Nasty Tory scum again attacking workers rights and the poorest: Benefits for striking low-paid workers to be axed

[ttosca]

Benefits for striking low-paid workers to be axed

Low-paid workers who take strike action will no longer have their wages topped up by the state, ministers say.

Workers on up to £13,000 a year can currently claim working tax credits to top up their income even when they take part in industrial action.

But from next year there will be no increase in benefits if a worker's income drops due to strike action.

The change is part of the new Universal Credit, which is replacing the benefit system with a single payment.

Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith says the fact that the current benefit system compensates workers and tops up their income when they go on strike is "unfair and creates perverse incentives".

"Striking is a choice, and in future benefit claimants will have to pay the price for that choice, as under Universal Credit, we no longer will," said Mr Duncan Smith.

Under the new rules, benefit claimants will be identified as being involved in a trade dispute using information provided by HM Revenue and Customs, the government said.

The amount a household receives in benefits will then be assessed using "pre-strike" level of earnings.

For new claims, any entitlement will be based on usual "non-strike" earnings, said the DWP.

Labour MP Anne Begg, chair of the work and pensions select committee, said: "There are still a lot of questions to be answered about the Universal Credit.

"This is another example of the it not being as generous as the government first made out that it was.

"The gains may actually be less than the gains that previously existed under the tax credit system. "

BBC Link: www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-18476504

---

Yes, how DARE workers stick up for their rights by striking! How VERY DARE they!

Hopefully this will be the last Tory government in power.

I'm amazed anyone goes on strike for long enough for it to affect a tax credit claim in the first place. Don't think this affects people's rights in the slightest and IDS is right... it is a perverse incentive.

The strike laws in this country are far too lax. Maggie made a good start but she should have gone much, much further.

Cynical move by a cynical government that loses no opportunity to bash ordinary people while rewarding millionaires. They know their economic policies are throwing people out of work - this is an underhand attempt to stop workers objecting.

Fourth - I'm not sure they can overtly outlaw unions as the right to strike may be protected under the Human Rights Act. But they can be extremely underhand and make it impossible in practical terms.

It's everyone's (except the police and army) right to strike. If you strike you lose your wages for that day/week etc. fair enough so if you earn minimum edge or £3k a week you are not paid for the time. Am unsure as to why anyone thinks 'top-up' benefits for low paid workers should increase to cover loss of wages? Everyone has the choice. The benefits shouldn't stop or change indefinitely of course but they shouldn't be increased during a strike

People on low wages who threaten to strike are seen as greedy. Professionals on six times the living wage threatening to withdraw their labour are seen as 'safeguarding the profession'.

What a sick world.

Words fail me daily
This, another piece of nastiness from this fucking government but eventually they must learn that there are more of us down here than them up there. You twats down here who think they are are on your side had better learn before it is too late.

There is one group of unionised workers who have managed to secure wage rises, employment protection and fair wages across the profession - MPs

Low wages are more expensive for the country than strikes. They lead to stagnation, tax evasion on a higher proportion of the money, social problems and demotivation and disengagement (not to mention resentment) Unions are constantly unable to keep wages at the bottom end (lower than £13K is unlivable ffs) rising at the blistering pace of senior staff. Those senior staff will wonder why burglaries go up, social disorder is widened and the economy goes into stagnation - but they won't blame themselves - such ignorance!

lfn - you should be grateful to the unions and committed workers who worked hard to establish the rights you have in your workplace.

When I lived in the UK I worked for a bank and my employment contract had a clause in it that prevented me from joining a union. I remember the clause clearly because it stated that joining a union would result in the termination of my employment contract and I was astounded that this was allowed in a democratic country. I asked the CAB and was told this was a standard clause in private company employment contracts.

I would hazard a guess that at an income of 13K a year those striking are not going to do it for more than year so the benefit reduction won't apply to them. In addition, I always found work-to-rule to be a far more effective weapon than going on strike. Once I stopped doing OT I always got what I wanted. Far cheaper to give me a pay increase than to hire a 2nd person.

It's a storm in a teacup. I doubt many people strike for long enough for it to affect their tax credits.

In principle though I'm amazed that we would pay benefits to someone to strike albeit via tax credits.

I'm a bit torn on this one. I am generally on the side of low paid workers but should the taxpayers (often struggling themselves) compensate somebody who has chosen to strike? I'm not sure.

Taxpayers, often struggling themselves, subsidise the rich enough (e.g. the charity dodge for minimising your tax bill- which Osborne has backtracked on abolishing).

But surely the point of a strike is that you lose your wage? Otherwise people would strike all the time if they still got paid.

Tax-credits are a wage top-up so it is totally logical that they shouldn't be paid for time spent on strike.

"An employee has the right to join a trade union, and should not be refused a job, dismissed, harassed or selected for redundancy because they are a member of or wish to join a trade union" Citizens advice bureau

Another attack upon the working class. IDS seems to have swallowed Burkes ( father of all Tory Pigs) rantings whole.

"It is natural for there to be differences in rank, in virtue, in wealth, and in privilege. In all societies, consisting of various descriptions of citizens, some description must be uppermost" He praised the existence of a natural aristocracy under the full awareness that "men are unequal: unequal in mind, in body, in energies, in every material circumstance." The inequality of man is due to his nature and ultimately to the unknowable plan of a God which a single human mind can not fathom, and should not dare"

IDS this week tells us that not only are the poor impoverished because they make bad lifestyle choices, take drugs or drink (inequality of mind and body) but that those working poor who dare to challenge the status quo and all inequality such as the right to strike, can expect to find themselves poorer still. All this moralistic bullshit from a church bible bashing snob who shows utter contempt towards us because he has the god given right to look down on his inferiors.

Unions have welfare funds to help this who find themselves in hardship because of lost income owing to strike action. I think it is right for those who need assistance, whether from direct loss of pay or abatement of benefits (if there are any, as pointed out above), to apply there for support.

Tax-credits are a wage top-up so it is totally logical that they shouldn't be paid for time spent on strike.

And that's it in a nutshell. Working tax credits are paid if you work.

If you choose not to work then it's only natural you don't get it. That principle is already established. If you quit your job you can't claim JSA. If you are on benefits (ie. not working) then you don't get WTC.

All the Tories have done is close a loophole. I thought we were in favour of closing loopholes? Or does that only apply to the rich?

It is worthy of yours too, if you fully understand what is meant. Burke held the view that the poor were impoverished and unequal in every way because they were both morally and naturally inferior, in mind, body, nature and material wealth. He defended inequality by saying the poor got what they deserved. He maintained the idea of social/economic hierarchy and privilege as a god given right.