To not want to work more hours? (Universal Credit)

[Abneyandteal19]

Hi
Have never claimed benefits before except child benefit as we've always earns over threshold, situation now is....
3DC ages 4 (preschool) 6 and 8.

I work part time professional job management - but job share 15hrs PW. Income £14500

DH professional job in region of £60-65k has never been out of work until now. His contracts ended in Dec. Had a job lined up for Jan- company funding issues have meant they've delayed his start indefinitely. Of course he is desperately searching.

Done all calculations and looks like we are entitled to some UC, so filled in all forms. Have to agree to commitments, DH has to look for work log jobs applied for work coach etc...all fine no problem

But my commitments have come back with I must agree to look for more hours work. I am not sure I can do this... my job is job share split 40/60 so there are no more hours. I have my preschooler everyday I don't work.

Main point is we were just looking for a bit of help for a few months until DH starts and then gets paid for a new job. Chances are he will absolutely get one in next 3 months and then of course will will cease claiming anything and then me working part time will be totally fine again.

It's not that I don't want to work more just not that easy to find something for a few hours a week that will pay more than childcare will cost? Any thoughts/experience? So AIBU not to want to work more hours?

@Abneyandteal19 ask yourself how anyone in employment that applies for a different job copes. They don't say sorry boss I need time off just incase the phone rings.

You have a job. He doesn't. Therefore, he behaves as he would when working and fits in calls, interviews around family.

@Charlie2121 Today 00:25

Everything that is wrong with this country is encapsulated on this thread.

The majority of posters suggesting the OP commits fraud and takes money they are not due from other tax payers.

No wonder the country is in a mess if that’s the prevailing view on matters.

politicians pilfering public money for their own gain dwarfs any money taken by so called “benefits cheats”

Please don't give them ideas about "bespoke rules", us welfare rights people have enough trouble giving advice about what work coaches might decide with all the things they already have at their discretion!

The working hours rules are perfectly clear for couples with a youngest child of 3 or over: the main carer will be required to work, or look for work, for 30 hours pw and the other partner will be required to do the same for 35 hours pw.

And 30 hours working term-time only won't cut it either, they average the hours out over a full year!

I don't understand most of the responses to this poster, which I assume are either driven by envy or just sheer unpleasantness for the sake of it.
Yes, the OP will have to abide by the same rules as everyone else, but I do agree with a pp who said that -rather like pensions- contributions into the system should be taken into account for a limited period to help people get back on their feet. After all, it's families like this who pay for UC in the first place.
The obvious solution to me would be for the DH to look for any full-time work he can and look for a better job at the same time. Many of us do that.
It is a mystery to me though that whenever anyone posts about people claiming UC they're accused of benefits basing with all sorts of astonishing justifications given as to why they should be allowed to do so indefinitely, yet when a couple who have paid into the system for 18+ years need a helping hand, they are met with derision and contempt. As I said, I can only assume it's envy.

Which is precisely why both adults in the household need to be looking. It maximises the chances that one of them will find something sooner rather than later.

You don't like part time teachers do you?

Not at all.

I'm definitely left-of-centre, and probably amongst the Mumsnet demographic, quite a bit more left again. I suspect a lot of those disagreeing with the OP are also left-of-centre.

Why?

Because she's being precious. She thinks her husband needs special treatment because he is capable of earning £60K. She doesn't want either him, or her, to take on stop-gap jobs because how will her precious DH find a job worthy of his talents if he (or she) has to graft like the hoi polloi.

She's been brainwashed by her OH so clever husband IMO

The last two posts just prove what I was saying and the posters are showing their true colours. Just plain nasty

A teacher working 30 hours per week would not be entitled to UC, even if their partner was out of work.

I do agree with a pp who said that -rather like pensions- contributions into the system should be taken into account for a limited period to help people get back on their feet.

Isn't this what contribution-based JSA is about? As far as I know, it doesn't take household income or savings into account.

I presume that the OP's dh would be entitled to this if he has been contributing, but that they want to claim UC on top of this because it isn't enough?

UC is based on household income, and there is a reasonable expectation that all capable adults in the household should be actively seeking work to qualify. What's wrong with that, exactly?

I don't think it's 'far right' at all to suggest to someone who was a higher rate tax payer on a 60k job should have had the sense to plan ahead when taking a 12 month contract without savings to fill any gaps in employment, and then demand the state supports them during that gap, and are shocked they have to follow the same rules everyone else does!

My sons partner did a degree in marketing no jobs.So she's doing hospitality. Zero hours. She's worked there right through university running this franchise for an absent boss. Last month she had a work accident damaged knee so was off. She's asked for extra hours next month to make up her wages. He said no because she should be finding a job relevant to her degree. Like she hasn't been trying. He's rarely there, she does orders, staff rotas, juggling staff no shows.

He's a lazy bastard but so are many bosses who coast.

