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?

See my post above. I have every sympathy with those at the sharp end of the benefits system having been there myself.

Unfortunately I'm also Jewish so voting for an actual antisemite and his gang wasn't an option (i didn't vote for the Tories either).

Perhaps if Labour had prioritised the British working classes rather than pursuing a weird vendetta against an ethnic minority we might not be in this shithole now.

😡

@Notanotherwindow
·
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.

100% this. Spot on!

This.

@Alphavilla

I know many people have said pretty much what I am about to say, but nevertheless... this is my take on it...

Until employers stop being selfish and grabby, and give actual PROPER contracts to people, like at least 24-28 hours, (that will enable people to be able to afford to live without benefits a bit easier - or just have a small top-up,) then no, people will NOT work more hours than 16.

As the poster above said, it will screw with their benefit payments for their rent and council tax. I have seen it happen multiple times to people... If they work a few extra hours in any given week, (even just 4 to 7 hours,) they end up with benefit overpayments, and they end up in a mess financially.

Where my brother works, they have about 12 people who have just 4 and 8 hour contracts, but they do extra hours quite often because the employer needs them to. They are often asked to do more than 16 too (some weeks) but they refuse, and the shift manager ends up doing it. If they offered real, proper decent contracts, people will do the hours.

4 and 8 hour per week contracts are a piece of shit. Even 10 to 12 ones are pretty useless. DH gets fed up of his job sometimes, and has applied some 5 or 6 times in the past few years, to supermarkets and shops and other customer service type roles. ALL the jobs had no more than 10-12 hours guaranteed. No-one can live on that amount of hours!

Yeah, they will offer extra hours sometimes, but they don't HAVE to. And they sometimes don't. Indeed, I have seen 'salaried managers' work extra hours cleaning and serving the public themselves to save on labour, and give the '4-8 hour contract' people JUST the 4-8 hours. And from mid January through to mid March, when custom is a bit low, the employees get dropped to 4-8 hours a week again.

If employers want people to do more hours, GIVE THEM THE HOURS IN THE FIRST PLACE. Stop with the shitty low hour contracts. Pre 2005-ish, this was not even a thing. When DH applied for the job he's in now (customer service role,) circa 2003, every job he looked at was 18 hours, 24 hours, 32 hours, and 40 hours a week contract. There were no 4-8 hour contracts. They're farcical. As I said, don't offer people wanky hours like this, and then cry off when they won't do lots of extra hours when YOU want them to.

This isn't even true! You have to be offer the threshold for 6 months before it's stopped.

But people do work full time and still have to claim top up benefits due to high rents.

Some jobs just don’t pay enough full time for people to be able to afford to pay rent.

Of everyone moved to cheaper areas, who would do all the lower paid jobs in London, for example? And I don’t mean cleaning or careworn - I mean people who work for local authorities etc where the pay isn’t great.

So impressed with this. 5 minutes after the OP: problem explained.
Sometimes I wonder how people have missed the whole discussion of zero hours contracts etc over the past decade. Employers have moral responsibilities, many are ignoring them.

You can earn £77 a week before benefits are reduced. I’m not sure a lot of people on benefits understand the maths. Above that, 55p is taken from every pound. It’s not “losing benefits”.

However like others have said, a zero hours contract makes a complete mess of your payments and the DWP is a nightmare to deal with.

@BlueWalnut
Isn’t it depressing? The system could be fixed if there was the will I am sure. I am glad you’re both ok now.

thank you. We're both with other people now (and neither of us have claimed benefits for years) but I know he's doing well.

I just can't believe that 25 years and however many governments later, the system is still broken in the same way.

(I am on benefits)

Clearly the benefits system is fucked if people turn down more working hours in order to not lose housing benefit, or only earn a very few pounds more for working extra hours. Stride needs to give benefits system an overhaul to ensure those who work extra hours benefit and those who could work extra hours but choose not to are penalised.

It is woeful that it still works like this, yes.

