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

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

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 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...

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??

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.

"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 .

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?

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.

Well said happymum

good post Happymummy

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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....

But all this is just words and forms as from what I see there are very few jobs!

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.

Warehouse work?
Cleaning?
Shelf stacking?
Delivery (leaflets/food etc)?
Fruit picking?

So nothing what so ever at all that you could possibly do? Really?

I didn't say there was nothing I could do, I said we hadn't got any of the jobs we have applied for.

So are you applying for the types of jobs suggested above?

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.

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.

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.