People who won't work otherwise they lose benefits

[Alphavilla]

Came across BBC article recently quoting a 20 year old man saying he had cut out Netflix and booze to cut his costs in these difficult times. However apparently he could not work more than his 16 hours otherwise he would lose his benefits. My DH is a manager in large organisation and he finds it difficult to get shifts/jobs covered as the employees claim they can't add more hours to their part time shift because they would lose entitlement to benefits. So there is work to be had, but it seems it is more lucrative not to work. What has gone wrong?

The problem is that lots of large organisations contract people on low hours and hope that they'll pick up shifts at the employers need. If you are on a benefit that pays your housing cost then you can afford potentially to give up that benefit if you are contracted and guaranteed 40 hrs work and therefore salary a week. You cannot afford to give it up if there's a possibility you will get 4 or 12 extra hours, because how do you then pay the rent?

That cant be correct ,a 20 year old man with no disabillites or dependents would be ob very basic benefits and expected to work full time
Maybe if he was a single parent who received relevant benefits but if thats not the case i find if very hard to beleive

It's a fault of the system.

I know may people like it aloy of them with children so by working over that limit they will have to add childcare to their bills and although a lot of it is covered by universal credit they cock it up a lot and it also creates chaos so I can see why people choose not to work more.

I work my ass off doing way over 55 hours some weeks but then I can do that without childcare implications.

I outsource things to make life easier like the launderette for big loads of washing drying,food shop delivery's,Sunday lunch out etc but I can afford to do it because of the hours I put in.

He can’t be on universal credit then as his benefits would not stop if he worked more (he’d be better off in fact)

This - doing the odd extra shift really messes with some benefits and it's not fair on the workers to expect them to deal with fall out. Different if it's regular contracted hours.

0 hour contracts and the end of tax credits made a punitive choice. The system is flawed.

You have beautifully debunked this Tory propaganda. Respect @FatAgainItsLettuceTime

Yes I agree it’s the system! It’s a complete mess. Wages are too low, hours are unreliable and not enough of them. A lot of people in his position would be taking a huge pay cut if they took on more work because benefits are now so inflexible that even a couple of hours extra would leave them unable to live.

You need to read the article properly OP. The man in question lives in supported living so it seems he cannot live independently.
The rent will be around £300 - ££400 per week which will be paid for by housing benefit. If he works too much he will lose his HB and realistic what job can this young man do that pays £600 a week?

Your DH large company should offer secure contracts and decent pay op.

Maybe let him know we have solved his problem. And your welcome.

OP I agree. There’s posts on here all the time, saying they can’t work more hours as they will only get £20 more a week as UC will be tapered. There’s too much reliance on the state, people should want to be self reliant and those attitudes are not good.

Does DH"s organisation offer a regular contract for those hours, guaranteeing them every week/month? Or are they looking for cheap labour working on zero hours/casual basis?

If the latter, the problem is not the benefits system its the employment model which is subsidised by taxpayers via the benefits system.

If you are on a low income, dependent on on benefits to keep a roof over your head would you take the odd shift of casual work, knowing it can cause you problems with benefits for weeks if not months when the employer doesn't want you for those hours a week later?

Stability is sensible not dependant.

No, businesses should be self reliant and offer proper contracts of work to staff which they can rely on from week to week.

Its businesses who benefit from the zero hours contract culture, using the benefits system to top up wages. Its not about UC being tapered, its about losing a chunk of your income when the employer can remove the hours with no notice.

I'm a single parent working full time getting benefits. The more hours you work, the more money I get. For a single man with no children and no disabilities, there is absolutely no way he would get more in benefits than he would working.

The ONLY time you can potentially be better off benefits than working is if you're a single parent of a nursery age child and travel to work/nursery costs eats up your wages.

The minimum for working tax credits is 16 hours, I'm not sure about UC.

Housing benefit calculates your wages and benefits as income when they decide your award amount.

Every pound over a certain amount they will put your HB down and for some people it isn't worth it. Finding childcare, paying for another commute and then actually working the hours out for a few extra quid might not be worth it for some people.

Picking up a few extra hours here and there and you will have HB change your award notice and calculate it at the highest that you earned.

For example, at one point I had a zero hours contract and dispite me telling them by email and phone that my hours will fluctuate (and we agreed for me to send mybpayslips every 6 weeks to calculate HB), they would change my HB if I recieved more wages one week.

Even if the week after I recieved nothing they will say from now on your HB is £60 for example. I would then have to chase them to change it and go into rent arrears. They also conveniently wouldn't change the award notice when my hours were less. And you would be on the phone chasing emails that you sent and having council workers say they didn't recieve xyz.

I had to write to my MP at one point as they calculated a week I earn £350 as me earning that every week and then didn't respond to my emails or phone calls that that was one weeks and not the average in a week of 6. They also claimed that they then overplayed me HB and I would have to pay it back. It wasn't worth it.

Sorry, that should say the more hours I work, the more money I get.

For a single man with no children and no disabilities, there is absolutely no way he would get more in benefits than he would working.

This young man does because he lives in a supported living environment so his rent which will be around £300 per week ( my own DS's rent was £280 pw) is paid by housing benefit which he will lose if he works more.

To me, the shocking bit is that an adult expect to be praised for cutting out booze and Netflix when he can’t afford it.

The young man in that article was a care leaver. Do you understand what that means?

Ah, that makes more sense then. I know that happens at my local homeless hostel.

The young man in that article was a care leaver. Do you understand what that means?

They won't care tick it's just another excuse to benefit bash. The OP didn't even bother to read the article she just wanted a reason to start a thread about lazy benefit claiments.

It's not about being self reliant or attitude.

Say you are on a 16 hour contract and get universal credit to help with rent etc. Your boss asks you to work an extra shift which takes you to 22 hours. You get paid more that month which triggers your universal credit to be removed.

Then next week you only get your 16 hours. You can't afford to pay rent and your UC has been stopped as the system thinks you now work 22 hours a week and don't need it. Now you have to wait for it to be reviewed which takes 6 weeks, during which you can't pay rent or bills or food.

Unless you can count on those extra shifts every week, they cause more problems than they solve and you are worse off.

You're my hero, Minimalme!

About that time a lot of bus drivers realized they would be better off working 16 hours a week and claiming benefits so they all dropped their hours.

We shouldn’t have a system where full time workers are claiming benefits because employers should pay a living wage.

It’s the employers that have latched into the benefits system which is completely wrong!