I had a young girl come to me last year and ask how she could move in with her BF, and still retain her financial independence as opposed to a forced joint claim, as they were both on UC.

I had to tell her that, strictly speaking, she can’t.

When I was on ML with my first child, and had to claim benefits to cover my half of the rent as SMP didn’t cover it, the LA literally had no mechanism to just cover my half of the payment.
They needed to know about us as a couple, which was irrelevant in my eyes. His half rent, his money. My half rent, my money.

A brand new benefits system in 2020s that has an intrinsic expectation for a couple to fund each other like it’s the fucking 50s, when many will be late teens, early 20s and only together a few months, just shows a ridiculous govt understanding of people’s relationships and finances in 2020s.

The system could be fixed if there was the will I am sure
I agree...and why is there not the will to fix it?
presumably those who could don't want to because they benefit too much from the way things are?

Or companies could pay their staff enough to live on so the government wouldn't have to (very begrudgingly) step in to stop people from starving and freezing.
That'd work too.

The system is wrong, not the people. I've known couples not live together because if they move in, they lose benefits that they can't afford to live without - the system is a mess.

It's not just that - I work over the 16 hours already but I still can't take on extra. One higher monthly pay automatically reduces my housing benefit. I have to them prove it was a once off. This can mean they want 3 months worth of pay slips going forward and they will pause my housing benefit while they sort it. My rent is £750 and they only pay me £350 as it is but to have that stopped when I earn £950 pm is devastating (trust me I found all this out the hard way). I might also end up with a tax credit overpayment which can affect me for months during the next tax year. Truly not worth the hassle for a few extra hours

In local government many people work minimum hours on a contract (their choice) to get tax credits. Then they work additional hours every week (flexitime) take the time off in lieu. It’s standard. We have the hours for them to work full time but they choose not too so we just employ more people.

ridiculous govt understanding of people’s relationships and finances in 2020s
Ridiculously rich Rishi from Richmond, the cute little manlet with his cashmere sweaters, richer than the king with his vast wealth and luxury, don't worry he'll sort it out for us

It's because benefits and part time work or no work are much more lucrative (and you have more free time) than full-time work, high taxes and no benefits. It's a no-brainer for most people and the 10% benefit increase (and higher taxes) in the budget will see even more people drop out of work.

France have a very sensible benefits system to avoid the ‘life on benefits’ trap.

You receive in benefits, a proportion of your most recent earnings, for a set time period.

If you have no income, ever, to evidence, you receive a low amount that drops with time.

It stops those between well paid jobs falling off a financial cliff, and avoids those who’ve never worked living well long term on government funds.

It's a no-brainer for most people and the 10% benefit increase (and higher taxes) in the budget will see even more people drop out of work

PMSL. Yes, absolutely. Someone earning £125k is about to give up their job for an extra....£7-20 a week on benefits?

Well exactly! Many employers have to take a chunk of the blame for this situation. They need to offer much better contracts with a better amount of hours/better pay etc. One young woman I know only has a 4 hour contract as a cleaner for a budget hotel, and she doesn't even qualify for sick pay when she's off ill!

It's both farcical and sad that people simply CANNOT work extra hours because they will end up with massive overpayments of housing benefit and council tax benefit. What a time to be alive eh?

It’s more the intrinsic assumption that couples fund each other, these days.

I’m early 30s and I can’t think of a single relationship in any of my peers who have ‘our’ money.
They all have, and always have had, each their own money.

The govt assuming couples on benefits will share money is so desperately dangerous (usually for women I suppose) and just…

hilariously misinformed.

Exactly.

@Alphavilla it's this threadut a 20 Yr old care leaver who is living in supported housing. I think your op is quite disingenuous as you've failed to mention this young man's background. He is a careleaver who has left the care system presumably without a wide family network. He is being supported by the authority while he sorts himself out. There should be more compassion and support for people like him.

I doubt the OP will be back. She has misrepresented this young man and his situation in order to have a bunch of posters too lazy to read past the OP vote that she is NBU. Goal achieved.