Hoo-bloody-ray! Child benefit cuts to be 'looked at for fairness'

[NoWayNoHow]

Basic logic and maths prevails at last!

Fingers crossed they actually find a fairer way to implement - I remember the uproar when it was first announced, simply because it was so ridiculously prejudiced against single salary families.

Assuming the workfare is implemented correctly, there shouldn't be childcare costs, because there are 30 available hours per week when children are in school.

As I say, assuming.....

Just because something needs careful implementing doesn't make it a wrong principle.

I don't agree that it is devaluing your labour to £1.07. If you are receiving the equivalent of a £35k salary (which is what the cap equates to), and for that you are required to work 24-35 hours, that is a pretty good hourly rate.

Erm, no. It would be the PERSONAL allowance of the UC that was at risk from workfare, not your total household income. And the PERSONAL allowance of the UC is equivalent to the rate of JSA of £67.50/wk. For a full-time week, that works out to £1.07/hr.

I wouldn't class the dependant allowance of UC in that, because if I was in NMW work, I would STILL be getting that for the dc. As I would still get the CTC part of Tax Credits if I was in a NMW job.

So, it IS equivalent to working for £1.07/hr. And I don't know anyone who would devalue their labour to work for that little.

They can't take away the dependants allowance of UC if the parents refuse to get a job - or they would be seen to be punishing CHILDREN (and pushing them into abject poverty), for the 'sins' of their parent/s. And that would be bad publicity...

And why should employers be able to offer a 30 hr a week 'job' unpaid to someone on workfare? If it's there for workfare, it's there for a PAID employee.

Why can no-one SEE that Workfare is great in theory - but fails in practice because it is giving big businesses free labour, which the TAXPAYER is paying for, while that business makes ever greater profits. And it is rubbish for the NMW workers too, because they get made redundant, then sent BACK to their old employer to do the job for their UC. It TAKES jobs from the low-paid that WANT to work.

WHY, as an employer, would you hire someone and pay them £6.08/hr if you could get the work done for nothing, by taking on a Workfare participant? Who would have NO protection under employment laws, no allowance for sick leave, no entitlement for holiday pay (or holiday AT ALL). Which would be better for your profit margin? Doesn't help the Workfare participant to GET a job - because at the end of the 6 month stint, there will be another workfare participant just waiting to be sent to you. And the original participant is still unemployed.

You obviously haven't tried looking for a NMW job in a large company in the last 6 months to 1yr, have you. I have. There are NONE. In a town with 9 supermarkets, there has not been ONE entry level supermarket job advertised in over a year. And the amount of non-uniformed, workfare participants working in my local tesco's now numbers almost 1/3 of the staff...

So, it IS equivalent to working for £1.07/hr. And I don't know anyone who would devalue their labour to work for that little.

Well I'm currently working for NOTHING in order to gain experience and get a qualification so that I can change career, so I don't know what that makes me.... Hopefully someone who can get a job in September once my youngest starts school...

(Back story is that I had to leave my last career due to health reasons, with a then 2yo + almost 1yo, so DH & I agreed that I would be a SAHM for a while and then look to retrain once the youngest started nursery. We have been just about managing on DHs income for the past few years - around £33k + ChB, we don't claim TCs (not sure if we are even eligible?) - but I need to get earning again so we can do things like change our 12yo car, have a holiday, do repairs on the house, etc.)

It's also not the first time I've done this. Back in the late 80s (the last recession) when I graduated I couldn't get a job, so (voluntarily, no sanctions if you didn't) I went on the "graduates into enterprise north east" scheme (basically YTS for graduates) and did a 3 month placement in a fish factory looking at improving their quality control systems. I didn't get offered a job with them at the end of the placement as the improvements were implemented so they no longer needed an "extra" person (and I didn't particularly want to work there anyway, but would have taken any job they offered) but 2 months later I secured a job as a graduate trainee in a completely different field - apparently they were impressed I had done this rather than sit on my ar$e and that was the crucial difference between me and another candidate, even though the experience was completely irrelevant to what I went on to do.

I agree with LilyBolero that it's all in the implementation, but in principle it could be a positive thing.

It depends how you look at it hunty.

If you say to yourself "I am entitled to a certain amount of money, because I live in a civilised country that will not leave people absolutely penniless, therefore this is my right to have this money" then I guess you could see it as being £1.07 per hour.

If you say "I live in a country where, although I will not be left penniless, I wish to contribute" then it is perfectly possible to look at the whole total, and conclude that 35k is a pretty good 'salary', and why not work for it.

