A lot of people are in for a big shock regarding 'In-work progression/conditionality' part of Univer

[Things change I've changed]

As many of you are most probably aware, Universal Credit is currently being rolled out across the UK and is aimed at combining housing benefit, Tax Credits, JSA etc into one system, what many people may not be aware of though is the 'In-work progression/conditionality' that is going to be part of Universal Credits, this basically effects anyone working under 35 hours on minimum pay (zero hours contracts included) and are receiving UC.

Currently millions of low paid workers receiving housing benefit are not under any 'In-work conditionality' clause but that is soon to change, under UC you will be subjected to the same conditions and sanctions as those that are not working, effectively you will be 'signing on' and working at the same time, you will have to attend weekly Job centre interviews, you will be expected to be looking increase you hours/pay, or even potentially change jobs, this is going to effect millions of people once UC is out rolled properly.

I'm wondering how many of you think this is a good idea?

I personally think that already those out of work are unjustifiably victimized by the government and set upon by media regularly, and now even those that are choosing to work are now being put into the same bracket, and that is going to be a large bracket, the message that I'm receiving from the government is if your not middle-class your not doing enough, your not a valid member of society, and we're going to continue to crack the whip behind you until you reform yourself into 'us', maybe that sounds a little melodramatic but that's just how it feels.

Should low paid workers be under the same sanctions and rules as those that are out of work?

Should more businesses be forced to take on full time only workers and cut part time workers, ie, Better to employ one full time worker as opposed to two part timers?

What kind of message will this send out to the general public?, Already those out of work get a lot of stick, and now the low paid are set to be part of that group also.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

It's going to screw workers over who work in seaside resorts where work is seasonal and there can be a delay in ending one job in the summer and finding another to cover the winter. Transitional payments will cease and they'll lose thousands per year compared to a person who earns the same annually but has a job all year.

It's not about fairness, it's not even really about saving money, it's about bashing the poor and dismantling the welfare safety net.

The Tories will be in for a shock when the peasant revolt and/or crime goes up - there is only so much people will endure.

 

[Caged]

I wouldn't read too much into the timelines for implementing UC, the thing is a complete disaster.

 

[phil675]

Currently millions of low paid workers receiving housing benefit are not under any 'In-work conditionality' clause but that is soon to change, under UC you will be subjected to the same conditions and sanctions as those that are not working, effectively you will be 'signing on' and working at the same time, you will have to attend weekly Job centre interviews, you will be expected to be looking increase you hours/pay, or even potentially change jobs, this is going to effect millions of people once UC is rolled properly..

Surely this isn't practical in the slightest? There will be queues down the street at the jobcentre? Most people working part-time are doing that because they have kids or education that stops them working more.

 

[phil675]

I wouldn't read too much into the timelines for implementing UC, the thing is a complete disaster.

I've read a story from somebody working in UC in one of the places that it is currently implemented, an unemployed guy missed a meeting because he was having a kidney transplant, this went to a committee and they decided that it was not a valid reason for missing a meeting and all his payments will now be cut off for 6 months.

 

[Rosbif]

Yep, that sounds like a totally believable second hand story indeed.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

Yep, that sounds like a totally believable second hand story indeed.

There are loads of validated occurrences of stuff like that happening - do your research mate.

It's what happens when DWP employee pay is tied to arbitrary performance targets, of which one is making sure you hit a certain number of sanctions per month.

Source: Me - I used to support/maintain/build and still occasionally do some contracting work on FRAIMS (DWPs anti-fraud system).

 

[dowie]

I don't see a huge issue in principle - if you're not working full time and you want the state to give you extra money then there ought to be some conditions relating to you seeking additional work. If you've got no intention at all of actually working full time then why should others fund your lifestyle choice?

Obviously the practical realities of benefit sanctions do throw up unfair cases etc.. but as a general principle it seems fair enough.

The one things about this universal payment though is that it gives more responsibility to people on benefits - ideologically Tories probably like this but people on benefits contain a large portion of society's complete **** ups. Some of these complete **** ups are simply not capable/responsible enough to handle a large single payment and spend it sensibly... things like rent and bills won't be prioritized by some leading, no doubt, to evictions and food bank use - not because the funds weren't there but because some people are just prone to being crap at basic budgeting.

