Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

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

999 replies

aufaniae · 31/01/2013 23:32

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

OP posts:
pingu2209 · 31/01/2013 23:34

Bang goes all the dinner ladies and teaching assistants

Original poster
aufaniae · 31/01/2013 23:37

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.

OP posts:
millie30 · 31/01/2013 23:40

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.

NorthernLurker · 31/01/2013 23:40

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 · 31/01/2013 23:42

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.

Original poster
aufaniae · 31/01/2013 23:45

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).

OP posts:
MildlyMiserable · 31/01/2013 23:46

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 · 31/01/2013 23:47

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 · 31/01/2013 23:47

Will it apply to single parents?

coribells · 31/01/2013 23:50

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?

70isaLimitNotaTarget · 31/01/2013 23:51

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 · 31/01/2013 23:51

This reply has been withdrawn

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ at the poster's request.

Original poster
aufaniae · 31/01/2013 23:52

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.

OP posts:
ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 31/01/2013 23:55

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/

Original poster
aufaniae · 31/01/2013 23:56

"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).

OP posts:
Softlysoftly · 31/01/2013 23:59

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

quoteunquote · 01/02/2013 00:00

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 · 01/02/2013 00:02

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).

Original poster
aufaniae · 01/02/2013 00:05

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.

OP posts:
TheSecondComing · 01/02/2013 00:07

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Original poster
aufaniae · 01/02/2013 00:07

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?

OP posts:
Mabelface · 01/02/2013 00:07

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 · 01/02/2013 00:08

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 · 01/02/2013 00:08

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. :(

gallicgirl · 01/02/2013 00:12

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.