Cutting benefits for part-time workers

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

So why is this being reported as aimed at older people who left work during Covid and don't want to return? It was discussed in those terms on Jeremy Vine (I know he's a pain, but the programme is usually well-researched), the Guardian reported it in those terms, and it was mentioned on R4 (Moneybox? can't remember) framed in the same way.

I'm not saying you are wrong - I know very little about it - just that it seems odd that there is such a widespread and similar view from financial reporters.

Pumpkinpie

I don’t think it’s that much of an misinterpretation . The Government once again are going to make the system more bureaucratic & inflexible . Completely ignoring the needs of vulnerable people.
When will they tax the rich , tax evaders, CEOs, Energy companies with the same vigorous scrutiny ?

I disagree. I've seen people on social media and even on GN claiming all sorts of things about this change.

The only difference is that people earning between £355 and £494 a month will have to:

either

a) Find a job paying more money

or

b) Attend regular DWP work coach meetings.

growstuff

icanhandthemback The people affected won't have any benefits affected. Most of them aren't eligible to receive benefits anyway! All that is affected is what's known as the "conditionality" - a few people will have to go to more meetings with work coaches from the DWP.

Sorry, must have misunderstood. Trying to deal with a Government Department whilst reading GN...never a good idea!!!

Thank you for that clarification Growstuff

I don’t think it’s that much of an misinterpretation . The Government once again are going to make the system more bureaucratic & inflexible . Completely ignoring the needs of vulnerable people.
When will they tax the rich , tax evaders, CEOs, Energy companies with the same vigorous scrutiny ?

Those who have familiarity with the current Universal Credit system know that the old idea of having low paid work topped up with benefits hardly exists any more.

icanhandthemback The people affected won't have any benefits affected. Most of them aren't eligible to receive benefits anyway! All that is affected is what's known as the "conditionality" - a few people will have to go to more meetings with work coaches from the DWP.

MissAdventure

They're just going to make sure you know they're onto you if you aren't quite playing ball?

No, not at all!

This has all been misinterpreted.

The people who will be affected are those in low-paying zero contract jobs.

Currently, people can sign on as unemployed if they don't expect to receive regular pay. They have to declare their monthly earnings. More often or not, they receive too much a month to receive any benefits, but they don't earn enough to pay National Insurance. Signing on means that they are credited for state pension purposes. The receive no other benefit. They only have to attend two meetings with work coaches.

The threshold has been raised, which means that people will have to look for more hours/higher pay to remain eligible for the same Light Touch regime. Otherwise, they have to attend work coach meetings, which could be a disincentive.

Those are the facts. I've seen all sorts of comments on social media, but I'm afraid many of them are based on a misunderstanding of what is actually happening.

My condolences, womblekelly.

My husband retired early because his Dad died aged 62 and my Mum's husband was 64 so he wanted to ensure that if he was going to go early, he wanted some downtime first! He receives his State Pension this year and I am hoping for him to receive it for many years yet.

I have always thought it was a clumsy system for people to have their wages topped up from benefits which takes a lot of admin. However, unless the companies paying the wages increase them considerably (which will put up prices thus needing higher wages ad infinitum) I don't know what the answer is. On the other hand, if you allow people to work and earn wages part time to top up their benefits, they are gaining experience for when they stop being full time parents and have to go out to work. It is a conundrum!

They're just going to make sure you know they're onto you if you aren't quite playing ball?

PS. Should have written "£355 a month". These are people who are earning too much to be paid benefits, but not enough to have to pay National Insurance Contributions.

I became aware of this after I'd made some comments on another thread on GN, so looked up the actual details. The Guardian article hasn't got it quite right right.

This announcement from the DWP explains it better:

www.gov.uk/government/publications/numbers-moved-to-universal-credits-intensive-work-search-regime-because-of-the-increase-in-the-administrative-earnings-threshold/numbers-moved-to-universal-credits-intensive-work-search-regime-because-of-the-increase-in-the-administrative-earnings-threshold

Currently, those earning £355 from paid work can claim Universal Credit, but don't have to attend regular meetings with a work coach. It depends on their circumstances, but they probably don't receive any benefits either. They register, so that they can receive credits towards pension entitlement.

The government is now increasing what's known as the Administrative Earnings Threshold. That means that people will have to earn more before they become eligible for the Light Touch interview regime. If they don't reach the threshold, they'll have to attend full DWP work interviews. Crucially, the amount they receive in benefits won't be affected, so if they received nothing, they'll still receive nothing.

That means that some people will receive nothing (except pension entitlement) but will have to attend DWP interviews every week or fortnight. Inevitably, some people will think it's not worth the hassle, so will "sign off". That will improve the unemployment statistics, but mean that people will miss out on pensions in the future.

Hope that makes sense!

I don't see how it is feasible to make a rule without exceptions, and then will it lead to people needing to be assessed, to confirm their reasons are genuine?

I do think the drawing down of pension is a good idea, in theory, at least.

Another short sighted policy. Isn’t it better to have people working albeit part time than not at all. Not everyone can physically and mentally work part time, especially if you're disabled.
This government has no capacity for forward thinking .

So sorry womblekelly to hear the sad news about your husband. Time spent together is much more important.
I too took early retirement nearly 2 years ago, l am now 64. I have two small pensions.
My dh had to take early retirement due ill health.He has never
received benefits. He did try after his double transplant eleven years, as he was able to pick up an empty cardboard box, he was refused.
I'm in two minds if you should receive benefits and work p/t. There are genuine cases where it is necessary. Single parents, no child care etc.

12:50womblekelly

Tbh I am very glad I made the decision to work part time and then retire early ... husband was 8 years older than me and passed away suddenly on Sat. The only benefit we received was his state pension. It has meant we have had quality time together whic I very much cherush.

How sad for you womblekelly at least you managed to spend some quality time together a good decision to retire early ? Sorry for your loss.

I wasn't given the choice after my daughter died.

The job coach decided what hours I could do, and that I could manage a 90 minute commute each way, and I was expected to still be applying for more hours.