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

Also where are all the extra childminders coming from. There are very few in our area. Can someone please explain it to me because I really don't understand it. If I had a full time job on minimum wage it would not even cover the cost of childcare each month but would the UC still
Continue to subsidise us in terms of housin benefit and tax credits or are we somehow supposed to raise three children on thin air?

Pag- re childcare I think that's why they've changed the ratio of kids to carers,

I think a lot of Councils would shy away from building more houses. As the upkeep of them is astronomical. And I think it's quite a good thing that estates are a mix of owners and council tenants. But it means that the chances of getting a council house are almost impossible in a lot of areas.

It hasn't been made clear if there will be some sort of cap on childcare costs. I knew somebody who was getting £900 a month for childcare. And hardly earned more than that. I can't see how that is economic sense.

Me too Antipag. I'm know I'm lucky to be able to afford this choice (though I know many people in my situation wouldn't think they could make the same choice, as they wouldn't want to do without their holiday and eating out etc as we do - not complaining - that was my choice).

I'm now unable to work many hours but get nothing from the state as I would have if I'd worked. I often look after the children of friends who are much better off than me.

Anyway, if there's absolutely no slack in the system what will happen - who will drop everything to care for sick relatives/children? I don't see how a society where all able-bodied parents work full time would manage. It would cost the state if they had to pay for the informal work done by SAHMs. And it would cost employers if they had to cover for parents taking time off work to look after family when noone was available, what with everybody being at work.

My DH's tax goes into the pot to pay for other parents who claim childcare costs - we're subsidising other people in our position who don't need to work but choose to. And the work I'm not doing is available for someone who needs it.

childcare cost article

"I think it's quite a good thing that estates are a mix of owners and council tenants."

I agree that it's a good thing that estates are a mix of people, which is why people should be able to keep renting their council houses when they're in better circumstances.

"I think a lot of Councils would shy away from building more houses." They were actively prevented from reinvesting money in new homes.

Building housing stock is an investment as the houses themselves are an asset. People no longer on benefits pay their rent directly into the system, so this is a boost to the public purse. People on HB are at least having their HB paid back to the public purse.

Well managed, council housing should be a decent investment, not a drain on resources.

It's much more normal in many other affluent countries to be renting from the state than it is in the UK. If council housing was more abundant and well-managed it would go long way to solving many of the problems raised on this thread.

Many fewer people would need state top-ups as they would be able to manage their rents of a low income, and the HB bill would be so much smaller.

There wouldn't be much profit in it for the private sector though - except the building companies, but that would stimulate the economy through provision of jobs.

Antipag - You will be able to claim back all your childcare.

People seem to be conflating a few ideas in their head and coming up with panic here.

You are in a part time job and get topped up with universal credit. There are three ways you can be asked to find more income.

1. Through getting more hours/pay rise from your current job
2. By taking on another part time job
3. By getting a better paying job.

You can spend a few months trying option 1, 2 or 3 at your discretion. If you keep asking for more hours for months and none are forthcoming, you will be expected to look at options 2 and 3 as well and if a suitable role comes up, you will be expected to take it. If you turn down suitable work, then you may be sanctioned

In terms of what constitutes a suitable job this is what the documentation from the government appears to be saying.

1. you can't be forced from permanent to temporary, regardless of the wage difference

2. your current job is the priority, so you cannot be forced to take on work which conflicts with this. So if you're a nurse who works shifts you cannot be forced to take a second part time job which will prevent you from working or being available to work these shifts. You also have to fit interviews in around working hours as you would if you were changing jobs, you will not be asked to walk out of work to do interviews.

3. if you have a child of between 5 and 12, you will be only expected to work during school hours, so there will be no problem for single parents who have taken a job to fit around the school run

4. if you are in a couple, you designate one half of the couple to be the primary carer, and then they have the same expectation as the single parent of only working during school hours. The other half of the couple will be expected to work full time hours if work is available to do so.

5. you may be expected to do training for other work in your free time, if it doesn't conflict with points 1 - 4. It isn't clear how it impacts your universal credit if it is training/studying you have organized yourself, but I think it will be similar to how job seekers allowance approaches it now.

You will only be sanctioned if you turn down work which does not conflict with the above points. So, if there are no jobs available, you will not be sanctioned. If there are jobs available, you apply and you don't get the job, you won't be sanctioned, you will continue to receive universal credit. So if you're stuck working part time because there are no other jobs available, you will be topped up with universal credit until that situation changes. You're not going to lose it because you can't find a suitable job, you're only going to lose it if you refuse to work more hours, where SUITABLE work is available.

"SAHM's often do contribute to the economy as they are available to do unpaid caring/childminding and voluntary work.

And I look after my DC's myself which incurs no cost to the state"

Surely thats what parents are meant to do though, provide financially for the children they choose to have. Its not like going above and beyond the call of duty or something to be proud of. Its what people do in a responsible society.

We work and pay our own childcare costs, thousands of people do and dont claim from the state. I also hold three volunteer posts yet fit in with working five days a week and our other volunteers work so volunteering will still happen.

So Clytaemenestra if I'm reading right, Our family will still be able to claim universal credits with one partner only in full time work until youngest is 5, then i will need to find work, but am only required to accept if it fits in around school hours? This is much better and I am perfectly happy to do that.

