But you MUST keep yourself available for the employer on Thursday and Friday "in case you are needed"

ItsAllGoingToBeFine Fri 01-Feb-13 23:21:18

Sole traders don't earn anything. They are taxed on the year end profits, not on whatever they draw.

You can't just make up figures, it'd seriously mess up the accounts and HMRC would jump on you.

Darkesteyes Fri 01-Feb-13 23:21:53
BangOn Fri 01-Feb-13 23:22:15

I've been wondering for a while how this government is actually gonna go about reopening the workhouses. I've a feeling Universal Credit might be the preamble...

garlicblocks Fri 01-Feb-13 23:23:17

I want to see the generations of families who have never worked, and do not intend to, back to work.

I want to see the generations of families who have never worked, Baking. There aren't any.

PeppermintLatte Fri 01-Feb-13 23:23:23

Well, i for one will lie & say that i earn minimum wage on the months that i don't. I have expenses, equipment to buy etc.. I don't always make a profit on a monthly basis, but i do over the year, surely that's what should matter?!

Anyone sure how many hours a lone parent needs to work (self employed) once child is at school?

rainrainandmorerain Fri 01-Feb-13 23:26:28

marius - if self employed are required to submit monthly info in the same way as PAYE then we will have to provide bank info that tallies with our accounts.

So we will have to show that money came into/went out of our bank accounts, and actually exists, iyswim.

If not, then I guess people taking cash payments could inflate/deflate those amount as it suits them...

I am never paid in cash. Always via bacs. As someone else has pointed out, they are taking savings into account as well, so I think there will be a fair bit of having to provide evidence of capital/income via bank statements. (the 'real time' payroll all PAYE workers are having to move to is about tallying bank info sent to hmrc with the payroll info employers send hmrc).

BangOn Fri 01-Feb-13 23:28:46

Oh & ClippedPhoenix, you're wrong. These are not proposals. Universal Credit is being phased in this April. It's the law.

rainrainandmorerain Fri 01-Feb-13 23:29:46

x post with itsallgoingtobefine - yes, she's right. Inflating your income for the odd month here and there would totally balls up your year end accounts. It's all hmrc, remember - same organisation.

PeppermintLatte Fri 01-Feb-13 23:29:59

Hilarious!! It is absolutely pointless for me to put my weekly self employed wage into the bank. Say i earn £90, i don't run the bank & put it in, i but food with it, petrol with it, clothe my child with it etc.. My bills come out of my tax credits via my bank account.

I cannot see this really happening? Are they for fucking real??!!! We need to protest, seriously.

ItsAllGoingToBeFine Fri 01-Feb-13 23:31:12

Politics of this aside, this is never going to actually work is it? I he complexity of it, and the amount of computer systems that will need to be joined up makes me think this might not make it past the pilot schemes - or it will be an unmitigated disaster. The UK government has never been very good at pulling off large IT projects and this one is massive.

Is it really naive of me to stick my head in the sand and assume the system will break before they get round to reassessing me (or that Scotland will get independence!)

rainrainandmorerain Fri 01-Feb-13 23:32:18

Peppermintlatte - I agree it's the yearly profit that counts when you're self employed. Monthly accounts just don't reflect the reality of how we work.

However - if hmrc ask for bank info to back up profit/loss accounts then there is no room for fibbing anyway.

OliviaMumsnet (MNHQ) Fri 01-Feb-13 23:34:56

PEACE AND LOVE

ClippedPhoenix Fri 01-Feb-13 23:38:35

We'll see huh.. I don't actually believe that the bottom line will happen. It can't, there will be anarchy. things will be means tested which is ok really. As for part time workers as myself. you can go along with it and look maybe but guess what there aren't enough jobs out there so how they can "enforce" this is ridiculous.

PeppermintLatte Fri 01-Feb-13 23:41:44

rain borrow money off somebody who has it available, stick it in yiur account, withdraw it the next day, pay it back to them? Desperately cluthching at straws here!! grin

Are they really going to request to see monthly bank statements? I don't put my earnings into my account, it's pointless! I'd be withdrawing it out an hour after.

lazybastard Fri 01-Feb-13 23:42:03

I was once self employed. I was sometimes paid on cash and I didn't always bank it. I always declared it for tax purposes I would resent being forced to bank it and incur extra bank charges.

rainrainandmorerain Fri 01-Feb-13 23:53:42

To be accurate, and so I'm not scaremongering! then the idea that hmrc will want to see monthly bank statements from self employed people is my guess.

That's purely because they seem to be doing everything to make self employed people behave like PAYE employees for UC purposes. If everyone on PAYE is getting details of their pay sent by their bank to hmrc each month, I don't see why they would be hands off with self employed. BUT that is my guess.

That said, whatever you do on a month by month basis will have to tally up with your year end accounts. If we do have the option of fibbing, then we would have to be damn sure that we weren't left at the end of the year with an income we hadn't actually earned - but would count towards taxable income....

MariusEarlobe Fri 01-Feb-13 23:56:06

I often don't bank either, what comes in PayPal I use online.
What comes in cash pays food, heating, clothes
The rest is paid from tax credits, am I seriously going to have to bank everything?

Do a child's savings affect it too.
Dd has a savings account in just her name, my mum pays money in do I have to declare that?

rainrainandmorerain Fri 01-Feb-13 23:57:23

Itsallgoingtobefine - here, read and weep! - www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jan/01/universal-credit-computer-failures

The idea of hmrc administering anything on this scale appalls me. They seem to be driving through whatever the problems are though.

spottyblanket Sat 02-Feb-13 00:03:12

ifnotnowthenwhen
You see it as it is, and put it far more eloquently than I can. Grandma story was spot on.

ItsAllGoingToBeFine Sat 02-Feb-13 00:10:13

rain bloody hell 25% failure rate, and that's just the pilots shock

Surely running this ridiculous scheme is going to cost vastly more than it saves? And maybe I am not being that naive in hoping it is never fully implemented smile

rainrainandmorerain Sat 02-Feb-13 00:21:44

itsallgoingtobefine - real time pay info is starting this April and I think October 2013 is when UC is being rolled out nationwide? Will check...