After all, if you go from living on 100% benefits to a job, you could just as well argue that your labour is only being valued at £1 an hour, depending on how much your income increases by taking the job. But there's no question that it's the right thing to do, because we can't actually afford to support everyone on benefits.

There's also no question in my mind that if you go to a job interview, they say 'what have you been doing the last 6 months' and you answer 'nothing' you have much less chance than someone who says 'I've been working in Tesco, as part of the Workfare programme, it's given me really good experience in retail, and I'd like to continue that now'.

But there ARE no supermarket jobs now. Because they are being DONE by workfare participants. And if retail is all you can do, and all the retail jobs are filled by free labour...well, you're stuffed, aren't you?

And I'm sorry, but no-one I know would work for £1 an hour, not for experience. Why would they, when £6.08 is the NMW?

And sorry, but most who are ON benefits and looking for work, that I have personal experience of, WOULD see it as working for £1.07 an hour. And they would be VERY aggrieved that the employer was getting away with using their labour for no cost to them, when the job SHOULD be paid at least NMW.

It is NOT a way to get people on benefits experience - in fact most NMW employers actually DISCOUNT people that have been on workfare, rather than it helping to gain employment - because they know it has been forced, rather than through choice.

I will repeat ad infinitum - if the job is there for a workfare participant, then it is there for a PROPER employee paid NMW. Why can't the company advertise it and pay someone NMW? The job is THERE, the companies just don't want to have to pay someone to do it.

It is forced labour. You are not giving your time willingly - yet you would if you had a sensible renumeration for it. I would happily take a checkout job for NMW. I wouldn't, however, do it for £1.07 per hour. If they were to offer me the position at NMW, I'd bite their arms off. But NOT for £1.07 an hour. If the job is there, then it is available. And should be paid at NMW, gaining that person proper employment rights.

It is just the Government's way to appease big businesses by circumventing the NMW laws, and employment laws, to try to make the UK more 'competitive' with India and China. At the expense of those workers whose labour would normally command at least £6.08/hr.

It's good if you are the employer. It's TERRIBLE if you are the low-educated person needing a NMW job.

well it must be different in your location to this area

I've just done a search on the direct gov jobs site for "shop worker" within a 15 mile radius of where I live and there are 96 vacancies on there alone, 26 of those within 5 miles.

This is in NW England, with a town with one of the highest unemployment rates in the country and with 1 in 3 shops empty within that 15 mile radius.

I KNOW jobs are harder to come by these days, but it's simply not true to say there are NO jobs.

Oh - and as for you talking about graduate internships and apprenticeships etc - that's all well and good if you have family or a partner that is both willing and able to support you in the meantime. Unpaid work placements are impossible when you are the main earner, or are trying to support a family, or have no other financial support.

How are you meant to FEED your family while you do the unpaid 'training'?

And also, it is physically impossible to retrain in anything when you are on benefits now - there is no help with childcare costs for Lone Parents, which stops all those LP's with no family childcare from retraining due to the extremely high costs of childcare here. If you are a couple, then neiter of you can retrain - the main claimant because they have to show that they have spent 35 hrs a week SEEKING work, and the other claimant because they are carrying out the childcare.

So you can't better yourself even if you WANT to. There isn't even any childcare help for BASIC numeracy and literacy courses any more. So if, for whatever reason, you left school totally illiterate, and you want to go on a course to enable yourself to be remotely employable - once you have a child, you CAN'T.

It's the lack of affordable or subsidised childcare that stops people from being able to better themselves.

And Betsy - YOU have the opportunity to work for nothing to gain a qualification, in order to further your career. Because you have a PARTNER that is willing AND able to financially support you while you do so. While you may be struggling with 'extra's' due to this - you can still feed your dc, and pay your utility bills. Someone whose partner earns just £11,856 CAN'T afford to do that while their partner gains experience and qualifications. A Lone Parent can't do that - because there IS no-one there to financially support them while they do that.

And if you are doing workfare in a NMW job - it DOESN'T get you any qualifications, it DOESN'T make you any more employable (most people do workfare in an area they already have experience in, so that the employer doesn't have to spend any money training them.), And it doesn't 'further your career'. If all you are qualified for, or are capable of, is NMW work - then doing workfare IS devaluing your labour.

I can't understand why certain people think it is so EASY to retrain. Where is the money meant to COME from? What are you meant to do with your dc while you attend college?

You do also know that once your dc are school-age, you are expected to transfer to Jobseekers allowance - that doesn't allow you to be training, because you are then classed as not ACTIVELY SEEKING WORK. So it's not even as if you can spend a year or two training once your dc start school. And then you have to add in travelling times to college (my own personal problem with retraining), as public transport takes so much time to get where the college actually IS.

