Worrying trend

Luckygirl3

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

That’s fine as long as you’re not claiming.

lemsip

there are very few 'full '.time jobs to be had anywhere. Even supermarket workers are nearly all part time hours, it is cheaper for employers to staff that way.

Job centres are not fit for purpose anymore.. They used to have job cards pinned on stands round the room which you walked round and found jobs you would want to do and took the card to the desk where the 'officer would ring up and make you an appointment for interview. That stopped years ago, you go to the jobcentre once a fornight to sign up for your next universal credit, that all.! Times have changed from how it once was! Many people would like a full time job but no one is advertising full time hours..

No you do not go to your local Jobcentre and sign on for your Universal Credits, every fortnight.

This stopped when Universal Credit was introduced some 10+ years ago.

Universal Credit is paid monthly and includes any awarded housing costs.

It is an entirely digital system, which Work Coaches check every week to ensure each claimant is recording their job searches and interviews.

Claimants can be called into the Jobcentre weekly, fortnightly, three weekly or monthly, dependent on both their need and their “efforts” proving their job searching.

The reason that there are no “cards” on display in the Jobcentres (and haven’t been for at least 15+ years) is because most companies recruiting either use recruitment agencies or their own in house HR staff to recruit, 90% of which is done online, making online applications.

The Jobcentres provide either tablets or PCs, within their offices, and help for those looking for work. Any one of any age, seeking work these days needs, at a minimum, basic IT skills.

A huge percentage of people who want or need full time hours have second or sometimes even third jobs.

For those with children heavily subsidised childcare is provided by the government.

The biggest issues are:-

Not enough nurseries or nursery staff to meet demand.

Not enough jobcentre staff and decent training to be able to give claimants the time to help them better.

There are still jobs around, and quite a few full time ones, the issues with them are many are skilled roles, nurses, early years staff, teachers, police, AI and coding experts or they are jobs very hard to fill like carers.

Don’t have the answers, but I know that those who genuinely seek work do, as a general rule, get work, provided they put in the huge amount of hours and effort required to do so. Looking for work is literally a full time job.

Nana8 in Australia do you also have a mandatory superannuation savings scheme, where you choose who or what to save with and each month, on your payday, you pay in a monthly amount, repaid to you when you retire? As this is mandatory it sounds like a ringfenced version of our NI payments?

Doodledog I completely get what you are saying. But, would it be fair to do it any other way?

I totally agree that big organisations, like supermarkets, should pay a living wage, rather than just min wage.

I do not have the answers.

Nor do I, Cossy. I do think that rent caps would be a start, and that employers should have to offer extra hours to existing staff first, before taking on another part-timer, so more people can get full-time jobs if they want them.

If Burnham comes good on building more social housing it will be a good thing, too, so long as he removes the right to buy.

Doodledog

Nor do I, Cossy. I do think that rent caps would be a start, and that employers should have to offer extra hours to existing staff first, before taking on another part-timer, so more people can get full-time jobs if they want them.

If Burnham comes good on building more social housing it will be a good thing, too, so long as he removes the right to buy.

Yes, that would be such a good and positive start. Very unpopular with landlords though.

Ya, but a system that forces taxpayers to pay landlords’ mortgages (or give them profits from taxes) whilst not allowing the low paid to get help with their own mortgages is bonkers.

I’m not saying there should be no checks and balances- it wouldn’t be right to fund a house purchase in Mayfair - but the current system keeps people even more trapped than low pay makes them.

Doodledog

Nor do I, Cossy. I do think that rent caps would be a start, and that employers should have to offer extra hours to existing staff first, before taking on another part-timer, so more people can get full-time jobs if they want them.

If Burnham comes good on building more social housing it will be a good thing, too, so long as he removes the right to buy.

The problem with this is that the biggest problem facing young people getting into work today is lack of work experience. The days of Saturday jobs, paper rounds etc is gone.

I do not think we should takeaway the few part time jobs remaining.

Doodledog

Yes, I agree - it seems ridiculous that business models don't have to include paying living wages, and even more so that the taxpayer has to step in to plug the gap.

I would also like to see a law saying that if hours are available, they should go to existing staff who want them, rather than allowing companies to have twice as many people on half time (or whatever), so they are kept below the NI threshold, as that impacts on their pensions and other entitlements.

Doodle dog, employers now pay NI on anyone's wages who works more than 7.4 minimum wage hours a week. (less hours if the hourly rate is above the minimum wage).

So just under a standard / short 7.5 hr day.

The rise in employers NI that caused such outcry was largely due to this lowering of the threshold ( the rate went up, but not hugely & the allowance for small businesses compensated this for those with 10 or less f/t employees).

I think that's why it affected predominantly hospitality as they tend to have lots of part-timers but doing more than 7.4 hrs a week.
I think perhaps it was partly to stop companies employing 2 half time people to avoid the threshold & I think this makes sense.

If I’m understanding you correctly we agree - I think employing lots of people on short hours in order to minimise costs is wrong- it’s not always possible to make several jobs work, with travelling times and so on, and it complicates arrangements with UC etc.

If people want to work part-time that’s fine, but if an employer needs to have more cover they should offer the extra hours to staff currently on part-time contracts.

Doodledog

If I’m understanding you correctly we agree - I think employing lots of people on short hours in order to minimise costs is wrong- it’s not always possible to make several jobs work, with travelling times and so on, and it complicates arrangements with UC etc.