I think Scottish independence is your best bet!

rainrainandmorerain Sat 02-Feb-13 00:26:39

I'm right - www.dwp.gov.uk/policy/welfare-reform/universal-credit/

Poor NW get it April 2013 as guineapigs - then it goes nationwide (in stages) in October 2013. From April 2014 all new claims will be processed as Universal Credit.

PeppermintLatte Sat 02-Feb-13 00:27:45

It starts this april with "test areas" it then rolls out nationally in october with all new claimants & all existing claimants on job seekers being moved over first. April 2014 is when all the other existing claimants (those who receive WTC etc..) will start to be phased over, this continues until 2017 when everybody will be on UC.

lazybastard Sat 02-Feb-13 00:33:20

I'm going to start praying that I can qualify before it hits us then so they can't force me to quit before finishing. Then I'll be in a better position to actually succeed at job hunting.

PeppermintLatte Sat 02-Feb-13 00:35:57

I think i'm ok until april 2014, then i really don't know what i'm going to do? I'll end up doing sex chat lines at home to ensure my self employment hits minimum wage every month!

Darkesteyes Sat 02-Feb-13 01:55:25

Peppermint im willing to bet you wont be the only one. I used to work in a chatline office years ago.
And i really believe that more people will enter this job and the more "serious" jobs in the sex industry as a result of this.

MerryCouthyMows Sat 02-Feb-13 02:00:28

How much savings do you think you'd need if you were in a good financial situation, had 3 DC's THAT YOU COULD EASILY AFFORD TO LOOK AFTER, and then were barred by law from your previous profession due to being diagnosed with a specific disability?

Because I can tell you - I had £20k in savings at the point this happened to me, I was buying my own beautiful home, I was the higher earner of the couple, my Ex (partner at the time) was on NMW.

We burned through that £20k in less than a year, trying to survive, eat, look after the DC's, and attempting (and failing) to keep the roof over our heads.

It can turn to shit fucking quickly even if you are a higher rate taxpayer.

We didn't qualify for any benefits, because we had that £20k in savings, we weren't considered for help at all until we had less than £6k in the bank, and the help was only minimal until we had less than £1k left.

So why do people always go on about scrounger's having DC's they couldn't afford? Do all of you have a crystal ball, that tells you whether you are going to be subject to redundancy, disability, becoming a carer for elderly parents, your partner cheating on you, a relationship breakdown or divorce, one of your DC's having a disability that wasn't obvious at birth? That tells you if any of these (or many other things that might limit your ability to work FT) will happen in the next 18 years, so that you choose not to have DC's in case one or the other of these things arise?

Because I sure as hell didn't have one. Where can I put in my complaint and my request for my old life back?

I'd swap my disabilities for the ability to work in my old profession in a heartbeat. I'd give anything for all of my DC's to be healthy and not need extra care. I don't WANT to be scraping for every penny.

Anyone who actively CHOOSES to live like this, on benefits, rather than working, has FAR bigger issues than just a bit of laziness going on.

MerryCouthyMows Sat 02-Feb-13 02:00:37

How much savings do you think you'd need if you were in a good financial situation, had 3 DC's THAT YOU COULD EASILY AFFORD TO LOOK AFTER, and then were barred by law from your previous profession due to being diagnosed with a specific disability?

Because I can tell you - I had £20k in savings at the point this happened to me, I was buying my own beautiful home, I was the higher earner of the couple, my Ex (partner at the time) was on NMW.

We burned through that £20k in less than a year, trying to survive, eat, look after the DC's, and attempting (and failing) to keep the roof over our heads.

It can turn to shit fucking quickly even if you are a higher rate taxpayer.

We didn't qualify for any benefits, because we had that £20k in savings, we weren't considered for help at all until we had less than £6k in the bank, and the help was only minimal until we had less than £1k left.

So why do people always go on about scrounger's having DC's they couldn't afford? Do all of you have a crystal ball, that tells you whether you are going to be subject to redundancy, disability, becoming a carer for elderly parents, your partner cheating on you, a relationship breakdown or divorce, one of your DC's having a disability that wasn't obvious at birth? That tells you if any of these (or many other things that might limit your ability to work FT) will happen in the next 18 years, so that you choose not to have DC's in case one or the other of these things arise?

Because I sure as hell didn't have one. Where can I put in my complaint and my request for my old life back?

I'd swap my disabilities for the ability to work in my old profession in a heartbeat. I'd give anything for all of my DC's to be healthy and not need extra care. I don't WANT to be scraping for every penny.

Anyone who actively CHOOSES to live like this, on benefits, rather than working, has FAR bigger issues than just a bit of laziness going on.

Mosman Sat 02-Feb-13 02:18:36

MerryCouthyMows - it's all relative, for you you've fallen on hard times being on benefits, if you've never worked more than a minimum wage job your actually no worse off but you don't have to work and have a lickle baby to play with for a while and everyone is interested in your well being because you have that child possibly for the first time since you were very small yourself.
You're judging by your standards which we're all guilty of but is pretty inaccurate for any of us tbh.

Darkesteyes Sat 02-Feb-13 02:20:31

Hi Couthy. Good to see you back on here. smile

LineRunner Sat 02-Feb-13 02:42:25

What happens when Labour get back in in 2015?

expatinscotland Sat 02-Feb-13 03:36:28

I don't know. But at the time, the world thought these people were really really stupid. By signing, these people became traitors, subject to hang. They signed anyway, because the government just went too far. And again, Britain declared them fools and traitors. It wasn't to be the first time or the last.

You can push people only so far, before enough of them don't buy into the politics of hate and blame, and laugh at them, and call them fools and whatever term you want to assign to Americans, Irish or Scottish, before they just get pushed over the edge.