I WANT to retrain (as my previous qualifications are not transferrable, and I'm barred by law from my previous profession). I CAN'T. Because the college is TWO buses, and an hour and a half away from my house. The breakfast club at my DS's primary school doesn't OPEN early enough for me to get to the college by the start time of the course. And that's without wondering exactly WHERE I would find the (non-existant) money to PAY the breakfast AND after-school club. Which, btw, I wouldn't be able to get to by 6pm as the course I need to do doesn't finish until 5pm. With a travel time of 1.5hrs...

It's NOT that easy to retrain when you are struggling to afford FOOD and UTILITIES, nowhere NEAR as easy as you think. And I am a fairly literate person, who has been previously educated to a high level, just needs to retrain for reasons beyond my control. Without that retraining, I can only get NMW jobs. With NO career progression. So I WISH people would look at the REALITIES of telling people that they can retrain, and get a better job. For the VAST majority of people on NMW - NO THEY CAN'T.

There is NO help for retraining - or even for gaining basic literacy and numeracy skills now - and it HAS got worse since the current Government got in. They have cut what was bare-bones funding for childcare for retraining LP's to nothing. There IS no help. For those at the bottom of the pile, it is even HARDER now to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. And being made to work for almost 1/6th of NMW ISN'T going to improve their situation any either. It just lowers the jobs that ARE available to them at NMW.

Workfare will NOT help people back into work. It will help big businesses to save on their wage bill, and increase their profit margins, by using FORCED LABOUR. It is ideological. Done under the guise of 'helping' people back to work. When all it is doing is further limiting the already limited options for NMW workers.

I am in the SE. Today in my local Tesco's, out of the 23 staff that I counted, 17 were NOT in tesco's uniform, but the black and white clothes that are given out to the 'workfare staff'. I asked one fo them if he was agency staff or a new worker - he told me he was on workfare because he had been unemployed for 8 months, since he was made redundant from his supermarket job. At that very supermarket. So they made him redundant 8 months ago, while they were paying him £6.08/hr (or more). They now have him BACK there, doing the SAME job he was previously doing. For his JSA. Of just £67.50/hr. Paid NOT by Tesco's, but by the taxpayer. He was just 19yo.

Just WHO is that good for? NOT him...

Argh! NOT £67.50/hr - PER WEEK. FFS!

And they are talking about extending the work 'placements' for up to 3 years. And anyway - if you are working for 35 hrs a week doing workfare - when exactly are you meant to SEARCH FOR PAID EMPLOYMENT??!!

That's the idea - they don't WANT you to find paid employment, because it will mess with the backhand deals they have with the businesses involved to provide them with cheap labour. So the Government are making it increasingly harder to FIND paid employment.

And how many of those jobs available near you are school-hours? Because the workfare placements will be, for Lone Parents. So they can get a school-hours job for £1.07/hr, but not for £6.08/hr, as all the school-hours jobs have gone to workfare participants...

Oh, and don't forget that Lone Parents CAN'T be flexible with work hours. Which is the main stumbling block to NMW LP's gaining employment. They are limited to Ofsted registered childcarers, or their childcare will cost them MORE THAN THEY CAN EARN. If they don't use an Ofsted registered childcarer, then they can't claimTax Credits help with the childcare costs. Ofsted registered childcarers AREN'T flexible. So if a job asks for flexibility, or evening or weekend working, it automatically counts out most Lone Parents. But, of course, it's EASY to find a job...

I'll bet that not ONE of those shop jobs local to you has set hours, that fit in with the AVAILABLE Ofsted registered childcarers in your area, and are ALSO accessible by public transport IN TIME TO GET FROM THE CHILDCARER TO WORK. How many does THAT leave you with?

And anyway - take a guess at how many people in that 15 mile radius are LOOKING for a 'shop job'. I'd hazard a guess that it is SIGNIFICANTLY more than the 96 that are locally available. 96 shop jobs for how many people? 300? 3,000? 30,000? See my point yet?

well the direct gov site suggests there is still help available... including free basic qualifications

Incidently I'm doing my course by distance learning in the evenings, because to do the same course at my nearest college would cost too many £s in bus fare and the extra child care for after school club for the two afternoons I would be at college. I can only afford to do it now because I do my work placement around the hours of my FREE nursery place for DS, you know the 15hrs FREE nursery care every 3 and 4 yo gets. But hey we are ROLLING in cash (with roughly the same gross household income as the proposed benefit cap...)