 

[Slam62]

Whilst I totally agree with looking after those who suffer misfortune, when it becomes a lifestyle choice then that's enough.
The real issue though is the cost of living and people's choices. In some areas a minimum acceptable standard still needs benefit pay.

The economy is massively screwed up and will take a lot of sorting out. Unfortunately the free marketeers reduce the ability to pay first rather than controlling the market prices.

 

[Freakbro]

I don't see a huge issue in principle - if you're not working full time and you want the state to give you extra money then there ought to be some conditions relating to you seeking additional work. If you've got no intention at all of actually working full time then why should others fund your lifestyle choice?

Obviously the practical realities of benefit sanctions do throw up unfair cases etc.. but as a general principle it seems fair enough.

Not quite that black and white though is it.

Say take someone who works at a Nursery/Pre-School, a lot of the small ones are only open 38 weeks of the year, term time, and are min wage jobs.

How are you going to find a job just for the other 12 weeks of the year that you are not in work?

And if another Business is only offering a part time job, it's not like it's easy to marry up 2 part time jobs to equate to one full time.

They want people to upskill and earn more by getting better jobs, great, so who is actually going to be able to do the part time min wage job in the end?

I can also see there will be many exemptions to this, women with children being one.

 

[Jokester]

not because the funds weren't there but because some people are just prone to being crap at basic budgeting.

Seeing a lot of this in Aberdeen at the moment with the oil industry going **** up. People losing their houses and having to give their Porsches back because they hadn't made any savings at all and were just blowing their (substantial) monthly income on flash houses/holidays/cars.

 

[UTmaniac]

Zero hour contracts should be outlawed, in my opinion.

Until they are, I think it is harsh to push this "signing on" clause in Universal Credits.

 

[Caged]

Zero hour contracts should be outlawed, in my opinion.

Until they are, I think it is harsh to push this "signing on" clause in Universal Credits.

I would look at the recent work McDonald's have been doing with offering people contracts with defined hours before deciding that zero-hours shouldn't exist.

 

[dowie]

How are you going to find a job just for the other 12 weeks of the year that you are not in work?

You don't have to find one per say but you do have to be prepared to look for one AFAIK. Temp agencies do exist, summer work is available etc.. just look at all the students who work in summer breaks.

Point is if you want to just do part time work then that is fine, just don't expect other people to fund that lifestyle choice.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

Point is if you want to just do part time work then that is fine, just don't expect other people to fund that lifestyle choice.

Excluding retirees and stay at home parents transitioning back into work (two groups unlikely to claim UC), part time work is very often not a lifestyle choice though - it's often the only work many people can get.

 

[Safetytrousers]

As many of you are most probably aware, Universal Credit is currently being rolled out across the UK and is aimed at combining housing benefit, Tax Credits, JSA etc into one system, what many people may not be aware of though is the 'In-work progression/conditionality' that is going to be part of Universal Credits, this basically effects anyone working under 35 hours on minimum pay (zero hours contracts included) and are receiving UC.

Can you point me to something credibly sourced that says In-work progression/conditionality is definitely going to be implemented as part of the fully rolled out UC scheme, and what the nature of that conditionality will be?

 

[dowie]

Excluding retirees and stay at home parents transitioning back into work (two groups unlikely to claim UC), part time work is very often not a lifestyle choice though - it's often the only work many people can get.

well that is fine and not really relevant, if they're looking for work then that isn't an issue - it is where people don't want to take on more than part time work that they shouldn't be expecting others to subsidise their choice

 

[Freakbro]

Heh, just reading the transcript of the Work & Pensions Committee debate about this, here https://www.parliament.uk/business/...iries/parliament-2015/universal-credit-15-16/

The 'more hours' is just 1 prong, it is also about getting more pay from your employer, or being confident and applying for that better paid job within the organisation......which then begs the question, who is going to be doing these jobs than no-one can afford to take

It also seems the Job Centre Advisor is now going to be called your Work Coach, and it's no longer a two way process between you and the advisor, it's now a 3 way (ohh errr misses) with the Work Coach, you and your employer.

