Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Politics

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

51 replies

ttosca · 17/06/2012 12:57

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. "

OP posts:
Alibabaandthe40nappies · 17/06/2012 23:33

Mini - has IDS said he is following Burke's writing? Or is it just that you have applied it to what he is proposing with the UC?

PeggyCarter · 18/06/2012 07:30

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

MiniTheMinx · 18/06/2012 08:36

Burke is the Daddy of the Tory party and his philosophy runs through the party underpinning their policies and views. IDS is one of the more Tory Tories and a very educated man, he is also Christian, white and privileged and has everything to gain (maintain) in believing that social and economic inequality are god given and apply this moral frame work to the decisions he makes. The more you listen to IDS on marriage, poverty and inequality and the more of Burke you read the more obvious the link.

No one in their right mind would vote Tory if they understood the political philosophy behind conservativism and it's implications for working and middle class people.

I guess they are expecting to be overcome with strikes which is why they are hitting the worker again. Taken together with the fact that they are pushing workfare, cuts to HB and persuing deregulation of the labour market, I assume they think profit can only be made from slave labour and not from growth in consumer spending........oh, what was it that Osborne has been saying?

SardineQueen · 18/06/2012 09:40

I don't even understand this.
So someone goes on strike for 24 hours. They lose 24 hours pay.
At the moment tax credits are estimated at the beginning of the year and then calculated correctly based on your actual income AFAIK.
So they want everyone to remember that they had a strike day 8 months ago, take their salary, calculate what their pay is for 24 hours and add it on?
That will lose them maybe, like, a quid or something in tax credits?
Seriously?
It seems terribly complicated, reliant on people self-declaring, possibly quite tricky for a lot of people to work out, and won't save much money on the benefit bill.

So I don't get it? Is this child benefit all over again? An ideological stance which is complicated and expensive to actually implement?

SardineQueen · 18/06/2012 09:41

I understood the Burke quotes as well BTW. We don't live in a meritocracy so there is only one way to take his words.

MiniTheMinx · 18/06/2012 09:47

From Ttosca link "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"

I don't get this, at the moment tax credits are dealt with by HM revenue and customs but they still rely on us to tell them what we earn despite knowing who we live with, who we work for and taking tax through PAYE and issuing a P60 but now we are expected to believe that this same dept will/has the capacity to inform another dept, work and pensions that someone has been involved in a trade dispute. If a dept can not speak to itself why do we think it can communicate information to other depts????

Fourthdimensionallizard · 18/06/2012 09:52

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

JosephineCD · 18/06/2012 14:45

Why don't they just scrap tax credits and raise the personal allowance a little bit?

SardineQueen · 18/06/2012 15:24

I don't think that at the mo the revenue have details of everyone who goes on strike do they? Confused

amicissimma · 18/06/2012 15:48

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

MiniTheMinx · 18/06/2012 15:53

I think you are right SardineQueen, why would they know, who do they rely on to tell them? At the moment why would they need to know?

JoesphineCD, some people have received more in tax credits than they have paid in tax (shock horror)

Why not scrap in work benefits in favour of compelling business to pay fair wages? Then no one would have much reason to go on strike.

SardineQueen · 18/06/2012 16:26

amicissimma if they aren't poor then they won't be in receipt of tax credits so I'm not sure what your point is there.

NetworkGuy · 18/06/2012 23:30

Had to say that while I can understand the complaint, I found the title of the thread, "Nasty Tory scum again attacking workers rights..." sufficiently objectionable as to make me less sympathetic.

I have not and am unlikely to ever vote Conservative, but using a word like "scum" just exacerbates a situation. Leave it as simply "Nasty Tories again attacking workers rights..." and it is factual (still opinionated) without the same degree of antagonism!

niceguy2 · 18/06/2012 23:39

NG, you get used to it with Ttosca.

WorriedBetty · 19/06/2012 02:31

The quote argument is interesting - you CAN be a weak minded, weak bodied person with low intellectual capacity and not fail because you have financial and social resources behind you.

Today in fact someone with the right accent the right 'background' the right university the right training who was a bit fat and not very clever (as it transpired) but could certainly not do the physical stuff I have done in a million years was lecturing me on how they were 'experts' in something I knew more than them in.

They wanted me to 'be polite' and patronise them for their ideas that were the equivalent of saying to a car mechanic 'you do know there's an engine, right?'

When I pointed out I knew more than them, I got a lecture about how I 'thought I knew everything' and 'should show the right respect' .. to people with public school accents I presume??!! .. EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE LESS EXPERT THAN ME!...

When I told them where my expertise came from, they said 'Well you are certainly not a team player' and then lectured me on how there is no 'I' in team.. and to me who a) got them to contribute without pay or reward and b) who is a team theory tutor.

But somehow accent and background meant that I was in the wrong for exposing them for making stuff up that they didn't understand...

What a job we need to do on these bullshit merchants.. no other country has the same bollocks we have about 'be polite to your 'betters' even if in fact they are your 'worsers'..

claig · 19/06/2012 10:46

'When I told them where my expertise came from, they said 'Well you are certainly not a team player' and then lectured me on how there is no 'I' in team.'

Was this a New Labour official by any chance?

merrymouse · 19/06/2012 18:28

But striking isnt really a choice if striking means that you can't eat?

Many people strike because they want to work. They strike because of redundancies that destroy communities, they strike because of unfair working practices.

Somebody on less than £13000 a year is hardly a doctor/train driver/teacher striking over the small print of their contract - it is somebody who barely has enough to live on as it is. (Well £13000 isn't much where I live - I can't comment on other parts of the country).

pattercakes · 20/06/2012 14:50

Is Jimmy Carry going to be a Coalition Cabinet Minister?

pattercakes · 20/06/2012 14:50

sorry Jimmy carr

genug · 20/06/2012 15:22

Perhaps they consider moving to Wales?

genug · 20/06/2012 15:23

In answer to the OP, that is.

genug · 20/06/2012 15:24

... as long as you catch up the routine within 12 weeks, and put aside the action when it's an emergency, let's keep paying you, because it's not really a strike just a rescheduling of work...

scaevola · 20/06/2012 15:34

Don't Unions have strike funds any more?

CouthyMow · 23/06/2012 10:19

Union strike funds?! When the NHS staff went on strike, they offered my Ex-P (we live in the SE) just £12 for hardship for losing a full days wages! And as he is on a higher pay band than the Porters and cleaners, that was more than the £7.50-£10 they were offered...

He broke the strike and went to work, at the time we couldn't afford that sort of loss when we were near the breadline anyway.

And that's the point, it's preventing the lowest paid from striking to uphold their employment rights. Can't afford to eat if you strike? Don't strike then, and put up with all the dodgy working practices we throw at you.

It's OK for doctors to strike, they are just standing for what is right, and they can afford to lose a days wages, but someone working FT for £11,650 before tax CAN'T afford to strike.

So they can be forced to have less than the legal 8 hours break between shifts, have no pay increases (and therefore a real-terms pay cut), face mass redundancies, all without the ability to collectively strike to get their voices heard.

It stinks.

LittleWhiteMice · 01/07/2012 02:08

everyone in every sector should strike on the same day. that would fuck em right up, sayin gthat if that happened they would probebly bring the army in.