Benefits for striking low-paid workers to be axed

Danthus

Danthus

Danthus

Permabanned
Joined
5 Jun 2010
Posts
15,459
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.
Click to expand...

Does anyone else think this is a perfectly sensible moved by the government?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-18476504
 
Awesome idea.
Change your employees contracts to really shifty terms knowing they won't be able to afford the strike.

Actually more unions will realize a "go slow/work to rule" would be more effective. Very little work gets done AND employer still has to pay the staff
 
Not sure about this, if people were paid a living wage people wouldn't need to have working tax credits to "top up" wages.
 
Seems like the government is at war with the poor. I completely support the right to strike, even for those on low incomes. And now with this idea, most won't be able to afford it.
 
lowrider007 said:
Awful idea, so now the poor can't afford to strike against low pay or poor working conditions.
Click to expand...

Surely they could just quit and take full state benefits if the pay was that poor. lots of us don't belong to ridiculously powerful unions and we still manage to live
 
Added to the increased cost to the individual for unfair dismissal tribunals (remember these people have lost their job and likely can't afford to divvy up £250 up front) and the increases in how long you work without full employment rights, this doesn't surprise me at all.
 
Brilliant idea for the Tories, since it fits so nicely into their special brand of politicking. Terrible idea for underpaid workers who will no longer have the leverage needed to improve their lot. But hey, who cares right? They're only poor people.
 
I do wonder just how long it would be if the tories remained in power, before they rationalised removing the right to vote from those earning less than £50k a year.... after all why should the poor decide how the rich should live!
 
RickST said:
Surely they could just quit and take full state benefits if the pay was that poor. lots of us don't belong to ridiculously powerful unions and we still manage to live
Click to expand...

How do you think you got the employment rights that protect you regardless of whether you belong to a Union or not?

All this 'if you don't like it then Quit' attitude is ridiculous. Many people have little choice and do you think that they should be exploited simply because they are low paid?
 
It's fair on it's own when you look at it in isolation, but with the rest of their corporatocratic policies then it's another little chip at away at the poor.

The problem as usual is career politicians, lobbies and large corporations getting their way. The solution, as always, is to get politicians who aren't for sale to the corporations. We need a return to free market capitalism, not corporatocracy.
 
All these ridiculous moves by the Tories are just giving labour more votes, as was seen at the local elections. Labour will be back in power soon.
 
OldCoals said:
Do you not think it is slightly perverse that they can afford it because the state tops up their wage?
Click to expand...

I think that they do not strike on a whim and people living on such low wages (remember £13k is half the average wage) should not be limited because they cannot even afford to lose a days pay to defend their working conditions.

Basic rights should not be limited by the ability to afford to exercise those rights.
 
RomanNose said:
They should if they can't afford them otherwise.
It's one of the rights people should have even if they can't afford it, just like healthcare and shelter.
Click to expand...
Their right to strike isn't removed - if they are to be subsidised it should be by the Unions, not the taxpayer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom