The Tories and their new hoops for the working poor to jump through.

[HelenaDove]

If you are not working enough hours or cant get enough hours you will apparently be sanctioned. Unbelievable I cant see some employers being happy with this either although they should be paying a living wage in the first place. Because ppl who have been sanctioned are hardly going to be able to get to work are they?

Ridiculous and vindictive.

www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/02/ministers-are-reaching-beyond-scroungers-and-aiming-britain-s-working-poor

I think women can be particularly vulnerable because they are often the sahp or working part time or in a lower paid job being supported by their dh. They'd more likely have residence of the children in a split and be the ones who ended up claiming.

What gets to me is that not all people claiming something are horrible lazy people sitting on their arses smoking all day.

You could be a single parent and be a lovely person or be rich and be a complete arsehole.

pyjama i had a letter from my HA last year accusing me of not letting them in my flat when all i had done was change the appointment. I hadnt refused entry at all.

How would you like to receive a letter accusing you of something you havent done.

And i know im not the only one this has happened to.

Plus there were the no shows.

Now imagine this with workfare/zero hours and the threat of sanctions on top.

One tenant has had FIVE gas safety checks in less than a year because of a "glitch" in their system.

Unworkable. I think these cunts lie awake at night thinking of ways to penalise the poor.

What gets to me is that not all people claiming something are horrible lazy people sitting on their arses smoking all day.

Fucking hell, don't let the tories hear you say that, they will think the propaganda isn't working and step it up a notch.

I want to put a laughing face, because its a joke. But its probably true so I won't.

I didn't read more than a few lines of this article, and got to the bit where the writer apparently considers it a sign of serious deprivation to walk two miles if you don't have bus fare?

What an idiot.

I have Helena I have had a letter threatening to break in because I was apparently refusing them access. I'd changed the initial appointment and they'd cancelled the second.

They're just standard computer generated letters. Nothing really to do with being poor just one of those annoying things that you have to juggle around other commitments.

I've also had the TV license people threaten to take me to court even though I'd paid for my current tv license and was paying in a scheme for the following year.

This will fuck up the huge army of unofficial Carers who work and Care but dont get Carers Allowance because their Caree cant get PIP or DLA. People with MH issues and children with autism. My brother can work school hours only because his son needs 2 people to control his violence and autistic meltdowns and him and his wife get little sleep. But his son was refused DLA so they are 'unofficial' Carers.
What a choice. Get sanctioned or stick their child into a home which I'm told costs a fortune.

There's outing and there's bringing a previously Banned poster to attention for the behaviour they were banned for (not just on this thread).

Yes I have reported.

Like a PP said i can see children being left home alone or sent into school ill so parents can jump through these hoops.

SnowWhite, for every person that is "abusing" the system, there are countless others who are claiming genuinely. I don't see why the honest should be the ones to lose out because we are tarring everyone with the same brush.

And many women do return to the workplace, but a lot don't because the cost of childcare prohibits them. There are still companies in the UK that pay their male employees more than the female employees.

Maternity leave often sets women's careers back, and when childcare costs are so high, and the quality so low, of course women will stay at home for that period. But thankfully this is being addressed now with the new paternity and shared leave.

You should just report; you know this. We should be allowed to discuss this without people making personal attacks - it's a serious issue.

Snowwhite

Change the record please. Your memory isn't very good is it?
I didn't intend anything, but started a thread to ask about it, will find and link it especially for yo, my dear.
You like to bring this up on any thread that includes anything about tax credits, even though people tell you its getting boring.
Lots of people do this already under tc system, it isn't anything new.
My thread was asking about the morality of it, even though there is nothing illegal about it.
As I have told you previously I know people who do this where there isn't even the work for them to do, they pretend to be employed in the business, claim tc and childcare and nobody checks up, so they think they are fine.

The difference between us and the reason I started the thread almost 2 years ago now, is that I have done the work all the time we have been together and not claimed to be employed as we managed ok on the tc we receive already. I am not greedy so didn't claim.
The extra work that I will need to do won't just create a few hours of a job, added to my other responsibilities will easily add up to 16 hours or more.
Yes, I will need to be paid for this as our tc will change under UC, so I will become employed. Still nothing illegal as I will be paid out of the company the same as dh.

I don't think the new system will cope with taking se/ business accounts on a monthly basis and takes no account of business class flow.

Could we all just ignore SmugWhite or whatever she's calling herself? She has nothing of value to offer and just persists in derailing what could be a useful and interesting discussion of a serious concern for quite a number of MNers. Don't respond to her, she's no different to an irritating child sitting at the back of a bus shouting out swear words to draw attention to themselves.

It won't be just juggling gas safety checks and attending the job centre with work and childcare. It will mean juggling your current job (which as an example you may be working 30 hours a week Monday to Friday, 6 paid hours a day with unpaid breaks extending the working day) to also attend interviews when the job centre tells you to. Wonder if your employer will legally be obliged to pay you for the time off or if it will have to be taken unpaid.

But teadog that simply isn't true and is scaremongering, you will only be required to look for more hours if you've a child aged 13 or over and are on minimum wage.

I think if people are having to answer to the job centre and are already working then there will be work/ interview clashes. I hope I'm wrong.

If the government don't want people working less than 35 hours @NMW then why aren't they making any NMW job with a contract of hours less than that illegal?

Why are the people suffering when its the employers creating the situation?

link to info from money advice service

It says that once your child turns 13, you will normally be expected to look for 35 hours at nmw, if you are able to earn above nmw 30 hours or less should be fine.

Everything I've found online seems to imply that there will be exceptions made for things like travelling time, caring responsibilities etc. I do believe that a common sense approach will be taken and that if somebody is in a steady 30 hour a week job then they won't just be forced out of it. Just take steps to show that they are available for more hours if their circumstances allow.

Try not to worry, if your youngest is 13 then most won't be relying on benefits for many more years anyway.

It's probably not a great idea to work 16 hours then suddenly find your youngest has turned 16-18 and benefits stop anyway.

It's definitely not going to be a one approach fits all measure if they are going by both hours and wages. Does anyone know when they are planning to have this fully in place?

Sorry just seen the link

I agree sliceofsoup, working conditions seem to be getting worse for many. Although I'm not sure if 16 hours and zero hours contracts were encouraged by tax credits. Some people wanted the minimum hours because it suited them at the time.

We might start to see a shift in the type if work available when more people are demanding full time work, only time will tell.

Plus universal credit will be updated in real time so I think that if you're on a zero hours contract and get no hours one week, then 20 the next, the system should be flexible enough to reflect this. The catch is you'll need to be available for more paid work if it becomes available.

Also as I said I think it's all well working part time when your children are small but it's probably a good idea to start looking for more hours and better paid work as they get older for your own sake.

I'm really not siding with this government I'd never vote for them. I just don't think everyone should panic about u/c just try to find out the facts for them and try to prepare for the changes. I don't think it will be all bad. Tax credits aren't perfect in themselves.

Pyjama I have found you to be very reasonable on this thread, and I don't mean this in a rude way, but you are very naive to think they will adopt a common sense approach.

Employees in JCs are given targets. Weekly targets of how many people they have sanctioned. There is no room for common sense when there are targets.

Pyjama no couple will have to work the equivalent of 70 hours between them once youngest dc is 13.

I agree that there is unlikely to be any common sense. People are already being sanctioned for going to job interviews, I just can't see those who are responsible for that system suddenly discovering how to think fairly/sensibly.