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?

I'm not quite sure how you would know anything about my work ethic, though?

Yes it's pretty bad to treat them like scroungers. Op's dh could just claim a benefit like JSA based on his Ni contributions if they don't want the hassle of Uc and all it's rules. And op actually earns a pretty good wage for 15 hours a week clearly after years of training and experience.

Another wanting to know the significance of the one hour ? Op's earnings alone will mean they are over the threshold for needing to even look for extra hours.

Well if it's not your choice not to work, you would have mentioned that when the other poster first pulled you up on it, or at some point before this - you've posted numerous times about it. You also said you'd be up for criticism if you claimed UC, which strongly implies that you don't qualify and don't need it.

You seemed to be surprised that your circumstances change how some people will view your criticisms of OP and her husband's work ethics. And I'm not saying your criticism or your lifestyle are wrong, just that I can see why some people would read it and think "that's a bit rich". I was surprised that you were surprised, to be honest.

Anyway, that's it.

My DH can't claim UC even if he wanted to, so we don't have the option to claim "for a few months". We would have to find more work.
I'm not being stalked properly anyway, because i do actually work, almost as much as the OP does. I should probably stop calling myself a SAHM if it's going to lead to shit like this.

Agree. The earnings threshold on UC as part of a couple is £1083 a month. So OP likely won’t be required to look for more work anyway.

Apologies I misread Op
I thought she said 1 hour, it was more hours
Principle remains the same
"I don't want to" isn't going to help her or pay the bills.
Goady thread tbh

Why has Op posted then ?

I suspect she's been bamboozled and perhaps frightened by the way language is used in the early stages of a claim. As I suggested several days ago, and as @Babyroobs says too, when we get down to brass tacks she's working enough, at least for now.

Doesn't sound frightened?
Frightened of what?
Op sounds ridiculously stubborn

So after 15 pages Op qualifies for UC after all?
What a silly waste of time posting then

They are scroungers. High earners who now want to lie back on tax payers’ money., having introduced no safety net for themselves whatsoever and avoiding work that would be easily accessible. I have no problem with her avoiding work she doesn’t want to do. But everyone else shouldn’t be paying for it. That’s stealing.

Applying for what you are eligible for is not stealing. You may think it's morally wrong but the law says that their circumstances mean she can claim.

This is AIBU, opinions are kind of the point.

Absolute rubbish! She is already working, in a successful career with a well negotiated contract that fits around her family.

That was to @Numberfish .

@Pemba shes working 15 hours and her husband is working zero hours

Welcome to the Real world. People have to get jobs even if they think it's beneath the. Zero hours until a job offer that's better comes along.

Universal Credit is not when you feel a bit tight, it's for people who are genuinely struggling. Doesn't like you are, it just came as a shock. Just both get jobs until something happens. We all pay our taxes

SAHMs are often slagged off unfairly IMO. Ultimately if you’re self reliant in your family unit then ignore everyone else. It’s not the same as relying on benefits in any regard. Being a SAHM is a luxury of course but if it’s self funded than why not? If your husband lost his job then you’d be expected to look for work too by the benefits office. Rightly so.

It’s the entitlement on this thread that gets me, we all have to follow the rules but apparently if you were in a higher wage bracket you’re okay to wait until the perfect job comes along and not get your hands dirty like the peasants because you paid a higher tax bracket 🙄. I wonder if the same courtesy of ‘just lie’ would be offered to someone who wasn’t earning 80k as a household?

I remember when I lost a high paying job, I was in the temp agency the very next day and walked out with temp work 1/4 of my old salary. It was an interim measure until another job came up in my specialism and if you’re unemployed, it’s better to have a small wage than a 0 wage - but that’s just me I suppose. And during this time, I made recruiters give me notice - you don’t have to be available next day as those in FT work wouldn’t be would they?

Edit: to add I understand OP is working but if she has to find additional hours then that’s the rules. Especially if she thinks her husband needs all day of complete silence and bliss to find a new job and can’t do some zero hours around the side. I know many women currently who’ve ended up in dire straights during the COL who are bar tending in the evening or taking night cleaning work to get their families by as well as working full time in professional low paid work (usually public sector). I think this is why this thread irks me so much.

Yes, you shouldn't use the term if it's not accurate.

I work 12 hours a week. I stay at home all day with my children. I dont think there's a problem with how i define myself. If you're going to go looking for excuses to discredit my opinion, at least do it right.

You can use the term SAHM if you like, but it isn't accurate. So if you want people to know that you work, don't use it.

If it's more important to you to call yourself a SAHM than a part-time working mother, you can, but you've only got yourself to blame if people assume you've chosen the term because it actually applies to you. Words mean things.

You're the one who saw me post elsewhere and brought it to this thread. It wasn't relevant, and remains irrelevant to the validity of my opinion on this thread.

You understand that these are people who have always worked do you ? And have never claimed benefits ? UC and the benefits system in general is there for exactly this type of situation and they’re not doing anything wrong. OP and her DH have worked - OP is still working, and as has been pointed out, is probably above the earnings threshold for compulsory extra hours.

So what you’re saying is that they’re scroungers who are also tax payers, so how are they stealing from the tax payer ? And it sounds as though DH has been a higher tax payer. No one is stealing anything - we’re all tax payers, yes, even benefit claimants.

As anyone who has initiated a benefit claim will tell you, the language used in the basis of the claim can be intimidating to those who haven’t experienced it before.