So, how many Mumsnetters "Aren't working enough"?

[KeemaNaanAndCurryOn]

Guardian article here

First the weak, the sick and the disabled. Now people who work.

The next plan for Universal credit is to look at people who get Working Tax credit and assess whether they are working enough. If they're classed as such, they will need to find extra hours or they'll have their benefits cut.

Considering that a lot of low paid work is done by women, is it becoming a feminist issue?

What annoys me the most (getting onto my soap box here) is that they've been forcing sick and disabled people into work by screwing them over with ATOS. The only work that many of them can get is low paid or part time due to their disabilities / illness. Now they will be screwed over again by this policy if it comes in.
GRRR.

I don't see the issue with this, the Government should push everyone towards full time work.

But the intention is to penalise people who are unable to find more work and there's no consideration for circumstances as far as I can see.
I have a part time colleague who has school age children and cares for disabled parents. Unless there is allowance for situations like this, then families will suffer.
Also too many companies exploit zero hour contacts. Thousands of employees would love to work more hours but their employer refuses.

Well, apparently neither me or DP are.

Ill let the DWP explain that to my company. They might listen and give me enough hours to bloody live on then.

Employers also refuse to let their employees who are on zero hour contracts, find extra hours with other employers.

Its those magic words "must be available for extra hours IF need be.

They basically want you "on call" but not to pay you for being so.

Working Tax Credits already stipulate a minimum number of hours worked for qualification. A single person working less than 16 hours a week, for example, doesn't qualify. Not news, surely?

If they want to put this into effect, they need to ban zero hours contracts as well. As Darkesteyes said, you can't get a second job to top up your hours if you're on one of these contracts, but it's highly unlikely you'll get more hours.

More ways for the Tories to punish poor people, which sadly is becoming unnewsworthy in itself it happens so often.

I am not working enough. I would like more hours but my employer doesn't have the hours available. I doubt with 4 degrees it is due to lack of training. Yes I could try to find another job but my current job is such that some weeks I have lots of work others I have none. I'm not on benefits (other than CB), as dh eatns enough but I have lots of sympathy with those in this position. And what about jobs which only need someone for a short period of time - e.g. lunchtime supervisors in school. There is no need for them to start at 9, they are needed between 11:30-2. It would be a waste to employ them for longer but someone needs to do the job. I can see that a 22yr old with no dependencies choosing to just work 16hrs a week and claim benefits might need some incentives to give up 5 days off but surely there must be easier ways of doing this.

eatns earns - though he does eat enough too!

Darkesteyes that's the problem for us! We're not actually on zero hour contracts (luckily) but 4 hour contracts and we've basically been told we can't have another job. No one starts work until 5/6 in the afternoon so I don't see a problem with working during the day. But nope. Not allowed. Got to be 'dedicated 100% to the company' - the company who couldn't give a crap about its own staff.

Not sure about this one. Gut feeling is that tax credits shouldn't be there to allow you to work part time as a lifestyle choice. If you genuinely can only find part time hours fine, but if you could work more than that and choose not to but take take credits then that is a bit cheeky.

I don't see the issue with this, the Government should push everyone towards full time work.

Why?

Scarlett-

If you genuinely can only find part time hours fine, but if you could work more than that and choose not to but take take credits then that is a bit cheeky.

But many people in full-time work get government assistance because we live in a low-wage economy and work doesn't pay enough.

" I don't see the issue with this, the Government should push everyone towards full time work.

God, that's just about the stupidest thing I've ever read.

No the government shouldnt push everyone ir indeed anyone to full time work. The govt have no business dictating how many hours a person should work. The government should only have a say in how much financial assistance will be provided by the welfare system. Hours of work are irrelevant- the amount of money earnt/required is the issue. I could work 5 hours a week earning £100 an hour- who are the govt to tell me i should work more?

Ah so they want people to work more by doing these invisible imaginary jobs then?

Do they think that all of a sudden all these extra jobs are going to magically appear

I don't work enough, but it's not for want of trying. I've managed to claw up from a 10 hour to a 20 hour contract, and to be honest, in retail there are very few full time positions. I would be most screwed if they brought this in, as I do a shift pattern too, only knowing one week in advance what my hours will be. Eretrew, where are all these lovely full time jobs that the government want us to have? In very short supply, that's where!

So let me get this straight. They refuse to properly support working parents eg will not consider allowing 100% of childcare to be deducted from gross income, or properly subsidise it, but then refuse to accept that some people may need to work part time? This really takes the fucking biscuit.

And not to mention DP who does work ft hours, but after tax only has about 900 a month. His company's contracts don't go above the hours he does for his position. I don't really understand how he is meant to work anymore hours without a second job...which will then be taxed to buggery so given the hours he would be able to do he wouldn't see any of it anyway.

Maybe better to raise minimum wage a bit more? That wouldn't really cost the government because it would be the employers who have to pay it.

Businesses, especially retail, do not have the hours available.

They have a set number of hours to work with and HO are not just going to suddenly say "Here, have another 16 hours a week". But you have to be available for extra hours at short notice as well, thus leaving no real options available for extra hours.

My store is lucky- we have no staff on less than 16 hour contracts at the minute. We could do with an extra 8 hour contract to be frank, but the hours aren't being made available by Head Office.

The most frustrating thing about this policy is that it will not be about 'how much you work'. It's about 'how much you earn'.

If someone is a contractor, earning £300 as their day rate for a 10 hour day, they will be deemed to be working 'enough'.

If someone is earning minimum wage for 10 hours per day, they'll be deemed to not be working 'enough'.

Not everyone is suited to full time work. WHich is just as well looking at the job statistics in the UK

Also, who will fill the voluntary roles?

I am exempt from all this because I get Carer's Allowance for DD1. However, I also:

-Volunteer at DD2's primary school
-Volunteer at DD1's primary school
-Am a School Governor at DD1's primary school
-Am part of the Children and Young People's scrutiny committee
-Am just about to be a panel member in Independent Admissions Appeals
-Am just training to be an advice line call handler for IPSEA (an educational charity)

If you look in the Guardian jobs section, there are masses of voluntary roles which need to be filled.

If I were working full time I wouldn't be able to volunteer as I do.

I agree lougle- they need to rethink their terminology but of course they wont because 'not earning enough' doesnt help them reinforce the idea of those workshy scroungers in the way that 'not working enough' does.