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

[aufaniae]

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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...)

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.....

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?

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.

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.

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!

"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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

Darkesteyes I'm sorry you had to experience that

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.

"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.

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.

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?