More 0 hours workers than ever..

[El Cid]

It plays havoc with housing benefit.

 

Its also impossible to get a mortgage, people need regular work.

[onewheeldave]

On the question of whether sanctions can be imposed for not applying for zero hours jobs, the answer is- in the past 'no', but now, 'yes'.

 

Info wrenched from the DWP by a FOI request-

 

"Where a claimant is awarded ‘JSA new style’ only, which refers to contribution

based, Jobseeker’s Allowance which was enacted under the Welfare Reform

Act 2012 and the Jobseeker’s Allowance Regulations 2013 (S.I 2013/378),

there can be no mandation to any zero hours contract job (exclusive or not)

and therefore there can be no sanction imposed for refusing employment,

leaving voluntarily, or losing work because of misconduct.

Where a claimant is awarded ‘JSA new style’ and Universal Credit, to whom

the Welfare Reform Act 2012 and the Universal Credit Regulations apply

claimants who refuse to accept a zero hours contract job offer, without good

reason, can be subject to a sanction...."

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/413264/foi-438-2015.pdf

 

---------- Post added 04-03-2017 at 10:14 ----------

 

Another FOI request reveals that over a 5 year period, 19% of all JSA claiments weer sanctioned- that's basically 1 in 5.

 

The DWP sends all it's appointment letters out by 2nd class Royal mail post.

 

Many people have been sanctioned for not attending interviews they didn't know about, because the letter arrived after the appointment date.

 

To see the reality of the modern DWP benefits system, I recommend the film 'I, Daniel Blake'.

[willman]

"Yes, they will sanction you for not applying and/or refusing to take such a job."

 

I refer the post by Cyclone above - it states nowhere in the DWP that they will sanction you. They have it as a threat - if you don't have a good reason.

Pedantic perhaps but factually incorrect.

Edited March 4, 2017 by willman

[Cyclone]

In reality though they WILL sanction.

 

---------- Post added 04-03-2017 at 11:16 ----------

 

According to this, they do, yes..

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25098984

 

"Only 58% of UK employees said there were happy with their work-life balance, compared to 65% of those on zero-hours contracts."

 

Is it still the case now though? It's an interesting little snippet, but they surveyed 245 in 2013...

[Bob Arctor]

On the question of whether sanctions can be imposed for not applying for zero hours jobs, the answer is- in the past 'no', but now, 'yes'.

 

Info wrenched from the DWP by a FOI request-

 

"Where a claimant is awarded ‘JSA new style’ only, which refers to contribution

based, Jobseeker’s Allowance which was enacted under the Welfare Reform

Act 2012 and the Jobseeker’s Allowance Regulations 2013 (S.I 2013/378),

there can be no mandation to any zero hours contract job (exclusive or not)

and therefore there can be no sanction imposed for refusing employment,

leaving voluntarily, or losing work because of misconduct.

Where a claimant is awarded ‘JSA new style’ and Universal Credit, to whom

the Welfare Reform Act 2012 and the Universal Credit Regulations apply

claimants who refuse to accept a zero hours contract job offer, without good

reason, can be subject to a sanction...."

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/413264/foi-438-2015.pdf

 

---------- Post added 04-03-2017 at 10:14 ----------

 

Another FOI request reveals that over a 5 year period, 19% of all JSA claiments weer sanctioned- that's basically 1 in 5.

 

The DWP sends all it's appointment letters out by 2nd class Royal mail post.

 

Many people have been sanctioned for not attending interviews they didn't know about, because the letter arrived after the appointment date.

 

To see the reality of the modern DWP benefits system, I recommend the film 'I, Daniel Blake'.

 

The reason for the difference is that in theory, if you are on UC and your earnings fluctuate, your UC payments should go up and down accordingly. That may be the case, I've had no experience of that so far. However, so many aspects of UC are so negative and the system is in such a mess that this is little consolation. UC actually incentivises ZHCs because it removes some of the problems of fluctuating earnings.

[tinfoilhat]

Its also impossible to get a mortgage, people need regular work.

 

Not all employers can offer regular work.

[hackey lad]

[/b]

Because it seems this was a full time job offered on a 0 hours contract, thus avoiding employer's obligations.

 

employers obligations? he was first employed by an agency and got sick pay and holiday pay , now employed by sports direct and he gets the same plus some extras .

by the way why are people using 0 hours contracts as a political point ? plenty of people are happily employed on these contracts

Edited March 4, 2017 by hackey lad

[Cyclone]

Not all employers can offer regular work.

 

They can, but since they don't have to they don't. It means more profit for the business if all the risk is pushed onto the staff.

[El Cid]

by the way why are people using 0 hours contracts as a political point ? plenty of people are happily employed on these contracts

 

Is our economy growing at the expense of workers pay and rights, more zero hours contracts means a lower pay economy.

Are there more time time workers because their lifestyle demands it, or is it because its cheaper for employers, I would say more because of the latter.

[Bob Arctor]

Yes.

Never was i advised i had to A) take any job that was on the jobmarket b) apply for any job i didn't want to do c)sanctioned for a or b.

 

---------- Post added 04-03-2017 at 08:57 ----------

 

 

I'm out of work now along with a friend in IT.

Neither of us have suffered either and we've been unemployed since September.

I have agreed to search for work,apply for jobs and attend interviews - doing all that gets me benefits.

If you don't want the job don't apply - simple.

 

Now back to zero hour contracts - what exactly is the problem with them?

 

They are really problematic if you need housing benefit. They are incredibly difficult to organise childcare around. They make it really hard to plan ahead - for example when the contracts that me and my OH work on get renewed we can plan ahead for the next few years, loosen the purse strings, spend some money on the house (that we wouldn't have been able to buy if we'd been on ZHCs) because we have guaranteed earnings for a few years. No such luck for people on zero hours contracts who don't know what they will get week to week let alone year to year. We want all these things for ourselves, why would we want to deny them to other people?