I can see small businesses loving this, the JC ringing them all the time saying give the employee more hours, or give them more pay

A section of the transcript

Q126 Ms Buck: Would you say that is indicating that people are working the same number of hours that they were previously?

Priti Patel: More. They are working more.

Ms Buck: That slightly prompts the question of why it is necessary to do so much work around in-work progression, if the system is also getting people into more work.

Chair: That is only one way. I am sorry, we should not be having a discussion among ourselves but we are interested in this topic. The in-work progression is so that you can earn more without increasing your hours. You may increase your hours to increase your pay but the aim was to increase the productivity of workers in any current position that they hold, Karen, I think.

Priti Patel: That is right.

Q127 Ms Buck: It is pay as well as hours?

Chair: Yes, indeed.

Ross James: Current tax credit claimants who will migrate on to Universal Credit, many of whom will be stuck in that in-work poverty line, for whom the state does not supply any support—

Q128 Ms Buck: That is a perfectly fair point Frank has made. I may have missed it but I do not think I have ever heard people discussing it other than in terms of additional hours. When we talk about the interaction between a work coach, the employer and the client, it is almost always in terms of whether there are more hours available for somebody to work.

Ross James: That is our thought. When you see the training, it is all about increasing earnings. Absolutely, the focus is on earnings.

Chair: That is one of the main changes, if not the main change, is it not, that you are trying to bring about? The old-fashioned thing was just to make people work harder until they dropped. This is whether one can increase the value added to the firm for each hour that the employee contributes and therefore to affect their pay that way. There are commentators with much experience who view that the only way to increase earnings is to increase hours and I thought this in-work progression was a real effort not to follow that single track.

Q129 Ms Buck: Ross has just said that may be a presentation issue on your part in that this is being presented to us usually in terms of additional hours. Just talk me through the conversation, then, between the work coach and the claimant in terms of the productivity argument, Frank’s point. How would that go?

Ross James: That is a very difficult question to answer because every claimant is different and it depends on their motivation. I am not trying to hedge the question here. The nature of the conversation that the work coach will have is, first—as the Minister said, in terms of the Claimant Commitment—understanding from the claimant what their motivations and their barriers may be to increasing earnings. That could be, “I am an individual who just does not have the self-confidence” versus, “I am an individual who is quite happy to coast”.

Q130 Ms Buck: I take that but in the end this all has to be about what we can measure, otherwise it is all a bit nebulous. I am hearing Frank say—and I think you would agree—that this is fundamentally as much about productivity and pay as it is about hours. Hours are easy to measure and they are relatively easy to ask for. I can imagine the conversation in which you are talking to claimant and say, “Are there more hours for you to work?” That is an easy one. I am trying to understand exactly how the conversation would go that asks for and measures additional money and productivity.

Chair: Could I again abuse the position—

Ms Buck: We are interviewing the Minister here.

Chair: I will make a suggestion that the change would be that my work coach would know that I manage, brilliantly, a whole host of pressures at home but still present myself for work, and yet the work is a grot job. Therefore my coach might help promoting me by saying, “Have you realised this person’s set of skills is not reflected at all in the sorts of work that you offer him or her?”

Priti Patel: Exactly.

Chair: “Do you not think you should do it?”

Q131 Ms Buck: The person has gone into job X and the task of the work coach is to say, “This person is better suited to work Y?”

Priti Patel: If we are talking about productivity, we are talking about aligning the individual and their skills to the suitable role that is there in the labour market rather than just shoe-horning people into jobs, basically. There is a fundamental difference in terms of that work coach role, the dialogue with the employer and also the dialogue with the claimant, and importantly the support that the work coach can provide the claimant to help them secure that position or move on and progress in the right way.

 

[dowie]

The 'more hours' is just 1 prong, it is also about getting more pay from your employer, or being confident and applying for that better paid job within the organisation......which then begs the question, who is going to be doing these jobs than no-one can afford to take

if you're talking about progression isn't that kind of standard in a lot of industries? People retire, new people join, experienced people progress...

 

[Rroff]

Would affect someone at work I believe - IIRC they are receiving housing benefit since their mum died - who they were living with - and on 16 hours a week and at their age/position going to struggle to find any other kind of work that pays more.