So keep going, Tory government!

signanddie

expatinscotland Sat 02-Feb-13 03:47:52

Push away! Beggar us, again! All during 2013 and into 2014. Make us your scapegoat, that's all we ever are or were to you, you see as something that costs you, not as people but just a non-functioning wheel. Well, it's not the first time. And for you laugh at Ireland and poke fun of them, they're still going, they have not collapsed. They won't, either. Same way you laughed at America. Now you hate them. And the apple didn't fall far from the tree, in more ways than you'll ever know. But they're free, for all their mistakes, they are free. And they're still strong.

Go on, with your Tory policies of whipping up hate instead of patriotism, blame, pettiness and hate. Best of luck! Because Hitler put it best, 'Hate is more lasting than dislike.'

Mosman Sat 02-Feb-13 05:56:43

Have you been drinking ?

zebrafinch Sat 02-Feb-13 06:10:56

Merry people who have children and who currently believe there will be a safety net for them will have to burn through their savings before they get any help under Universal
Credit. LIke you have done they will have to burn through the savings they have accumulated to be eligible . If Your partner is badly injured in a car accident, becomes mentally ill, dies, one of your kids becomes seriously ill so you have to give up work, a child is born disabled, your elderly parent needs you to care for them child tax credits would have helped you to keep going and minimise the effect on your children. Under Universal Credit you will have to choose between being a Carer and living off your savings or not being a Carer and keeping the security you have built up. I think there will be a demand for more places to put our sick and disabled relatives whilst some people decide to work and not be a Carer.

zebrafinch Sat 02-Feb-13 06:19:23

Also meant to say good post Merry you are so right it can all turn to shit pretty quickly when that unexpected event hits you out of the blue.

pmgkt Sat 02-Feb-13 06:57:06

I have only read the first few pages and by no means claim to be a political mind, but it reads to me that there is a lot of scare mongering going on. There are plenty of part time workers who do not claim any benefits, but reading what I have in here makes it sound like overnight every school is going to loose its dinner ladies, cleaners etc cos they will be forced to leave and take different jobs. And that simply won't happen, there aren't the jobs out there. I agree that there are things not right with this policy, such as forcing someone to do more hours but cos of childcare making them worse off, but I also do think planning your family's finances around what you can claim is foolish given that policies on such things can and will be changed at a moments notice. (note I am not talking about when circumstances change like redundancy) plus what is wrong with encouraging people to support themselves, again people on here are focusing on doing more hours, but I don't see a problem at all with people being forced into better pay albeit in a job that isn't what they want to do especially if the hours are still fitting personal circumstance.

lazybastard Sat 02-Feb-13 08:03:46

Mosman I find your posts offensive and highly patronising. It's attitudes like yours that make succeeding at job hunting more difficult and make coping with the situation more difficult.

lazybastard Sat 02-Feb-13 08:14:56

I was thinking this morning. If I had committed a heinous crime I'd be entitled to a warm, dry roof over my head, 3 proper meals a day, time to go to a gym, TV, playstation, spiritual support etc. It would be my human rights.

However my only crimes were being made redundant and struggling to find a job for the same pay. Because if this just food and shelter are begrudged to me. I made to feel guilty for eating, made to feel evil for turning on the heating for my children when temperatures outside are below zero.

What kind of society grants greater status and more rights to a mass murderer than they do to hard working, honest people who have fallen on hard times due to circumstances rather than something they have done wrong.

ledkr Sat 02-Feb-13 09:10:01

I feel really sorry for the children of lone parents in all this. No chance of sharing childcare and without two lots of leave to spread across school holidays many will have to be in childcare during their school break.
There won't be much help or time for homework or out of school activities and days off/weekends will be filled with essential chores.
I think some effort needs to go into making the absent parent pay a regular and decent amount which would subsidise the main carer to work less thus have some time left to parent!

lazybastard Sat 02-Feb-13 09:16:50

They won't do that ledkr. Statistically lone parents are more likely to be women. As far as the Tories are concerned single mums are evil no matter how they became single. Single dads however are Herod.

ledkr Sat 02-Feb-13 09:25:57

I know that's what worries me. When I was single parent with four dc I worked pt and had a small amount of wtc but ex paid did all and as far as I know nobody has ever chased him for it. If he'd have paid for his dc I could have not needed the wtc.
I can't imagine how I'd have managed ft. I'd me re have seen them and three were doing exams activities which needed my input and as for the poor baby she'd have been with childcare must if her life. No chance of quality time with a parent. At least with two parents time for the children can be spread.
As a child social worker I really think we will see effects from this lack of adequate parental time.

aufaniae Sat 02-Feb-13 09:26:12

"I think some effort needs to go into making the absent parent pay a regular and decent amount which would subsidise the main carer to work less thus have some time left to parent!"

Wasn't there a proposal to make lone parents pay to use the CSA initially?

ledkr Sat 02-Feb-13 09:33:21

I don't know about that but In my experience csa seem useless. My ex works "cash in hand" has done since we separated. Therefore they don't Pursue him for maintenance. The fact he supports a nice lifestyle, works openly and walks about in work clothes would be easy to spot really!
My other friends ex pays very little as he has shacked up with ow who has two children. Apparently those children are a priority over his actual children. Her dc are very traumatised from the split and can only see their father supervised. She will have to increase her hours and leave them in childcare whilst their father supports ow children.
WTAF??

aufaniae Sat 02-Feb-13 09:34:43

On CSA:

"the government is winding up the CSA and replacing it with the Child Maintenance Service (CMS) on a new IT system ...

The changes will, from 2014, involve closing the 1.2 million cases of parents currently receiving money through the CSA and stopping payments currently taken directly from their ex-partners' wages or bank accounts. All non-resident parents – the ones not looking after the children – will be given the chance to make the payments directly to the parent with care, rather than having them collected by the new CMS, regardless of their previous payment record. ...

But Janet Allbeson, a senior policy adviser with the single parent charity Gingerbread, says this policy will be very worrying to a women who has been a victim of abuse, as money is frequently used as a form of control by the abusing partner: "The government has accepted that domestic violence can take the form of financial abuse, yet it intends to put a victim in the position where she is potentially exposed to further attempts at manipulation and control, by the payer altering payment dates or withholding money. This runs the risk of perpetuating the abuse."

If the non-resident parent fails to pay through Direct Pay, the CMS will step in to enforce payments, and both parents will be charged for the collection of maintenance – a service that until now has been free."

From a Guardian article

ledkr Sat 02-Feb-13 09:37:14

Good god. So you will have to pay to get your own money that its not your fault you didn't receive! Am I living in some strange parallel universe?

aufaniae Sat 02-Feb-13 09:40:50

I should mention that article's from October, just in case there have been any changes to the policy since!

Foxy800 Sat 02-Feb-13 09:47:38

What is this universal credit and when does it come into play? I am a single mum who has just cut her hours to 25 hours a week so I can do school runs, I receive child tax credits and currently working tax credits although I think this stops in April, and I get housing benefit. Will I be affected? I also get DLA for my dd, putting this as I dont know if it will affect the answer.

Bakingnovice Sat 02-Feb-13 09:48:23

Garlicblocks - there are many many families where no one has worked for generations. Believe me, I work with them as a volunteer. Most of them have little education and no intention of ever working. Usually they live in poor council housing on large estates where everyone else does the same.

lazybastard Sat 02-Feb-13 10:13:31

Baking I live in council estate. My downstairs neighbour comes from a family like that, he laughs at me going to work. However he is the exception in my street, those who are not working right now have either retired or been made redundant in the past few years. Except for the lady across the road who hasn't worked for 25 years. Hopefully the prejudiced people will let her off as she is 100 and in a wheel chair.

Prejudiced ideas such as those make job hunting harder as applications are automatically rejected due to address. One of the rejections I actually received said "sorry but we do not accept applications from your postcode. So if you are lucky enough to survive being cut due to being unemployed or underemployed you have to be lucky enough not to be cut for having the wrong address. That's just to get your application read, a level playing field it is not. Then people come along and say oh you can't be trying. Then wonder why you get upset at that comment.

Mosman Sat 02-Feb-13 10:16:27

I don't know about that but In my experience csa seem useless. My ex works "cash in hand" has done since we separated. Therefore they don't Pursue him for maintenance. The fact he supports a nice lifestyle, works openly and walks about in work clothes would be easy to spot really!

So phone the inland revenue then, I believe there's a hotline and let them calculate what he owes in tax and from that you can work out what he owes in child support.

Mosman Sat 02-Feb-13 10:18:52

Prejudiced ideas such as those make job hunting harder as applications are automatically rejected due to address. One of the rejections I actually received said "sorry but we do not accept applications from your postcode

Who said that ?
I'm surprised because universities actually have to interview very unlikely candidates from certain postcodes to be seen to offer equal opportunities.
May I suggest in this electronic age there's no need for anyone to have your address until it's to send your contract of employment out. So don't offer it if you feel that's what's holding you back.

Bakingnovice Sat 02-Feb-13 10:20:22

Lazy I apologise if I come a Ross as prejudiced. The estate I volunteer in is very notorious and part of what I do is try and get people into work or on training schemes. I only speak from experience of my little area.

However, many of them do face prejudice on many levels. For where they live, how they look, how they speak, their lack of previous experience etc. the point I was trying to make is that mOre focus needs to be on getting the unemployed into work (increasing skills and opportunities) rather than pushing those already in work, even if it part time).

Bakingnovice Sat 02-Feb-13 10:21:28

*Come across

lazybastard Sat 02-Feb-13 10:22:43

I worked part time while studying then full time for 9 years (barring Mat leave) before being made redundant and taking a part time job in preference to remaining unemployed. This apparently makes me a bad person. DH worked full time for 15 years before redundancy. My Dad worked full time from 14 to 65 then part time from 65 to 70. At that point he retired because the pain and vomitting from chemo became to much, he died not that many months later.

My Grandfather only worked til 63 and my great grandfather only til 30. They did however die at 63 and 30 respectively. Yet I am labelled a scrounger from a family of scroungers and people wonder why I'm offended.

In interests of full disclosure my Dad did have a break in his employment between 18 and 21 as he was in the forces during WWII.

JakeBullet Sat 02-Feb-13 10:24:23

Foxy, as someone in your household gets DLA you will be immune to the benefit caps which others will face. You won't get any less than you currently do.

I have looked into all this as I am currently a Carer but want to get back into work and have an interview coming up for a part time job. The jobcentreplus advisor told me that I won't be affected by yhe cuts altbough when I get this job (it's mine I tell you [grin ]), I might be slightly worse off as it'll come off my income support. Nothing else will be affected though.

MrsHelloBobbly Sat 02-Feb-13 10:24:34

I too am extremley worried about this.

We have 4 children and 1 DSD and everything was fine until last year when after a viral illness I developed ME and Fibro. As a result I became almost housebound/bedbound and DH gave up his job to care and help me.

We claimed HB / CTC / WTC but decided to set up our own business. I am a whizz on computers and run it all from home and my husband does any running around that i need. I manage about 20 hours a week and earn roughly £10,000 per year.

We have not claimed carers benefit but wondering if we will need to do that now.

Also the nature of my illness means I can have OK days and then massive relapses. It is very hard to prove so should we be forced into work, how will we provide if there is a massive replapse.

Foxy800 Sat 02-Feb-13 10:36:52

Thank you JakeBullet for your reply. I do not get carers allowance but do get the DLA for her. And the reason I have taken a cut in hours is so I can be there for her more.

When does it all take place though as still get tax credit letters etc as if it will carry on now no mention of universal credit?

