To think UC's new AET is fucking ridiculous?

[sentfrommyiphone]

I’ve been working & claiming UC for the past 2 years. Today I got an email saying I need to attend a mandatory appointment to review my commitments, the reason for this being the AET is now £892 & I only earn £881.58.
I now have to attend regular work meetings because of this £10.42 shortfall! & if I fail to attend any of these I will be sanctioned.
The ironic thing is, I have to take time out of my working day to attend an appointment with UC about helping me find more work?
I’m on a fixed term time only contract at 20 hours a week & im paid pro rata.

What the actual fuck?

I'm a 1 parent household and managed it.

16 hours does NOT impact benefits under UC. You have incorrect information.

@Beezknees

The previous AET was the equivalent of 16 hours at min wage.

@Beezknees that's good for you. However we are not talking about you personally we are talking generally. I'm glad you manage you sound wonderful 😊

Spot on and there are several people who work FT on minimum wage ( or slighter over) who need to work OT to keep going. Whilst others have no intention of ever working more than 16 hours (irrespective of changes in circumstances). The system seems very unfair. Whilst benefits should support people as an interim, for many it becomes a permanent way of life with an associated sense of entitlement.

Hi, that's what my post says. Some people won't work more than 16 hours because that will impact on their UC. If they stay at 16 hours, their benefits aren't impacted. This is info I have received from people who are receipt of UC

I'm on UC. Working more than 16 hours does not impact it. You've been told wrong. The more you earn, the better off you are on UC.

This is insane. You cannot MAKE an employer give you more hours, pay you more if the resources aren't there. You may very well get a P45 if your employer feels you are being a pest and they decide to employ someone younger and cheaper and less of a nuisance.

Plus, if you are on zero hours contract you cannot do much about it.

JobCentres do not operate in the real world. I sometimes think the staff should be made to live on UC for say, six months. I think it would make them a little bit more compassionate to be on the clients side of the desk.

OP needs to be earning the minimum amount. She is not doing this
If she wants top ups from the tax payer she either needs more hours at the job she is at. A better paid job orba job that is more than 18 hors now equivalent. Its not much to ask of people that are getting UC

The DWP wants you to get off UC by working full-time, also fill the childcare gap after the last administration closed Sure Start centres with a bang, allowed pre-school nurseries to charge the earth for a place, and take care of any family members suffering from diminishing health, dementia, etc, because the Social Care system has gone to pot.

If the founders of the Welfare State could see the way things have gone they might well decide to re-open the Workhouses.

How much do you think job coaches earn? A lot of them ARE on UC. They aren’t making mega money!

Exactly. It's a ridiculously generous benefit benefit for working people. Not much better than tax credits for making people working ridiculously few hours. the AET's for couples are ridiculously low and if one earns enough the other doesn't have to work. Madness that this has been allowed to continue for so many years on end under both Tax credits and now UC.

Exactly. You work half a normal week but can't afford to live off that so the tax payer tops you up? You need a different job that fully funds your lifestyle.

It's infuriating to think people opt to work part time and then expect domeone elsecto may it up to a full wage without doing anything for it.

This has been allowed for the past 20 years. Under tax credits the hours you needed to work to get heavily topped up by working tax credits were 16 for a lone parent and 24 between a couple ( 12 hours each ). It's not much higher now under UC. No wonder we have such problems with not enough tax revenue coming in to fund even basic services.

So many people just commenting for the sake of it when they have no clue what they’re actually talking about. Just wrong and strong for no reason

To be fair 18 hours a week is fuck all and you’re not even doing that OP. Why should taxpayers top up your wages to enable you to work so few hours?

Do you have any health conditions or caring responsibilities that impact the hours you can work?
If you do, you need to discuss your limitations at your commitments meeting.
Also if the appointment isn’t convenient you can rearrange or may be able to switch to a telephone call.
They should never sanction you because you couldn’t attend a meeting due to work commitments.

At your Commitments Review your Work Coach will ask about your current job, working pattern etc. and will endeavour to give appointments which fit around your job. They wouldn't knowingly give an appointment which clashes with you being at work. There is something called 'appointment unavailability' recently added to the system to help avoid such clashes. Communication with your Work Coach is key (and a two way thing of course).

£11.43 x 18hrs, x 52wks, / 12mnths = £892

You can look for other jobs. I got made redundant last year and found a job within 4 weeks, I've got zero qualifications too.

I think if you work 16 hours you are still entitled to fsm/ uniform grants and things.

A lot of them DO know. You understand work coaches don't make the rules or have any real say don't you? None of this is their fault

Also incorrect.

Im in Scotland so maybe different here but it’s £796 earnings limit a month. *12/52/11.44 works out to 16.05 hours a week.

Yes it's different then, in England you have to earn less than £7400 per year to qualify for FSM.