Working full-time, fined by government for going on holiday!

[Berberis]

So, she's on a zero hour contract working up to 50 hours some weeks. That isn't really compatible with going to the job centre is it?

 

Are you seeing the potential problems yet?

 

You can try all day and all night but you can't defend the rules that are being applied to this lady.

 

On average she works 30 hours a week. She has been able to attend them until she was going on holiday, so attending meetings is not a problem.

 

Again, if you require the state to support you financially, you have to abide by their rules. If she was working and they required a meeting, they would rearrange. A holiday is not an excuse not to attend a meeting though.

[rainbow2411]

Some posters think that rules are optional and choosing to break them should incur absolutely no penalty whatsoever, that philosophy leads to chaos.

[I1L2T3]

On average she works 30 hours a week. She has been able to attend them until she was going on holiday, so attending meetings is not a problem.

 

Again, if you require the state to support you financially, you have to abide by their rules. If she was working and they required a meeting, they would rearrange. A holiday is not an excuse not to attend a meeting though.

 

She's just moved onto UC and is now subject to in-work conditionality under the new rules. She won't have had to attend meetings before.

 

If she is on a 50 hour week how is she meant to get to the job centre? By not going to work? Imagine telling your employer that: 'sorry can't work today gotta go to the job centre to find work'.

[rainbow2411]

The woman herself states that she works 30 to 40 hours a week not 50, do try to stick to the facts.

[Berberis]

She's just moved onto UC and is now subject to in-work conditionality under the new rules. She won't have had to attend meetings before.

 

If she is on a 50 hour week how is she meant to get to the job centre? By not going to work? Imagine telling your employer that: 'sorry can't work today gotta go to the job centre to find work'.

 

Nowhere does it say she just moved to UC in the report. It states she missed 2 meetings with the Job Centre which can be either weekly or every 2 weeks. So she was on holiday for at least 2 weeks (it appears).

 

Case study: Helen Smith

Bar worker Helen Smith returned from a well-earned family holiday in Spain last summer to find a letter on her mat from the DWP. It told her that because she had missed two jobcentre appointments she would be subject to a fine totalling £218.

 

Smith was baffled. She says she had told her local Widnes jobcentre she was going on holiday, and they agreed to scrap the appointments. The DWP disagreed, saying Smith had not completed her 35 hours a week online job search requirement. Going on holiday, it told her, was no excuse not to look for work.

 

But Smith was working, typically 30-40 hours a week, in a rugby club bar. She’d worked for 20 years, alongside bringing up two children. “Because I was working I just didn’t understand why I was sanctioned. I couldn’t understand why I had to go every week [to the jobcentre]. I couldn’t get my head around it.”

 

Smith had fallen foul of the requirement, built into universal credit and currently being trialled, that people working under 35 hours a week at the “national living wage” must seek more hours, an extra job or a better-paid job as a condition of getting low pay top-ups. If they break this commitment, they face sanctions.

 

“I did 40 hours last week, I’m doing 40 hours this week and 38 next. And I still have to go to the jobcentre to look for a job? It makes no sense,” Smith said.

 

Smith works on a zero-hours contract basis, meaning she can work as little as 20 hours a week or as many as 50. Over the year, she reckons, it averages out at around 30 hours a week.

 

“I don’t know why they [the DWP] expect me to find another job? When would I fit a second job in? What employer would take on somebody knowing they might not be able to do the job every week?”

 

Smith finds it embarrassing that she is forced to go to the jobcentre – a place she associates with people who are out of work – to discuss work options with a work coach. “I actually work more hours a week than the woman in the jobcentre,” she notes wryly.

 

Cuts to work allowances in UC starting in April mean that Smith now can earn less before her top-ups are clawed back, making it even less of an incentive to do extra hours. “I’ve got to go and work if I want to provide stuff for my kids. But the incentive is practically nothing now.”

 

This woman doesn't see why she should look for another job and finds it embarrassing to attend the jobcentre. She seems to think that she works more hours than the women in the job centre, but if she is so low paid, i.e. low qualified, that's not an excuse. Failure to get an education is not an excuse to work part time and expect the taxpayer to top up your earnings.

Edited April 18, 2016 by Berberis

[I1L2T3]

UC has only recently been extended to people who aren't single with no dependents, and even so in a limited number of trial areas.

 

You really got to understand the background before you get on your high horse

[rainbow2411]

When so was moved onto UC she would have been advised of any changes including her responsibilities and the sanctions in place if she failed to meet the criteria laid down.

[I1L2T3]

When so was moved onto UC she would have been advised of any changes including her responsibilities and the sanctions in place if she failed to meet the criteria laid down.

 

Before which she'd already booked and paid for her holiday.

 

On the previous rules she had no in-work conditionality. On the new rules she does.

 

Was she supposed to cancel her holiday because she was shifted onto UC?

 

The only good thing is that this is still in trial. Hopefully these kinds of problems will lead to a review of the rules

[rainbow2411]

Before which she'd already booked and paid for her holiday.

 

On the previous rules she had no in-work conditionality. On the new rules she does.

 

Was she supposed to cancel her holiday because she was shifted onto UC?

 

The only good thing is that this is still in trial. Hopefully these kinds of problems will lead to a review of the rules

 

If that is the case then I'm afraid it looks like one of those no win situation that we all sometimes come across and we just have to make a decision and live with the consequences and move on.

[Cyclone]

Nowhere does it say she just moved to UC in the report. It states she missed 2 meetings with the Job Centre which can be either weekly or every 2 weeks. So she was on holiday for at least 2 weeks (it appears).

 

 

 

This woman does see why she should look for another job and finds it embarrassing to attend the job centre. She seems to think that the works more hours than the women in the job centre, but if she is so low paid, i.e. low qualified, thats not an excuse. Failure to get an education is not an excuse to work part time and expect the taxpayer to top up your earnings.

 

Are you trying to argue that in addition to working basically full time (30 to 40 hours) it's reasonable to ALSO spend 35 hrs a week searching for work? That sounds like madness.