Again JakeBullet thank you for your reply.

lazybastard Sat 02-Feb-13 10:38:20

Mosman the application specifically asked for my address and postcode, they were classified as essential fields. It wasn't a University it was for a job in a national company. It was one of those automatically generated e-mails. It looked to me ad if it was programmed to send to anyone who entered a postcode from a list. I would have preferred if the list of barred postcodes was available then I could have spent time applying elsewhere.

aufaniae Sat 02-Feb-13 11:03:31

lazybastard you should send that one to the papers (the Guardian?) surely it must be discriminatory and therefore illegal?

HappyMummyOfOne Sat 02-Feb-13 11:28:24

Merry, whilst lots of people are sensible and financial plan before having children there are many many more that dont.

How many have had extra children whilst claimimg benefit or whilst already getting help from tax credits. I'd guess far more than those who dont claim any benefits as they dont get a pay rise everytime they have a child. Peoples versions of being responsible vary too, for some its ensuring their wage stretches for others its checking what extra they will get from tax credits. Plenty of posts on here encouraging people to add to their family or start a family even if it means being subsidised by the state.

UC will have teethng problems just like tax credits as all new systems do. Its not asking people to work hundreds of hours just that everyone who claims state help is already doing everything they can to support themselves. There will still be enough hours for housework and children so its scaremongering to say children will suffer. Working to support yourself has always been around, its just being tightened up to ensure people dont get away with working very few hours and enjoying top ups from other tax payers working many more hours.

aufaniae Sat 02-Feb-13 11:39:34

"its scaremongering to say children will suffer."

Children will suffer because of the changes to the benefits system, The sanctions for not complying will push some families into homelessness and destitution for example. Homeless charities are already talking about rising homelessness since the tories got elected and expect to see more. Children's charities are concerned about more children growing up in poverty.

Many women especially lone parents, stand to lose under the new system (disproportionately to men).

It's not scaremongering. Try googling it. (I don't have time right now!) Or check out mumsnet's own guide to UC (linked earlier in this thread).

aufaniae Sat 02-Feb-13 11:42:35

Also if people are having to have wages topped up by the government to survive, I would suggest there is a problem with wages, and high rents, it shouldn't be so.

The implications of what you're saying is that only the rich should have children, did you really mean that?

LadyFlumpalot Sat 02-Feb-13 11:43:44

Oh, I'm confused.

DH works full time 8-5, 5 days a week

I work 3 days a week, 9-5.

We get a small amount of WTC and child benefit.

I can't work full time, the cost of childcare would just be too much and we couldn't pay it and bills. I also can't not work as I have depression and would go crazy at home.

I am studying off my own back for a set of financial qualifications to better my prospects.

Please could someone tell me what will happen to us?

lazybastard Sat 02-Feb-13 11:48:27

I'm not sure it would count auf. They are not discriminating on grounds of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation or disability. We also need to remember that discriminating against the less well off is actively encouraged even if it makes it harder to become better off. I am tempted to say especially as some want to keep people down.

Alibabaandthe40nappies Sat 02-Feb-13 11:52:17

LadyFlump - it depends on how much your gross income is per week. The figure was given someone on the thread but I can't remember sorry.

Mosman Sat 02-Feb-13 11:52:50

Mosman the application specifically asked for my address and postcode, they were classified as essential fields. It wasn't a University it was for a job in a national company

That would be discrimination so yes send it off to one of the national or local newspapers I'm sure they would be delighted to run a story and maybe you'll get a job as a result of them highlighting your case.

Mosman Sat 02-Feb-13 11:54:21

It was one of those automatically generated e-mails. It looked to me ad if it was programmed to send to anyone who entered a postcode from a list.

I assume you still have the email ? I am very shocked that a national company would be so foolish as to put that in writing.

lisad123everybodydancenow Sat 02-Feb-13 11:56:52

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

LovesGSD Sat 02-Feb-13 12:03:05

starting to get worried now, what happens if you want to be a sahm (I have a 10 month old), my partner works we only receive child benifet and child tax credit, will my child tax credit be stopped if I'm not looking for work?

JakeBullet Sat 02-Feb-13 12:11:40

Hi foxy, as far as I am aware it starts being piloted in some areas in April and the rest will be rolled out nationally from October, however we will all apparently be notified when its our turn to change over.

I can relate to the cutting hours to meet the needs of your child because I had to do the same and then a year ago had to resign ....things are settling down enough now that I am tentatively making my way back.smile. Carers Allowance has been a lifesaver for me but once I earn over £100 a week it will be lost and that's fine as I won't need it then.

MooMooSkit Sat 02-Feb-13 12:11:40

Anyone else still find this confusing? On the website it says it could be as late as april 2017 but then i get confused as it says stuff about the child being 5 and needing to do more hours. At the moment i work 16 per week (and where i work only the managers are full time, all the shop assistants are on max 17.5 hours a week) but my son is 3, he turns 5 in september 2014. I don't know how this will effect me? And it seems like you won't have an option to have weekly payments anymore which is a bit crap, I do find it easier to budget, especially for childcare costs having the money paid in weekly.

JakeBullet Sat 02-Feb-13 12:14:26

Hi lisa, you won't be affected by the benefit cap if anyone in the family is getting DLA. The Govt has said nobody will be worse off under UC so reckon things will remain unchanged for you....it will just be called something else.smile

HappyMummyOfOne Sat 02-Feb-13 12:16:48

LoveGSD, tax credits wont cease if you dont look for work. Whe it changes to UC is when things change, you can either choose not to claim and be a SAHM if your partners income allows or if you need claim state assistance then you will have to comply with the new rules and yes will eventually have to work if you wish to claim.

Aufaniae, there are already sanctions attached to certain benefits. If a claimant does not comply and is sanctioned, then thats a decision the claimant makes themselves. Lone parents only have to work school hours, its not that much to ask is it that somebody works (not even full time in this instance) to provide towards the children they chose to bring onto the world.

If people dont like the rules for claiming state assistance under UC then nobody will force them to claim. They have a good amount of time to look for other jobs/get work/increase their hourse before the changes come into play in many areas.