If people want to work part-time that’s fine, but if an employer needs to have more cover they should offer the extra hours to staff currently on part-time contracts.

So right.

So many workers want more hours and would work really hard at them too. So many employers are greedy and want what is best for them.

Kats2

And then they’ll be the first to complain when they cant afford to buy a house..

Why for people say these things? Is it what you would do?

Why for Why do

Morning all,
New to this site as just become a grandparent for the first time.
I’m experiencing a new kind of love coupled with my insecurities. Am I going to be good enough? It’s as if I haven’t brought up any children or helped with their care. I have 2 adult children.

Lemsip
but no one is advertising full time hours
Not true.
My daughter works full time working to fill full time vacancies.
As do thousands of other recruitment agencies.

I worked with NEETyoung people back in the 2000s. We were independent ( local government) and also did career guidance in schools. We supported holistically.We had lots of training and access to apprenticeship info. We visited universities and there were excellent websites to help us and young people. Austerity hit and now it’s left to schools for school age and NEETS are struggling in a ruthless work place with no youth workers either.
Those with special needs have some support but courses and job opportunities must be extremely hard. Two interviews and probation to work in a coffee shop or pizza restaurant.

And you have to be “passionate about food” to be considered for a job in a supermarket!

WendyTa

Morning all,
New to this site as just become a grandparent for the first time.
I’m experiencing a new kind of love coupled with my insecurities. Am I going to be good enough? It’s as if I haven’t brought up any children or helped with their care. I have 2 adult children.

Morning & Welcome

Congrats and my advice? Start this as a new thread under “chat”

We tend to answers only those which thread headings cover, if that makes sense

petra

Lemsip
but no one is advertising full time hours
Not true.
My daughter works full time working to fill full time vacancies.
As do thousands of other recruitment agencies.

As did my son in his 10+ years working in recruitment.

Maybe it’s “entry” level jobs??

There are still a good few of those still in our area. But we are a large area.

Cost of living crises are not new. I started work aged 15 back in 1963 and was immediately a member of the Printers Union. I got an extra 10% on top of my weekly wage for ‘cost of living’. There were plenty of jobs around, you could pick and choose but the union still recognised that people were struggling with food costs as today. I don’t know how this job and living crisis can end for our school and college leavers, they can’t be left in limbo to sort it out for themselves. Andy Burnham said he struggled to find work after Cambridge and went home to keep applying for jobs and he’s in his 50s.

Well said Bluebelle I can't stand acronyms either. I don't know what most of them mean. Is there a Google translate for them

Me neither.
I just about work out what one is, and up pop another three!

Graphite

I would urge people to read Alan MIlburn’s Young people and work: interim report published 10 August 2026.

It is a long read but worth it to understand the complexity of the problem.

www.gov.uk/government/publications/young-people-and-work-interim-report/young-people-and-work-interim-report

These paragraphs struck me:

This is a whole system failure. And the price is paid by a generation of young people. Overwhelmingly they want to work. In a survey carried out for this review, 84% of NEET young people said they want to find a job, education or training. I do not accept the caricature of a generation that is not interested in employment. I do not accept that mental health is simply an excuse. Nor do I accept that the answer is to tell young people who are struggling simply to try harder. These are myths. Sometimes cruel ones. Young people are not to blame. Institutions that should have provided opportunities to them are the ones that have failed.

^I heard young people describe applying for dozens, sometimes hundreds, of jobs and hearing nothing back. I heard about interviews followed by silence, automated rejections months later, and entry-level jobs that somehow required previous experience. What I heard, more often than not, was effort matched with frustration. Young people were trying. They were tired of being ignored, tired of being rejected, and tired of being judged by people who had not listened to them.^

Yes its a totally different situation out there now compared with the 1990's sadly.

I think we are going to have to get used to the idea that working for a living is no longer the norm. AI, robots, other inventions may be able to fill the gap that routine working used to fulfil.

That's maybe a good thing - it must be dreadful to work a routine job doing repetitive actions all day. But (and I think it's a big 'but') everyone needs to contribute something or we no longer have a society. Instead we have a system where some work to provide a means of support (whether that means cash or the right to access healthcare, schools, roads, defence or whatever) and others get a free ride at their expense, or the freeloaders assume that a partner can contribute on a BOGOF basis.

I have been accused of believing that my way of thinking means that I assume non-workers are 'lower forms of life', but this is far from the case. I do think that a contributory system should mean that everyone contributes according to ability, but I am very flexible in what that might mean. To me, it is obvious that those who are unable to contribute should be supported by those who are able. That is only fair, and should allow for far better welfare for those who genuinely can't fend for themselves.

If we move to a society where many people don't 'work' in the sense that we know it, then those who do should be the ones with the highest rewards. As it stands, it is often those contributing least who have the more comfortable lives.

We are looking at huge changes - AI, shifts in democracy and more - so we need to look at the way we see things like education (should it be restricted to 'training' when AI/robots can do things such as advocacy or accountancy?), contributing to society (what does that mean when 'professional' roles can be carried out by computers?) and/or much more.

Quote honestly, I don't see the number of hours people spend in the office as being important any more. It is shifting to how much of a contribution they/we make to society, which I think is a lot fairer.

Your last paragraph - I think the consequence of all of the above is poverty. Personally. Not more contribution to society.