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

[I1L2T3]

Unless the holiday is paid for via a gift, it's safe to assume it was paid for in part with the money she receives by way of the universal credit.

 

Let's get a few things straight here. This woman is not a full time worker, she averages 30 hours a week per year. That's not full time.

 

Second, she is in receipt of Universal Credit, which is a benefit given to people who cannot support themselves financially. It is not a benefit to be used to pay for holidays. UC is there to help pay for the essentials and a holiday is not an essential.

 

This woman was not forced to look for jobs, but rather there was a meeting scheduled for her to attend. Regular meetings are part of the contract between her the the JobCentre and she had agreed to attend them in order to qualify for the Universal Credit/Benefits. She was fully aware of this requirement when she booked her holiday. Infact they are so regular, she could have booked the holiday in a week she was most likely to not be required to attend the JobCenter. In most cases the meetings are every 2 weeks, unless you are under sanctions or are considered to be not fulfilling your side of the bargain and not looking for work. They can be even more frequent for some, who refuse to work.

 

The result of her actions would be, 1 weeks loss of UC, as for that week, she failed to fulfil her contractual obligation. She was not fined, she was not invoiced. The week she was on holiday (and lets not forget, a holiday is not just the cost of accommodation and flights), she was unable to look for a job that would support her and her family.

 

Its all very simple, the rules are made clear to you when you sign on.

 

Not in this case

She has been moved to a new scheme with new rules

[Berberis]

Not in this case

She has been moved to a new scheme with new rules

 

The rules on being available are in the previous scheme too.

 

However, giving this some thought, the requirement for meetings is for those receiving Job Seekers allowance. If she was working 30 hours a week, then she would be on in work benefits which I suspect would not have had this requirement.

 

But, this is like a change of contract for an employee. She would have known about this requirement, but to cancel the holiday would have probably cost her more than that she has lost I suspect.

 

But the fact remains, she is in receipt of free money from the government. The government decide the terms of this arrangement.

Edited April 15, 2016 by Berberis

[*_ash_*]

The fact is she has been turned into a target and there will be many more like her.

 

I can see a lot of problems with that, even if you can't.

 

If you, or I, or anyone else goes to a rag paper complaining of something, they will always become a target to someone in today's world, where people have access to commenting (which is most things wouldn't you agree?)

 

In fact almost every story that is discussed ends up like that, whether rich or poor. I can see that, even if you can't.

 

-

 

As for the story, like most stories it's riddled with nonsense.

 

Look at this where 'experts' make a comment...

 

Experts have warned that the initiative risks blurring the government’s attempt to draw a clear political dividing line between so-called “hard-working families” and those caricatured as out-of-work “scroungers”, because it extends the negative connotations of welfare dependency to those who have a job.

 

Where is all this 'scrounger' talk? You'd think it was everywhere, but in real life, the only people who talk like this are just morons. If anything, it's these 'experts' that write in newspapers that cause these 'dividing lines'.

 

-

 

Look at how they sneak anti-government things in like this bit...

 

elen Smith, 36, of Widnes, who says she regularly works 30-40 hours a week as a bar worker on a zero-hours contract. So? Millions of people have worked on these for centuries, but it wasn't a buzzword then.

 

-

 

Fined! She was FINED! - that's in the opening line! (experts again), and the word is mentioned a few times in the article...

 

Fines imposed on full-time workers who claim universal credit amount to “punishing the working poor”, experts have suggested

 

In the next line - as it emerged that one woman was docked £220

 

Docked or fined?

 

Last time I went on holiday I took 2 weeks off, and didn't get paid, was I fined?

[rainbow2411]

This woman is doing everything the government want but has dared to take a holiday

No she didn't and simply repeating that she did cannot ever change that fact

She might have saved that £20 by shopping at aldi, not having heating on as much who knows?

Shopping for good but low priced food is common sense not something the wicked government force only benefit claiments to do

 

What do people want for her. 10 to a room workhouse? Gruel for sustenance? 12 hours 6 days and a lecture on being virtuous in Sunday morning?

Now you're being hysterical and very silly, this woman has a nice house, healthy diet, good clothes and gets to go on foreign holidays

 

 

---------- Post added 15-04-2016 at 10:43 ----------

 

The country is a disgrace

No it's not, read this from the EU records via Migration Watch

When the costs of living are accounted for, low paid workers in the UK are the second richest in the EU15 after Luxembourg. Access to unemployment benefit, while paid at a lower rate than in many of the EU15 countries, is much easier to access in the UK where there are virtually no conditions of access, compared to more robust controls elsewhere

[I1L2T3]

The rules on being available are in the previous scheme too.

 

However, giving this some thought, the requirement for meetings is for those receiving Job Seekers allowance. If she was working 30 hours a week, then she would be on in work benefits which I suspect would not have had this requirement.

 

But, this is like a change of contract for an employee. She would have known about this requirement, but to cancel the holiday would have probably cost her more than that she has lost I suspect.

 

But the fact remains, she is in receipt of free money from the government. The government decide the terms of this arrangement.

 

The in-work conditionality rules were introduced in UC.

 

She is on new rules.

 

The government is making a huge mistake going after somebody who is working on average virtually full time. That is my point.

[Cyclone]

Is the argument that someone claiming in work benefits should continue to receive the benefits during periods of annual leave, because they are still employed?

If so, then I agree.

[InigoMontoya]

How can they afford a holiday ?

 

Who said they're paying for a holiday?

 

They're taking leave from work - usually part of your contracted terms and conditions if you're in full-time employment.

[Berberis]

The in-work conditionality rules were introduced in UC.

 

She is on new rules.

 

The government is making a huge mistake going after somebody who is working on average virtually full time. That is my point.

 

The JobCentre is making the mistake. They have discretion on such cases.

 

---------- Post added 15-04-2016 at 13:55 ----------

 

Who said they're paying for a holiday?

 

They're taking leave from work - usually part of your contracted terms and conditions if you're in full-time employment.

 

She is not in full time employment, otherwise she would not be required to attend the Jobcentre for a meeting.

[I1L2T3]

The JobCentre is making the mistake. They have discretion on such cases.

 

---------- Post added 15-04-2016 at 13:55 ----------

 

 

She is not in full time employment, otherwise she would not be required to attend the Jobcentre for a meeting.

 

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.

[kidneystone]

Is the argument that someone claiming in work benefits should continue to receive the benefits during periods of annual leave, because they are still employed?

If so, then I agree.

 

I couldn't agree more. Some people on this forum look for any excuse to rip in to anyone who is getting some sort of benefit. Working tax credits, child tax credits, Personal Independence Payment, you name it and they'll have a go at it. I suppose most of them are followers of "Dodgy Dave".

 

There is one person on this forum who thinks Labour are to blame for the tills not working at the Co-op.