If you are a couple, then neiter of you can retrain - the main claimant because they have to show that they have spent 35 hrs a week SEEKING work, and the other claimant because they are carrying out the childcare.

So how do people who work FT ever do training and additional qualifications? Around their work hours, in the evenings/weekend, and children do sleep (sometimes). And yes I have done additional qualifications in both circumstances myself, it's hard work, but perfectly doable.

As my dear old Mum used to say to me over and over "if you can 'can't' then you won't, if you say 'can' you probably will" and her other favourite "where there's a will there's a way".

that should be "if you say 'can't'...

Hunty you are ranting again

I'll bet that not ONE of those shop jobs local to you has set hours, that fit in with the AVAILABLE Ofsted registered childcarers in your area, and are ALSO accessible by public transport IN TIME TO GET FROM THE CHILDCARER TO WORK. How many does THAT leave you with?
I did look at the first job when I pulled the search up - permanent, 9-5 M-F + alternate Saturdays and only a 5 minute walk away for me. (Obviously the Saturdays may be an issue for some LPs) I really can't be bothered to pull the search up again, obviously not every job will be suitable for everyone's circumstances.

See my point yet?

You original point was that there were NO jobs

as I had already said - I KNOW jobs are harder to come by these days, but it's simply not true to say there are NO jobs.

I can see what you are saying Hunty cat. Do you still get your benefits paid if you do the workfare? I am not having a dig. Just confused.

maybe it would work for some people but if your child needs time off school or something it could be tricky. I worked school hours and you do need time off sometimes and your time off is in the school holidays.

so hard to go to assemblies etc which I hated missing out on but still just about managed most of them.

I suppose you could argue that if you have been on benefits for a long time by doing a placement you are giving some of that money back but I suppose it is not so good if it is going in T....s pocket but lets face it, they are in cahoots with the government. They have been able to build huge stores everywhere and gain planning permission.

Thing is, it's hard for anyone who works to co-ordinate time off if children are ill, it does mean missing assemblies etc.

I know it sounds horribly unsympathetic, but it is not good in a country to have one group of people who pay for another group to stay at home. I am NOT talking about people with disabilities, I am NOT talking about carers, I am talking about the people who make the lifestyle choice to live off other people's taxes.

I really do take the view that the workfare programme contributes to the WHOLE of your benefits package, not just the bit over and above the statutory - even if that is not what happens in practice. If you get a job, your benefits are reduced accordingly, you could equally argue that you are working for a very low hourly rate.

Tbh, someone working 40+hours a week for 42k (the HRT threshold) could argue that they are only earning 7k a year, using your argument - because that is all they get over and above the 35k benefit cap. But clearly what they are actually earning is 42k.

All of our local Tescos are always advertising for vacancies incidentally, and there are no workfare uniforms, all Tesco uniforms.

(And in fact, less than 7k, because that 7k is subject to tax - so more like 5.5k).

That would give an hourly rate of £2 or so.

You just can't calculate it like that - because if you go to a job with a salary of 42k, then that is your salary, and it's from that that the hourly wage is calculated, not the amount over and above maximum benefits!!! Likewise, if you go to work as part of the workfare programme, you should look at the whole package of what you're being given, which if it equates to a salary of 35k is generous.

But I wouldn't be LOSING the other money if I took paid work at NMW - I'd still get the CTC, and the Housing Benefit, AND I'd get WTC on top, AND I'd get 70% of my childcare up to £210 a week paid (which isn't 70% of my childcare, but hey-ho. It only works out to about 45% of MY childcare!)

So yes, I do class it as working for just MY portion of the income, as do MOST people on benefits - because they WOULDN'T be losing the other bits of their benefits if they were working for £6.08/hr NMW.

If we automatically lost all the other parts of our benefits when we started NMW work, then yes, we would class it as working for £26k - but we DON'T. Because NMW ISN'T enough to cover basic living costs in the UK. So, to us on benefits, we DO class it as working for the JSA 'personal allowance'part of our benefits. Because if we took NMW work, we would still get all the rest of the benefits. the ONLY part we would lose is the JSA, so THAT is the portion we are doing the workfare for.

You WON'T change that view unless you make ALL other benefits stop the minute you enter NMW work. Which even this Government accepts would be political suicide, as NMW doesn't cover BASIC living expenses. When NMW covers rent, council tax, electric, gas, water, travel to work, childcare, clothing, food and things like prescription costs, school meals, school trips etc - then and ONLY then will the people on benefits class Workfare as working for the entirety of their benefits, as they would no longer get (or need) them if they took a NMW job. However, that isn't reality, due to the low level that NMW is set at.

well I think it is a difference in attitude then. You look at it that way, because we live in a country that is too civilised to leave people penniless. That's how it should be.

