Worrying trend

I get fed up at people assuming that all 'businesses' are the same, that they all make huge profits off the back of their staff. Simply not true. Businesses come in all shapes and sizes and face large increases demanded by government without actually thinking through what would happen if it suddenly cost much more to employ staff.

eazybee

I think it is good that a few people are not flogging themselves to death at work. Work/life balance is a good thing.

The people who are flogging themselves to death at work are those who have to carry the can for the part-time workers.

That is the dilemma my DD has. She is recruiting for a new assistant.

Even though, the company policy stated that they will consider applicants who wish to work part time, she told HR she prefers a fulltime staff.

If she were to accommodate an applicant who wishes to work part time, say 4 days, then my DD will have to pick up that extra day’s work on top of her own job which is stressful enough. The nature of the work is not suitable for two part time roles.

This trend of working part time or underemployment reflects the state of the economy.

According to my DD, majority of the jobs in her line of work advertised in her city are non- existent. The jobs have been filled a few months or a year ago. The recruitment agencies keep advertising them to collect CVs.

Terrible state of affairs. Agree with you.

Why do you put ‘health conditions’ in inverted commas?

Aveline

I get fed up at people assuming that all 'businesses' are the same, that they all make huge profits off the back of their staff. Simply not true. Businesses come in all shapes and sizes and face large increases demanded by government without actually thinking through what would happen if it suddenly cost much more to employ staff.

Of course all businesses aren't the same, but that shouldn't meant that taxpayers have to subsidise the ones who pay very low wages in the knowledge that their workers won't starve because the government will subsidise them.

Maybe only those who pay the business owners below a certain rate (including shareholder profits) should qualify?

I still don’t see the issue?

If both the company and the staff are happy with the hours agreed, and the member of staff is able to manage without top ups from the govt and the company is paying them a living wage, what is the issue?

Why shouldn’t people work the hours they need in order to make their lifestyle work?

As long as both parties involved are satisfied with the arrangements and the company treats their employee fairly and the staff member works hard and fulfils their side of the contract, what is the issue?

People choose to work part time for so many good reasons,

Childcare
Their health
Their partner’s health
Caring for elderly parents

Or, horror of horrors, because they choose to and it suits their chosen work/life balance.

Men and women, with or without children are choosing lifestyles which work for them.

So long as they are 100% self-funding, have worked out their budgets, work hard when in work and have planned accordingly for their pension, what does it matter to us?

Good for them.

Also less hours certainly doesn’t mean less productive, is far rather employee a competent hard working part timer, than a slacking full timer.

Life is different now from when most of us were working and people have far more choices.

There is no 'horror of horrors' if the employee wants to work part-time and isn't claiming benefits for doing so. The problem is that if companies can employ people on half time knowing they will get top ups from the government, they don't have to pay NI, so are basically stealing profits from taxpayers, and the part-time employees don't qualify for pensions in their own right, or maternity pay and other employment rights.

If people choose to work part-time, and are happy to have part-time salaries, then fine. I don't think anyone is arguing against that. It is the playing of the system by high-fisted employers that is the 'horror'.

I thought there was a charity called Scope who supported people in the workplace, I'm not sure if it's just autistic people or all people, but it may be worth checking out.

This was in reply to what Greenfinch and fancythat were saying about there being no support

eagle

I thought there was a charity called Scope who supported people in the workplace, I'm not sure if it's just autistic people or all people, but it may be worth checking out.

There is also a govt organisation called Access to Work and every jobcentre has at least one “Disability Trained Work Coach”. This person’s grandson really should make a claim to his benefits, 1) to get his NI contribution, 2) Get the help and support he needs to either get a job or a work related volunteering job.

Doodledog

There is no 'horror of horrors' if the employee wants to work part-time and isn't claiming benefits for doing so. The problem is that if companies can employ people on half time knowing they will get top ups from the government, they don't have to pay NI, so are basically stealing profits from taxpayers, and the part-time employees don't qualify for pensions in their own right, or maternity pay and other employment rights.

If people choose to work part-time, and are happy to have part-time salaries, then fine. I don't think anyone is arguing against that. It is the playing of the system by high-fisted employers that is the 'horror'.

When a person “chooses” to work part time AND claims top ups in the form of Universal Credit and isn’t caring for someone or doesn’t have a health condition, then their work coach will call them regularly and do either phone or face to face interviews to find out why they are only doing part time hours, they will be “encouraged” to up their hours.

There’s plenty of people working full-time, on minimum wage, who also meet the financial criteria for UC top-ups, normally people with children in privately rented accommodation.

Tbf, the OP didn’t just mention those on benefit top-ups, more the trend towards working part time for a myriad of reasons.

Doodledog some business owners don't have shareholders or pay themselves anything! Owning a business can be hair raisingly difficult and stressful. I want to emphasise that some businesses are very small and scrape along.

All true.
We run two.
We wouldnt have dreamt not paying a decent wage to our employees.
And neither should giant businesses.
Neither should any business. In my book.

Having said that, partly because of all the issues involved employing people now, that was why we have run down our first business so that it doesnt need employees. and started a second one, totally unrelated, that doesnt need any employees.

fancythat

All true.
We run two.
We wouldnt have dreamt not paying a decent wage to our employees.
And neither should giant businesses.
Neither should any business. In my book.