LovesGSD Sat 02-Feb-13 12:24:30

thanks, I was made redundant on maternity leave so planned on taking a few years off with DS as I went back to work when my other DC's were 6 months. By the time it's all sorted I'll probably be bored and will be looking for work again.

aufaniae Sat 02-Feb-13 12:33:16

JakeBullet "The Govt has said nobody will be worse off under UC"

The government may have said that, but it's not true.

"Hundreds of thousands of low-income working families will be worse off, and in many instances cannot improve their condition by increasing the hours they work, under the government's flagship universal credit scheme, a report has said.

The Chartered Institute of Housing said ... that 400,000 of the country's poorest families – among them those in poverty and on the minimum wage – will have less income in 2015 than they did in 2010, despite ministerial assurances that no one would lose out under its plans. The CIH calculations show that "the government's aim for households to be better off in work than out of work under universal credit is not the case for all families."

...

The report says households that earn £247 or less a week will see a fall in real income in 2015, and lone parents with up to three children will always be worse off if universal credit remains in its current form.

Grainia Long, CIH chief executive, said: "This is a critical time – 400,000 of the lowest earning working households in the UK could see a real drop in income under universal credit. Changes to address this need to be made now. ...

According to Sam Lister, head of policy at the institute: " All those on minimum wage and officially in poverty lose out. Also all lone parents – it does not matter what they earn: lone parents across the piece lose out under the current form of universal credit. We want the government to rethink the measures."

From this article

ledkr Sat 02-Feb-13 12:34:49

happy I take it from your user name you have one child? Yes you can work ft as a lone parent of one and still have some time for them I'm sure but try four lots of homework, after school activities which normally all start before work ends and the upkeep of a large family home. Not to mention cooking and shopping for five people plus washing etc.
I am now re married thus can share the load giving the children the parenting they need as well as working. My dc get to attend their activities get support with education, one of us can always attend their school parents evenings and productions.
Why should the children of lone parent miss out on things like that? You cannot compare them with two parent families.
Not scaremongering at all. I have worked with troubled children for most of my adult life. Children need adequate parental input in order to thrive not a knackered over stretched parent with very little time for them.
My other point is school holidays. Myself and my dh can use our leave to be with the children so that they can enjoy their school holidays rather than be shoved into play schemes. A lone parent will have half that amount if holidays to use up so the children will often be in holiday care. That is until they are teens and don't want to go so then are left to their own devices for long periods, and that is never a good thing.

Antipag Sat 02-Feb-13 12:36:12

My husband works full time and considerable overtime. I am SAHM but would be happy to go back to wot if necessary. How will this affect us. Any job I get would need to cover the full time childcare of a two year old and after school and possible before school care of a five year old. Where I live that is a minimum of £400 a week. We currently get tax credits and housing and council tax benefits. Any job I go back to has to cover the additional childcare costs and any benefits we lose as a result
Of our increased earning so any job I take needs to enable us to earn around £500 a week just to keep us in food water electric etc etc. All the hidden problems of this system arise as well, if I am forced to take work I am eligible or any job with a travelling time of up to 90 minutes, so even
longer on childcare. So my children might only see their parents at weekends???

garlicblocks Sat 02-Feb-13 12:42:40

This is a sidetrack, Baking, but I put a fair amount of effort into fighting the unfounded, but popular, assumption that the poor don't want to earn a decent living.

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation tried very hard to find the three-generation jobless families beloved of Coalition rhetoric. They said:

"We undertook concerted, intensive fieldwork in very deprived neighbourhoods of Glasgow and Middlesbrough but we were unable to locate any families with three generations who had never worked. If such families exist, they can only account for a minuscule fraction of workless people. Recent surveys suggest that less than one per cent of workless households might have two generations who have never worked. Families with three such generations will therefore be even fewer.

"Next, we undertook lengthy, life history interviews with 20 families with long-term worklessness across two generations. Even locating these families was very challenging. So, what did we find?

" • There was no evidence of a ‘culture of worklessness’. Families remained committed to the value of work and would have preferred to be in jobs rather than have ‘the miserable existence’ of a life on benefits.
" • Workless parents were unanimous in not wanting their children to end up in the same situation as themselves and actively tried to help them find jobs."

As you say you know such families personally, you are very unfortunate because they're vanishingly rare. The Rowntree Foundation would probably appreciate a referral from you, as they're keen to study the causes of long-term unemployment and social exclusion.

MoodyDidIt Sat 02-Feb-13 12:43:00

i don't know if anyone else has said this, havent read full thread, sorry.

but does anyone else think this is going to lead to lots of people just saying, fuck it, and doing cash in hand work and not declaring it? ie, say, couples whose DP works and they don't, but not being able to fully live on DPs salary for example.

i do.

zebrafinch Sat 02-Feb-13 12:47:18

lisad, if you are below the capital limit you will qualify for universal credit, if not you will have transitional arangement put in place. currently you can earn £100 a week and still claim Carers Allowance but I have yet to see the figure for allowed earnings when Universal Credit comes in it will probably be similar.

When Universal Credit is introduced if you are a new Carer and above the capital limit you cannot claim Universal Credit. The state will pay you just Carers Allowance £58 a week for what is often for some more than 100 hours work a week.

Anyone above the capital limit in future will not be able to claim Universal Credit which is means tested. Child tax credit was based on income so all new claimants who would have qualified on income will now be subject to the capital rules and if above the limit will not receive this support from the state.

Existing claimants of child tax credit who say have a deposit for a house in their bank account will be affected by the capital rules for Universal Credit

If you are a new Carer (even single parents which is quite common where there is severe disability) for a disabled child or want to care for your elderly mother and have capital you will have to find work to pay your mortgage council tax etc and support your children, or if this is not possible accept the slide into poverty and spend all your capital until the state steps in. I think there is going to be a greater demand for residential schools, specialist daycare, nursing homes.

cricketballs Sat 02-Feb-13 12:48:55

I have through this thread with my initial opinion being changed until your post LovesGSD

I have no problem with the state supporting those in genuine need, but why should the state fund your life style choice?

