what's the deal with 16 hours

[Violletta]

I know I'm privileged working full time and not on nmw and I am not benefit bashing as I don't think it's an easy life at all but....

why do people only work 16 hours? is this a benefit thing? if it is, who came up with 16 hours?

cheapskate employers came up with 16 hours.

3 people on 16 hours shifts = one person over a 6 day week. You have 3 people effectively covering 1 job, so it is always covered - one sick/leave/training/ two left to cover. Split those 16 hours into 4 x 4 hour shifts and you don't have to pay for any breaks at all either.

16 hours is the most cost effective for employers for cheap minimum wage (usually retail) jobs.

I think benefit recipients can work a maximum of 16 per week before their benefits are reduced.
On one hand, it keeps people down, doesn't encourage striving or seeking out more hours. I think that housing bens are also reduced if they work more than 16. Nobody wants to risk being made homeless.
A lot of the jobs which fit that are NMW or zero hours type, which rarely offer career progression, promotions or increased earning opportunities.
I know as I've done some of those jobs not whilst on bens, I'm not entitled to bens. And I do not begrudge those who are.

So a person could work ANY job for under 16 hours and be entitled to benefits? What if they are really well paid?!

So a person could work ANY job for under 16 hours and be entitled to benefits? What if they are really well paid?!

No. If you worked 16 hours for a million quid then you'd be entitled to nothing.

School hour job here. No benefits or tax credits claimed.

I used to work 2 16 hour jobs in retail for 2 different companies. Literally finished one job and ran up the road to start the other. Minimum wage employers don’t tend to offer more than 16 hours for the reasons stated above.

why do people only work 16 hours

Which 'people' are you referring to? I don't know a single person who works 16 hours .

I remember, in the very distant past, trying to offer 37 hour contracts to a huge team of people who were effectively on zero hour contracts. They weren't called that then. There were no takers at all so we had to reduce the guaranteed hours down to 16 and 24. We had loads of takers then. A handful of 37 hour jobs were advertised and we really struggled to recruit to them.

I remember it being something to do with benefits at the time.

Having been in a position of being a lone parent with high child care costs I was once a recipient of tax credits. They were reduced if you worked part time and increased if you worked over 30 hours, which was seen as full time. I could earn a fair whack and still get tax credits, but it was almost impossible to find childcare for my standard office hours. Luckily I was in the sort of job where I could work from home, manage my diary etc.

I would imagine that retail and care jobs would make it horrendously impossible to work full time and have reliable childcare. Fixed shifts are pretty rare, and childcare places tend to be inflexible so it is easy to see why people are trapped in low paid part time jobs.

Are you asking why people only work 16 hours when that is the cap (in which case, duh) or are you asking why the cap is 16 hours?

thanks for the duh, really helpful - why is 16 the cap?

Actually you have to work a minimum of 16 hours as a single parent in order to be eligible for working tax credit/UC. If you work less you have to prove you are incapable of doing more ie medical reasons. I can't remember what the minimum for couples is.

Eh? It's not true if you work less than 16 hours it doesn't affect your benefits - it will.

When I was on tax credits 16 hours was the minimum to be eligible for childcare help which I thought was stupid - why would a 15 hour job magically not need childcare??

Sixteen hours has been the cap for a long time. That's what it was set at by the Government at the time. This is changing though for different categories of workers depending on how old their children are and if they have a partner who is working. People worked only 16 hours because if they worked more hours they'd be no better off because their benefits would be cut and they might have extra expenses like travel and childcare. Mad situation really.

I would imagine it depends on the type of job and the pay scale as well. for something on or just above NMW you might actually be worse off or just break even by working more than sixteen hours pw, once your benefits were reduced accordingly. There is obviously a tipping point.

Only a relatively well paid job with a chance of some career progression would make it worth working more hours for, under the current system. Who wants to work 5 days a week in a pretty menial job for the same or only slightly more money than they can get by working 2 days a week and claiming full benefit entitlement for the remaining three days and getting to stay at home? No-one, that's who.

When I was on tax credits 16 hours was the minimum to be eligible for childcare help

That's what I meant by a tipping point. There is obviously an optimal point whereby you get all the in work benefits without losing any of the out of work benefits and therefore maximise your income for minimal effort. It would seem that 16 hours per week is the magic formula.

16 hours is linked to benefits and tax credits. The government sets those hours.

1. You can work 16 permitted hours on NMW and still claim ESA

1. You can claim WTC if you work over 16 hours (single parent, disabled, over 60) (24 hours as a couple, one of you must earn at least 16 hours).

So this is why a lot of people work 16 hours, as it is the minimum that they can work and be able to claim tax credits.

Let’s not put the idea into the Tory’s heads that 16 hours = lazy anymore than it already is. Life is bloody hard enough when you are a single parent with no additional financial support and trying to care for disabled people.

The 16 hours is that you have to work at least that to get tax credits - and is only for specific groups of people such as those that get disabled tax credits and single parents. Everyone else has to work over 30 hours.

Right, but you do lose the out of work benefits.

Who wants to work 5 days a week in a pretty menial job for the same or only slightly more money than they can get by working 2 days a week and claiming full benefit entitlement for the remaining three days and getting to stay at home?

This in a nutshell^^

But it's false to say this is 2 days per week - you can't normally get that kind of position from nothing, it only works if you've cut down from full time and a company wants to retain you. When you're jobhunting the only 16 hour positions are things which are spread over more days like retail 3-5 days of 4-6 hour shifts or dinner lady type positions with odd hours.

It sounds like you've never been in the situation if you think that's how it works. There is no such thing as claiming "full benefit entitlement" for X days of the week - you get out-of-work benefits, in-work benefits, or nothing.

Unless it has changed with UC. Which I doubt.

I worked 16 hrs in retail because that was the job I was able to get at the time and that was the hours offered.

Though we had massive turnover of staff so I actually usually worked more hours than that. Wasn't on any benefits though so nothing to lose.

I work 20 hours over 3 days simply because I prefer p/t work with kids. I do not qualify for any benefits but we are entitled to the 30 hours free childcare. I do use this although I still pay at least £500 a month for childcare. I think you have to work a minimum of 16 hours & earn a certain amount per week to qualify for the 30 hours.