If OPs husband is up his backside exaggerating his importance. Wake up @Abneyandteal19

What's wrong in my opinion is that someone who has been a net contributer should be able to get a little (just a little) extra help to get them paying into the system again.
That's my.opinion and you clearly won't agree but that's life.
I don't agree that the OP's circumstances are the same as someone who has claimed UC for years and is complaining about having to find work, assuming there are no disabilities or illnesses involved.
But as I said, just my opinion

It's laughable that posters like @AmethystSparkles are suggesting that it's only far right posters telling the OP that it's reasonable to expect her to look for work.

I'm very much on the left of the political spectrum, but I believe that the benefits system should be there for those who are genuinely in need, e.g. due to sickness, disability, caring for disabled family members etc. Of course, that includes families where the adults are genuinely unable to find suitable employment. Personally, I would make the system much more generous for those who have genuinely fallen on hard times, so that we don't have people having to rely on food banks or choosing between eating and heating etc.

However, we will never have a hope in hell of funding a welfare state that effectively looks after the people who genuinely need help if people who are perfectly capable of work expect the state to fund their personal lifestyle choices simply because they've paid a bit of tax and feel entitled to it.

@MrsBennetsPoorNerves could you elaborate on what you mean by "Of course, that includes families where the adults are genuinely unable to find suitable employment"?

I was also going to ask about contribution-based JSA. Is that not an option for people who have been on FTCs? My husband was made redundant at the start of last year and went through the process to claim JSA (although he found a new job quickly enough before the claim was finalised so he never received anything). I was only working about 27 hours at the time but it's not means tested so there was no requirement for me to increase my hours.

Spot on, easy to be nasty when you’re hiding behind a screen I suppose!
the system isn’t fit for purpose and the rules can verge on the ridiculous and impossible. If there was a bit of flexibility this family would likely be back on their feet, earning a good salary, contributing a larger then average amount of tax and likely never need help again, instead the rules ( and some posters) would rather send him off to a minimum wage job which would definitely interfere with his ability to secure a post at his previous level ( minimum paid jobs are hardly likely to offer much perks/ flexibility) and have the family dependent on benefits for a much longer period, all the while massively reducing his ability to pay into the tax system! 🤦‍♀️🤷‍♀️

And also your definition of what a family who has genuinely fallen on hard times looks like? In my world, the OP would fall into that criteria but I am assuming not in yours

A teacher working 30 hours per week would not be entitled to UC, even if their partner was out of work

That's nonsense.

It will depend on circumstances. As set out in OP and assuming they're not renting I guess they'd get around £700/month.

Wow a lot of hate for my husband!
We aren't up ourselves at all but he was due to start a job on 15th Jan got told on the 10th he wasn't and has been job searching since.
You really think in that situation your first move should be to apply to McDonalds! Not try to get another similar job?? Of course if after a short while of trying he is unsuccessful he will consider more options.

As previous posters said I'd be happy for UC to say ok- if your husband hasn't found work in 2 months say- then you will be expected to or payment stops. But I now see it won't work like that.

We will see what comes of his interviews and will cancel our claim if he gets offered one. The UC decision is due end of Feb so I guess we just leave it until then and see what they say- fingers crossed we never need it.

Thanks to those offering sensible advice.

Yes, anyone can claim if their contract comes to an end or if they are made redundant etc, and there are no income barriers either. You can only claim it for a short while and it’s not much at all.

The welfare state was founded on the principle of "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need". Not "to each according to how much they've already put into the pot"

As I said above, I was made redundant myself a few years back after many years of paying higher rate tax etc. It wouldn't have occurred to me that I should get "extra" for having paid in over the years because I didn't actually need it.

Yes, our finances took a hit. Yes, we had to dip into our savings and cut back on expenditure. Yes, I ended up taking a job for a while that I wouldn't have usually contemplated taking in order to be able to pay the bills. However, I fully expected to have to do everything in my capability to support myself and my family , because that's surely a normal expectation - why on earth would I expect the taxpayer to stump up for stuff that I'm capable of doing for myself? I would far prefer that those limited taxpayer funds to go towards the people who genuinely can't manage without state support.

But this isn't about whether she has actually fallen on hard times or not. She sounds like she has.

The problem is that she is utterly unwilling to look for any extra hours herself, or to accept that her DH needs to look for stop-gap work. That isn't 'hard-times', that is just precious and entitled. She simply doesn't want the rules to apply to her.

And no, the husband should not try to take on lower skilled work. That is actually detrimental in the long-run.

Only if he puts it on his CV as equal relevance to the jobs in his sector. Purely to keep the wolves from the door, it's fine. He could leave it off completely if it looks to dilute his CV. You mustn't lie on your CV but you don't have to include every job you've ever had that's not relevant to the role you're looking for. If they ask at interview what he's doing now, he can tell them while making it clear what he's looking for long term.