As you take paid employment, your benefits decrease. At 42k you get NO benefits. Nada. Nothing. A person can receive the equivalent of a 35k salary on benefits. Without working. That doesn't mean the working person is only earning 7k gross a year.

You're obviously set in your view hunty, but let's face it, there is a money crisis in this country. There is not enough money to pay ever more money. And there HAS to be a sea-change to an attitude of 'we must work for our money'. Because otherwise we are sunk.

Bear in mind also that other countries do this as a matter of course (US, Australia etc), and the Labour party's New Deal also included working for your benefit.

Yes - New Deal was the precursor to Workfare. BOTH were wrong.

IF THE JOB IS THERE FOR A WORKFARE PARTICIPANT, THEN IT IS THERE FOR AN EMPLOYEE PAID NMW WITH FULL EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS.

If they aren't going to give the job to an employee paid NMW with full employment rights - then it IS exploiting people. People would be jumping at the chance to have the job at NMW. Just not for £67.50 a week. Why would they be happy to work for £1.92 an hour when their labour is WORTH £6.08 an hour?

And benefits do NOT drop off the minute you take a job - as a Lone Parent, if I found FT NMW work, OK, I would lose the £67.50 a week JSA. BUT I would still get EVERY PENNY of my Housing Benefit. I would still get EVERY PENNY of my Council Tax Benefit. I would still get EVERY PENNY of my CTC. I would then get WTC EXTRA. I would then get WTC, childcare element EXTRA. AND I would get my NMW earnings on top. Because that is how much it costs to cover your BASIC LIVING EXPENSES in the UK in the 21st Century.

When NMW covers rent - then the Government will stop paying the Housing Benefit to people in FT work. When NMW covers council Tax - then the Government will stop paying Council Tax Benefit for people in FT work. When NMW covers the costs of feeding your children - then the Government will stop paying CTC to people in FT work. When NMW covers your travel to work costs - then the Government will stop paying WTC to people in FT work. When NMW covers the total costs of childcare - then the Government will stop paying WTC, childcare element to people in FT work. When NMW does what it SHOULD DO, in covering the basic cost of living in the UK in the 21st Century - then the Government will stop paying these benefits (BUSINESS SUBSIDIES) to people in FT work...

I would ONLY lose the £67.50 JSA part of my income if I took FT NMW work. AND I would GAIN earnings, WTC and WTC childcare element. IMO, and that of EVERYONE I KNOW ON BENEFITS WITH DC, that means that the portion of our income that we get from JSA, the £67.50, is the part we are 'working for' on Workfare.

We would not lose the rest of our income if we took FT work at NMW - because £11,856 BEFORE TAX AND NI is just NOT enough to cover basic living costs on. Not even for a single person - which is why single people with no dependants who are aged over 25yo can claim TC's. When a shared room in a house costs £100 a week to rent, and they only earn £228 a week before Tax and NI (£212 after tax and NI), it's impossible to cover all their other costs.

I would MUCH rather be employed at £6.08/hr, get my earnings, WTC and WTC childcare element on top of my housing benefit, council tax benefit and CTC, than I would to work for my JSA.

If Tescos offered me the job at NMW, I'd happily take it and do it. But I'm NOT working for LESS than NMW. EVER.

It would erode my right (and every other NMW employee) to be paid, and be worth being paid NMW. I will NEVER work for LESS than NMW. EVER.

I WILL NOT have my labour being used to increase profits for a multi-national corporation at the expense of having a proper job paid at NMW.

So you think it's ok to feel entitled to 35k for doing nothing?

Fine.

There's no point discussing it, you have your view, I have mine. I don't think it's fair that some people can make the choice not to work because other's will support them with their taxes. And whatever you say about jobs, for many people, it IS a choice.

And for people like us, who work every hour we can, pay high amounts of tax, it is pretty galling to then lose 10% of our income through an unfair child benefit cut. Especially when people being GIVEN only a little bit less than we bring home claim it's 'not enough', but that 42k is a HIGH salary and we deserve to lose child benefit.

And you're not correct that if there is a job for a workfare person, then it is there as a NMW job. Companies can offer work-experience type roles, if they don't have to finance them. Doesn't mean the resources are there to provide a fully-paid job AT ALL.

On a smaller scale, I help out 2 afternoons a week at school. The things I do COULD NOT HAPPEN without parental involvement. Doesn't mean the school is in a position to pay people to do those roles. And the same is true in any size company.

I would maintain that it is the implementation that is the problem, not the principle.