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

[Berberis]

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.

 

I didn't say that. I thought the 35 hours a week is for people who are unemployed. It was when I was.

[Cyclone]

The DWP where you quoted them said

 

"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."

 

That sounds like it's in addition to working 30 to 40 hrs...

[Berberis]

The DWP where you quoted them said

 

"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."

 

That sounds like it's in addition to working 30 to 40 hrs...

 

I can find no reference to this 35 hours looking for a job you refer to other then in your comments. Are you getting confused by this:

 

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.

 

Or am I missing something?

[the_bloke]

I can find no reference to this 35 hours looking for a job you refer to other then in your comments.

 

It's in the case study in the original linked article.

 

It's either she's expected to spend 35 hours a week performing job searches, or she's supposed to be searching for jobs that are 35 hours a week.

 

I suspect the latter, and poor wording in the article to be honest.

[Cyclone]

I can find no reference to this 35 hours looking for a job you refer to other then in your comments. Are you getting confused by this:

 

 

 

Or am I missing something?

 

Apparently you're missing something that you yourself posted

 

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.

 

35 hours a week online job search requirement, in the quote you made of the case study regarding Helen Smith...

 

Post #95, you put the sentence into bold...

[I1L2T3]

It's in the case study in the original linked article.

 

It's either she's expected to spend 35 hours a week performing job searches, or she's supposed to be searching for jobs that are 35 hours a week.

 

I suspect the latter, and poor wording in the article to be honest.

 

She's supposed to fill her time up to 35 hours doing job search activity.

[the_bloke]

She's supposed to fill her time up to 35 hours doing job search activity.

 

Then that's another interpretation of that line from the Guardian again; so she's either got to do 35 hours worth of searches, ensure that her working time plus job searching equals 35 hours hours, or search for jobs that are 35 hours.

 

Does anyone actually know?

[Berberis]

Apparently you're missing something that you yourself posted

 

 

 

35 hours a week online job search requirement, in the quote you made of the case study regarding Helen Smith...

 

Post #95, you put the sentence into bold...

 

Bloody SF search. Yeah it does seem a bit OTT but it's an online search, so there is no evidence. I know when I was a burden on the state, they just asked you for what searching had you done / what jobs had you applied for. It was a box ticking exercise. But it was more important to be available for interviews which I suspect is the main crux of this issue. If Smith was on holiday, she was unable to attend interviews which is part of the agreement/contract.

 

It seems as though a lot of these rules have been lifted directly from the Jobseekers agreement which is for people who have no job, which for this woman, it doesn't seem that fair, however she has been fulfilling this requirement up until the holiday, so it can't be impossible.

[Cyclone]

She's supposed to fill her time up to 35 hours doing job search activity.

 

So someone working 30 - 40 hrs a week on average, but claiming in work benefits isn't allowed to take any annual leave without the loss of their benefits for those weeks.

They WILL be legally entitled to time off work of course, pro-rata'd appropriately, but they have to go to the job centre in those weeks and make their time up to 35 hrs of job searching, even though they already have a job...

 

Doesn't really sound right to me.

[Berberis]

So someone working 30 - 40 hrs a week on average, but claiming in work benefits isn't allowed to take any annual leave without the loss of their benefits for those weeks.

They WILL be legally entitled to time off work of course, pro-rata'd appropriately, but they have to go to the job centre in those weeks and make their time up to 35 hrs of job searching, even though they already have a job...

 

Doesn't really sound right to me.

 

Well if she wants financial support from the government, she has to adhere to the terms. She could, stop claiming UC and she could take as many holidays as she likes. I get the point about 35 hours job search, but in reality it's not policed. The issue will be, she is not available for interviews if presented. This will be the crux of the issue. The perfect job could become available with an interview within a few days. If she is on her 2 week holiday (going by her missing two meetings), then she will miss it, and so will remain in receipt of UC.