Gransnet forums

News & politics

Cutting benefits for part-time workers

(34 Posts)
Doodledog Thu 22-Sep-22 11:57:16

It is expected that Kwasi Kwarteng is to announce new measures to stop people from working part-time and having their 'wages' made up from benefits.

Apparently this is to encourage the over-50s, who make up a significant part of the part-time workforce, back to work; but will be applied to people of all ages.

I'm not sure what I think. Part of me feels that at a certain age people should perhaps be able to draw a half pension and work part-time to top it up if they wish. A lot of older people find physical work difficult, and there are those who would love to help out by looking after grandchildren, but can't afford to give up work. I'm sure that there are younger people who would also relish the thought of working part-time, but can't afford to take the cut in wages.

On the other hand, I don't see why wages should be made up by benefits, so that some can choose to work part-time whilst others have to work full-time in order to subsidise them. My friend's daughter, for instance, works part-time, and says that it's not worth working extra hours when offered them, as her benefits would be affected. I think that it sounds very entitled, and see no reason why she should get paid for hours she isn't working. She is in her 30's, able bodied and has a degree. If people can only get part-time work as there is no f/t jobs available, or are only able to work part-time because of health conditions, it's different, of course.

Also, the current situation allows employers the opportunity to use benefit top-ups to keep people on p/t hours. This means that they don't have to pay their NI contributions, with all the associated problems for the employee that that brings in later life, and that can't be right either. Maybe if people didn't get the top-ups they would refuse part-time roles and take up ones that let them pay a 'stamp' that entitles them to pensions and sick pay.

I can't decide what I think - do you think that this is a good idea?

Link to The Guardian story - other papers are available

DaisyAnne Thu 22-Sep-22 17:22:41

Where were those reports coming from Doodledog(Thu 22-Sep-22 17:04:12)? That may give you a reason why.

I do wonder if this will come back and bite them. Many people cut their working week rather than be signed off sick. It will be interesting to see how many do have to take the sickness route, although they would rather do some work.

JaneJudge Thu 22-Sep-22 17:36:04

Retail companies often wont offer contracts higher than 16 hours per week, infact I worked for one where it was more or less policy. Why do they think it's people at fault?

CraftyGranny Thu 22-Sep-22 17:40:41

This is a hard one. My grandaughter has had to reduce her hours because child care for 2 children was eating her wages. She was not earning very much to start with and was getting into debt. She likes her work very much but needs must. When the children are old enough to not require childcare, I know she will be increasing her hours. It is a catch 22 situation.
Maybe, if the DWP started targeting those that just won't work...
It is a conundrum

DaisyAnne Thu 22-Sep-22 18:28:44

CraftyGranny

This is a hard one. My grandaughter has had to reduce her hours because child care for 2 children was eating her wages. She was not earning very much to start with and was getting into debt. She likes her work very much but needs must. When the children are old enough to not require childcare, I know she will be increasing her hours. It is a catch 22 situation.
Maybe, if the DWP started targeting those that just won't work...
It is a conundrum

Obviously paying for free childcare is the answer - to parents or nursery.

I won't hold my breath.

growstuff Thu 22-Sep-22 19:00:13

JaneJudge

Retail companies often wont offer contracts higher than 16 hours per week, infact I worked for one where it was more or less policy. Why do they think it's people at fault?

People already on 16 hour contracts won't be affected by the new ruling.

growstuff Thu 22-Sep-22 19:07:30

The people who will be affected are those working from 37 hours to 52 hours a month on National Minimum Wage. Their benefit won't be affected, but they will be expected to attend work meetings at the DWP.

V3ra Thu 22-Sep-22 19:08:03

If people aren't earning very much they can get a contribution through Universal Credit for up to 80% of their childcare costs, so that would be worth looking into.

You have to be using Ofsted registered childcare.
You pay the childcare provider first, then submit a receipt to claim.
I send one parent a formal WhatsApp message, set out as an itemised bill, and she claims using that.

DaisyAnne Thu 22-Sep-22 21:03:34

The problem is we have too few people of working age. That is what we need to address.

This is partly down to Brexit: it has “contributed to the exodus of 200,000 EU citizens” in the past two years; but a greater number of people – 450,000 – have simply left the workforce since 2019, and are now “economically inactive” (neither in work, nor looking for work). *

The ONS survey taken in February found almost half of those who left chose to do so. Two-fifths said they’d consider going back to work. The group were made up mainly of over-50s. Many who have not gone back are long-term sick. How will beating them up financially do any good?

So what are we looking at? Partly the ridiculous Brexit promises where you had to read them backwards to know the truth, and partly the ridiculous and incompetent so-called Conservative government which has kept the NHS so short of money.

So these mad Conservatives attack workers. That's clever, isn't it?

* Labour shortages: the ‘most urgent problem’ facing the UK economy right now.