LovesGSD Sat 02-Feb-13 12:49:23

I'm just wondering how the job centre is going to cope with the rush of people signing on every 2 weeksshock

aufaniae Sat 02-Feb-13 12:49:31

"there are already sanctions attached to certain benefits." E

Actually, one of the main changes with the new system is in the severity of the sanctions.

As an example, sanctions for UC claimants on the equivalent of JSA include the following:

- Refusing a job offer: 100 per cent reduction in standard allowance of UC for three months

- Refusing second job offer within a year of the first offence: 100 per cent reduction in standard allowance of UC for six months

- Refusing third job offer within a year of the second offence: 100 per cent reduction in standard allowance of UC for three years

Unlike at present, sanctions will not run concurrently. This means that if a claimant receives the first two sanctions above within say three weeks, they will effectively be sanctioned for nine months.

(UC will be made up of a basic amount called the standard allowance, along with
additional elements for housing, disability, caring and children.)

From this document by Crisis

Imposing such sanctions may mean severe consequences such as homelessness for families in reality.

aufaniae Sat 02-Feb-13 12:51:11

"I think there is going to be a greater demand for residential schools, specialist daycare, nursing homes."

Yes this is very likely, and it will cost the tax payer much more money overall.

Antipag Sat 02-Feb-13 12:51:12

I think you are right. And I think a lot more small companies might be prepared to offer that cash in hand work to part time staff members. We simply can't afford to live on one persons salary without help. I would definitely consider cash in hand work if it meant being able to make the money up without sacrificing time with my children.

cricketballs Sat 02-Feb-13 13:01:42

but those of us who had dc prior to these benefits being available had to sacrifice time with them in order to pay the bills.

Support for those in need definitely but not to fund a lifestyle choice; we can not afford it and this is from someone who detests the current government with a passion

MoodyDidIt Sat 02-Feb-13 13:05:22

i would too antipag, deffo. fuck em i say.

atm we mainly rely on DH's (not huge) salary and get a little bit in TCs. i also have a small business but not really making anything at the mo. plus its a nightmare sorting childcare as my dcs are only little

but i would have no qualms in signing off tax credits / universal credits or whatever the Fook its going to be called hmm when they start telling me to go to job interviews etc. and then just doing cash in hand until the dcs are all at ft school then and only then will i consider working for someone else

it might sound entitled or whatever, why should i give anything back when all they do is take take take. i seriously fucking hate them.

Antipag Sat 02-Feb-13 13:08:36

Cricketballs I accept what you are saying but as i have stated previously childcare costs alone for my two DS would be £400 and with number three on the way they are only going to increase. To make the kind of salary necessary to cover those I would have to work in London and this would leave home as the children get up and arrive home after their bedtime. This is already the case for my DH. It is low income families like us that will suffer. And before anyone says anything about having a third child on a low income, it was not a planned pregnancy, I have a coil fitted which failed after a prolapse, a fact which I was not aware of.

Viviennemary Sat 02-Feb-13 13:10:03

I don't mind helping people in genuine need either. But I don't see why the working woman has to fund women who have chosen to stay at home with their children. Yes they can stay at home if they can afford to. If they can't then why don't they get a job like everyone else has to that can't afford to stay at home.

Antipag Sat 02-Feb-13 13:13:06

I should also say when we had our first two children we were in a very different financial situation and were not reliant on ANY additional benefits.

cricketballs Sat 02-Feb-13 13:14:07

but Antipag, if that's what it takes then you have to do it; we did and yes it was tough and there were times when I forgot what dh looked like but if we hadn't have done it we wouldn't have been able to eat.

Pickles101 Sat 02-Feb-13 13:14:58

Anyone else wishing May 2015 would hurry the fuck up?

I'm absolutely shitting it really worried about UC. I claim ESA for disability and I'm genuinely quite scared despite reading this. Why? Just fucking WHY?

Antipag Sat 02-Feb-13 13:17:10

I just wonder what the generation of children raised by external childcarers looks like. Because that is what we are talking about here, a whole generation of children raised by nursery workers and childminders.

Antipag Sat 02-Feb-13 13:24:21

Also lets say goodbye to massive voluntary sector that helps
Pick up the slack for the elderly/sick/disabled our communities. Not all SAHM aren't contributors in society. I don't know how many parents will be left going in to help the children with reading in schools now, how many people will be able to find the time to volunteer in soup kitchens or youth groups. So much for BIG society.

Roseformeplease Sat 02-Feb-13 13:24:37

Wy should I leave my children and work long hours to pay for them, pay taxes and contribute to a system so that people like Antipag can spend time with theirs? This has been the flaw in the system which, I hope,is being addressed. Yes, you might have to travel, pay childcare, cut down on time with children but, that is the price you have to pay for having a family that depends on YOU. Your family's needs and your wish to stay at home should not necessitate other taxpayers funding it. You are not in genuine NEED - sick, desperate, disabled, you just prefer to be at home with your children.
I suspect there will be a lot of problems with the system to start with but, ultimately, work will be rewarded more highly than not working and parents will begin to take responsibility for their own children. I read that something is being done to address the cost of childcare, which will help even more.

And "they" don't take. Money taken from taxes and contributors is spent on benefits and the cost of running the state. Fewer people contributing (ie working cash in hand or not working) means the cost to the rest of us goes up.

aufaniae Sat 02-Feb-13 13:24:42

"But I don't see why the working woman has to fund women who have chosen to stay at home with their children. Yes they can stay at home if they can afford to. If they can't then why don't they get a job like everyone else has to that can't afford to stay at home."

If you are outraged that there are couples where both are working, but still need state top-ups, then it's worth bearing in mind that the price of rent is astronomical in this country, and that's where a good deal of benefits if going. A good place to start would be to do something about the extortionate price of rent in this country, rather than blaming the individuals struggling to pay it. (A program of building council housing would be a good start as it would be an investment for the tax payer, and also bring down rents in the private sector through simple supply and demand).