Having said that, partly because of all the issues involved employing people now, that was why we have run down our first business so that it doesnt need employees. and started a second one, totally unrelated, that doesnt need any employees.

And you’re getting close to retirement one would assume.

Aveline

Doodledog some business owners don't have shareholders or pay themselves anything! Owning a business can be hair raisingly difficult and stressful. I want to emphasise that some businesses are very small and scrape along.

Those are the very businesses our govt should be helping all they can!

I'd be cautious about drawing conclusions from personal observations ascthd OP does, especially when there is actually quite a lot of official data on economic inactivity, long-term sickness, part-time employment and NEETs, and some of it does show significant changes since the pandemic.

The claims in this post need to be separated out. Someone working part-time isn't necessarily claiming benefits, someone who is economically inactive isn't necessarily unemployed, and someone not signing on isn't necessarily disconnected from support. Likewise, working fewer hours doesn't automatically mean losing State Pension credits — depending on their circumstances, people can receive National Insurance credits through benefits or other routes.

If we're going to argue that this represents a worrying national trend, it would be much more useful to provide the ONS/DWP figures rather than extrapolating from the people we happen to know. The data are available, and they make for a much more interesting discussion than anecdote does.

"BlueBelle". I agree I find it really annoying. I've mentioned a couple of times on here please say what the acronyms actually mean. I don't mind the DD etc. because we all know what they mean now, family ones, but not all the others.

I think a lot of people deliberately work part-time, just enough hours so they can get benefits, which I think is bloody annoying, because that means the taxpayers have to be the ones to pick up the slack. There's too many benefits paid nowadays, it didn't used to be like this years ago. Obviously it's unavoidable for some people when they've got children etc. but a lot of people are just bone idle. Some of them have never even worked since leaving school, they've just lived off benefits, but they still manage to have Sky TV and mobile phones etc.

Cossy

fancythat

All true.
We run two.
We wouldnt have dreamt not paying a decent wage to our employees.
And neither should giant businesses.
Neither should any business. In my book.

Having said that, partly because of all the issues involved employing people now, that was why we have run down our first business so that it doesnt need employees. and started a second one, totally unrelated, that doesnt need any employees.

And you’re getting close to retirement one would assume.

Yes.

Not sure why you mentioned that?

Having said that both businesses we intend to keep on running for quite a number of years yet.
Time will tell.

The dwp won't allow peo9le to work part time out of choice, and top up their money.
Their aim is for you to work full time, and they will expect you to, and be pushing you to.

easybee I have family members who attend work 4 days a week but the days are calculated to match the same as a 5 day week so they have 4 longer working days. This system applies to many 4 day a week jobs.

I used to work three days a week.
Total was 37.5 hours.
Full time.

Peaseblossom

"BlueBelle". I agree I find it really annoying. I've mentioned a couple of times on here please say what the acronyms actually mean. I don't mind the DD etc. because we all know what they mean now, family ones, but not all the others.

Why can't you look it up? It in general use and you only have to do it once.

Cossy

Doodledog

There is no 'horror of horrors' if the employee wants to work part-time and isn't claiming benefits for doing so. The problem is that if companies can employ people on half time knowing they will get top ups from the government, they don't have to pay NI, so are basically stealing profits from taxpayers, and the part-time employees don't qualify for pensions in their own right, or maternity pay and other employment rights.

If people choose to work part-time, and are happy to have part-time salaries, then fine. I don't think anyone is arguing against that. It is the playing of the system by high-fisted employers that is the 'horror'.

When a person “chooses” to work part time AND claims top ups in the form of Universal Credit and isn’t caring for someone or doesn’t have a health condition, then their work coach will call them regularly and do either phone or face to face interviews to find out why they are only doing part time hours, they will be “encouraged” to up their hours.

There’s plenty of people working full-time, on minimum wage, who also meet the financial criteria for UC top-ups, normally people with children in privately rented accommodation.

Tbf, the OP didn’t just mention those on benefit top-ups, more the trend towards working part time for a myriad of reasons.

That's true, and I'm not complaining about that. Personally, I see no issue with people working as much or as little as they like, so long as 'the system' isn't expected to support it.

All the same, there is no reason why one person should work 40 hours for the same reward as someone doing the same work for 20 hours - as I've said, I think this is why there is so much resentment and attraction to groups such as Reform. There is little incentive for people to work or make provision for themselves if those who don't get given the same.

I also object to companies being able to force employees onto benefits and the indignities that go with that - why should people who work and make profits for others be paid so little that they can't afford to pay the rent, which is also profit for the landlord?

Someone choosing to work part-time for a pro-rata salary is entirely different. They would do well to ensure their pension contributions are paid, but that's up to them, really, so long as they don't expect to get a full pension when the time comes. It's very different from someone being denied the opportunity to build up contributions of their own because their employer keeps them below the threshold for paying them.

MissAdventure

I used to work three days a week.
Total was 37.5 hours.
Full time.

This is another of those threads saying if you don't do what I did, you are breaking the law/behaving badly/can be attacked publicly/stealing our money.

Work has changed. People have hybrid/portmanteau careers, portfolio careers, multi-hyphinate rolls, protean careers, transitory/spiral careers. These names exist because we needed names to describe what was happening and has now happened. Some people are falling through the cracks - but not everyone we meet and those who have problems need help not castigsting.