That's my reading of it, yes Antipag. I linked to a few of the original docs from the DWP up above. I am not an expert or a policy maker however so don't take my advise as gospel, read the docs too :)

Partner will be expected to be working 35 hours (where possible) and can be sanctioned for not taking work as per jobseekers allowance now.

With a child between 1 and 4, you will be required to attend "?work-focused interviews? to assess work prospects and identify activities, training and work opportunities to enhance the claimant?s job prospects. The rules are likely to be similar to those currently in place, but interviews may be arranged more frequently"

Once your child is 5, you will be "subject to all the work-related requirements, including attending work-focused interviews, work preparation (including mandatory work activity and community work), work search and work availability. This will apply to jobseekers, those in work under the ?conditionality threshold? and claimants with a youngest child over five.

Mandatory Work Activity (MWA) is workfare - being made to work for free (usually in menial jobs) for no pay (besides your UC).

Clytaemnestra "You're not going to lose it because you can't find a suitable job, you're only going to lose it if you refuse to work more hours, where SUITABLE work is available."

This is the crux of the problem, what the Job Centre deems suitable and what common sense would show as suitable may well be two different things. Anyone who has had dealings with them will probably know what I'm talking about!

(Personally, I was left with no money at all when I was job seeking, due to an error on their part. They identified the problem 4 months later, and demanded I attend a job centre within a day if I wanted it to be rectified, despite me being 500 miles from home, with young child and the weather reports (snow) saying only make essential trips).

If you think the Job Centre only makes common sense decisions I would suggest you've not had much dealings with them!

Also, worth looking at who is going to be implementing this:

"The administration of the conditionality regime will be, as now, ?contracted out? to private and voluntary sector organisations. They will deliver the government?s ?Work Programme? via a network of personal advisers who have the duty to assist and support claimants, and the power to direct them to undertake specific work-related requirements. They do not have the power to impose sanctions, but will report sanctionable failures to DWP decision makers, who then decide whether or not to sanction. Work Programme suppliers are paid by results ? ie, the number and longevity of employment and work placements, with higher payments for ?hard-to-place? claimants."

So basically, they'll be paid for getting you into a job. Do you think they're going to consider which job has the best prospects for you (and by implication, the tax payer) long term? I very much doubt it! Under this system it's very probable that people will be expected to leave low-paying jobs which have great prospects long-term to take up menial jobs with no prospects.

Quotes from Child Poverty Action Group

Its all relative though HappyMummy -just because YOU are able to do these things does not mean everyone can. I am dyspraxic as our glassware will attest . .I am fairly good but organisation etc does not come naturally to me. Working five days a week plus three voluntary jobs plus childcare plus housework (unless you have a very supportive DH) would definitely impact on my mental health with the difficulties I would experience keeping it all together. I know this as I've done it...working five daus plus voluntary work on the side.
Okay I had to do all this with a disabled child so it's not quite the same but with the benefit of age and maturity I can see why I struggled. This for me is the issue....that not everyone is the same.
I have a friend like you who is a whirlwind of activity with a spotless house to match...she also has a disabled child but manages to care fir him whole holding down a job etc....and if she can do it why can't I? Well I just can't. ..I fall apart under that kind of pressure. If my son had normal needs it might be different.

Antipag - this is the bit relevant to you.

"Lone parents with children between five and 12, for example, will only be expected to look for work that is compatible with school hours. Similarly, couples with young children will be able to nominate a principal carer who will be treated as a lone parent for conditionality purposes. We have also made clear that individuals with caring responsibilities would only be expected to look for work that is compatible with their caring requirements, while claimants with work-limiting health conditions may also only be expected to work part-time."

From this doc

I fully expect to see rioting again this summer. ... which will be painted as ungrateful poor feeling all entitled to flatscreen tellies on the taxpayer, with vox pops from dispossessed rioters edited to sound like they're complaining about not getting 'enough' benefits when they actually said they're facing eviction due to UC system cock-up.

Clytaemnestra - what about me? Can you work out if I'll be asked to stop my self employment or stop claiming?

Thanks for the reply Jakebullet, am juat going to wait and see how things work out before I panic I think. Thank you for the reply once again.

My area is one of the pilot areas. I fear many do not know this. I am worried for others in my community.

I am very glad I am through with any kind of benefits as I now earn enough to support myself, even if I was single.

Surely thats what parents are meant to do though, provide financially for the children they choose to have

HappyMummyOfOne - I would be delighted to have that form part of my package of proposals for sensible British governance:

-Better, realistic wages, thus not requiring a tax payers' top up
-Lower, realistic rents, thus not requiring a tax payers' subsidy
-Higher, realistic child support payments from NRPs (mostly men), thus not requiring a tax payers' bale out

And I admire ledkr's posts on this thread very much.

MosmanSat 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.

Oh FGS Mosman a potential employer will EXPECT to see your address on a your CV when you initially apply.

It has been said by govt and on this thread that if you are currently in receipt of Disability Living Allowance, the benefit cap will not apply to you.

This is not strictly true. If you are caring for a child that is over 18 (as in, your offspring is over 18 - an adult disabled child) then you WILL be subject to the benefit cap.

m.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/dec/16/parents-disabled-offspring-benefit-cap

Agreed,but she could, reasonably, be expected to do both, or take on more hours of nursing, rather than expecting the shortfall to be made up from the public purse.