Also, have you not noticed we're in a recession? It's very easy to say people should just go out and get a job "like everyone else" but the reality is the jobs aren't there.

Lastly, Tax Credits were brought in to help bridge the gap between benefits and working so that people weren't caught in the poverty trap, it was an incentive to get back to work. They can be seen as propping up employers low wages however. The Tories also claim to be trying to making work pay (with stick rather than carrot!) but the reality is this still won't be true for everyone, and the poorest will get poorer under their plans. Perhaps the problem here is low wages, not the individuals earning them?!

Molepom Sat 02-Feb-13 13:31:01

According to Pickles link, that says that the carers element is just over £144 a month....that's £36 a week, LESS than what carers get now.

TheDetective Sat 02-Feb-13 13:32:19

I am so very saddened by the attitudes of some people on jere.

Horrified by the fuck you and yours attituude that seeps out of some posters.

I do hope you never fall from grace. It's only one step behind you...

TheDetective Sat 02-Feb-13 13:32:56

Damn iPhone. 'here'. Not jere hmm.

chocoluvva Sat 02-Feb-13 13:34:55

What a sneaky way of getting part-time workers to stop claiming tax credits.

The obvious way to get more people into full-time work is to make more full time work available - through investing in infra-structure projects - most economists think this is the way to get the national debt down. Big businesses don't want a high level of employment though, because the workforce becomes more confident to ask for better pay and conditions. So, the govenment manages to please the few who have stakes in big businesses and reduce the welfare state.

angry

Antipag Sat 02-Feb-13 13:35:35

I have already said I am more than prepared to return to work and frankly if there were part time work available that topped up our income enough to balance out he need for reliance on HB and TC I would take
It, but where i live there are very few jobs at all, let alone part time ones. And the UC is set to decrease part time work yet further. And again Rose, who is going to pay for the resuction in volunteers. Currently I help children read in local schools three days a week and volunteer in a
Youth centre on a Friday night. Those are valuable contributions to society as whole, ones that the state will have to find additional funds to pay for when the people that do it currently all return to full time work. I suffer from an autoimmune condition that seriously affects my health, currently I am a poor prospect for an employer, despite being university educated with a further 4 years in further qualifications. I am
not a person that doesn't contribute and I am not a person that believes I am entitled. I am also not a person who believes that a whole generation of people raised by nurseries and childminders is good. I think there are othr, better ways to reorganise the benefits system.

HappyMummyOfOne Sat 02-Feb-13 13:38:44

"I just wonder what the generation of children raised by external childcarers looks like. Because that is what we are talking about here, a whole generation of children raised by nursery workers and childminders"

I doubt it has any effet at all, children in pre school care wont recall if it was mum or nursery that looked after them as they are tiny and at 5 they go to school anyway. School or childcarers do not raise children, they are simply looked after by them and educated. It also teaches children a good work ethic in the hope that they will not chose to rely on benefits to fund their lifestyle choice.

Being a SAHP is a luxury and not one that should be provided by the state. This thread itself shows why things need to change. People see it as their right not to work and believe the state should pay for that choice. Obstacles like childcare costs etc should be thought of before having children. Moaning that the government are mean and nasty for expecting you to work is sheer madness and the reason policies are changing in the first place. Thousands manage work and raise families so its not impossible in any shape or form.

Viviennemary Sat 02-Feb-13 13:40:33

Why is the price of rent astronimical. Because it is kept high by subsidies. The same goes for house prices. We have struggled at times and I think benefits should be there as a safety net for people who lose their jobs and fall on hard times. But not as a top up to let people make choices to be a stay at home parent or work less hours because they choose to. I agree with tax breaks for working parents. The system needed an overhaul.

HappyMummyOfOne Sat 02-Feb-13 13:42:27

Antipag, UC wont reduce part time work as students and those who dont claim state benefits will still want to work part time. Plenty of people do without state help already.

Volunteers will still be there, lots of SAHPs arent funded by the state so will be free so work or not and many already are likely to be doing volunteering work. There is only one volunteer at our school who is not in employment ad retured, the rest volunteer around the working hours.

Antipag Sat 02-Feb-13 13:46:00

So if not childminders who is raising my children if both DH and I are working or travelling to work during the children's waking hours? As I have stated previously our financial situation was very different when we decided to have children. I don't think The attitudes here are about SAHM saying they don't want to work but that there has to be a work life balance somewhere when you are raising small children. It is obviously a very different argument if all the children are at school full time. I don't know how people see this as a black and white issue. The cost of living is markedly different where we live to say, Yorkshire, and yet the only benefit that makes allowance for that is housing benefit. I guarantee under this UC system child poverty will increase with in five years.

aufaniae Sat 02-Feb-13 13:47:43

cricketballs "if that's what it takes then you have to do it; we did and yes it was tough and there were times when I forgot what dh looked like but if we hadn't have done it we wouldn't have been able to eat."

That's very sad, and you should not have to live like that in first world country.

Yes of course on an individual level people have to do what they can to survive, but you shouldn't be accepting that this is the case as it doesn't need to be like this.

This government are steering us into the deepest recession for decades. We're in a triple dip recession right now. What are they doing to get the economy going? Nothing as far as I can see. These changes are not about saving money, they are ideological. Many of the "cuts" they're bringing in will actually cost the tax payer more money, particularly with the state having to take up caring commitments that people will no longer be able to keep up after all the changes.

While people point the finger at each other and say "well you should be working harder" the rich are getting richer with property portfolios based on extortionate rents, and shares in companies which take increasing amounts of money from us each which way we turn.

Can't you see we're getting screwed here? It's the government's job IMO to come up with creative, positive solutions which benefit everyone. But this government is implementing policies which will benefit big business and the rich at the expense of everyone else.

Viviennemary Sat 02-Feb-13 13:49:58

I think it would have been more sensible to have the age raised to five when