james055 wrote:
You cannot get a 100% sanction under UC. Remember, Universal credit is basically One payment with Multiple Elements i.e Jobseekers allowance, Housing benifit, Child tax credits.
I've spent some time looking at this and it does seem that you're correct that the sanction does not apply to any other element of the UC other than the main personal allowance. That doesn't mean they won't change this the further on we get with UC. After all, they are testing it out. You are right that we need concrete evidence from a UC claimant that their housing element was affected when they were sanctioned, but that's going to be tough when someone is having to shuttle between work and the joke centre under a sanction and who might not have the time or inclination to go online to ask for help.
As we are talking about UC sanctions I'd like to raise my concerns about what I see happening in the future in 2 areas (this is going to be a long post). 1. The "groups" they are going to shove people into and 2. Their obession with certain numbers (16 and 35) and how the DWP (and CAB) misleads people about those numbers.
First, the groups:
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2013/978011...9780111531938_en.pdf
No work-related requirements: where claimants already have or exceed a specified level of earnings or are unable to meet any work-related requirements because of particular circumstances or capability;
Work-focused interviews only: for claimants who are expected to stay in touch with the labour market and begin thinking about a move into work, more work, or better paid work;
Work preparation: some claimants who have limited capability for work (defined in Section 21 of the Act) will not be expected to look for or be available for work, but will be expected to prepare for a move into work, more work, or better paid work by, for example, participating in the Work Programme, attending training courses or skills assessment; and
All work-related requirements: for claimants expected to move into work, more work or better paid work.
The above groups are confusing and people won't know if they are in the right group or not.
At the launch of Universal Credit, the intention is that the full conditionality regime will apply to groups roughly equivalent to those subject to the current Jobseeker’s Allowance conditionality regime. Therefore, it is not intended that those with earnings above a certain administrative threshold will be subject to an intensive conditionality regime. This administrative threshold is flexible to allow the Department for Work and Pensions to explore and test various options for those with higher levels of earnings (up to the conditionality earnings threshold as described in Regulation 90 of the Universal Credit Regulations 2013).
So, we have an "administrative threshold" and a "conditionality earnings threshold", the latter apparently being earnings that are the equivalent of 35 hrs per week x minimum wage divided by 12, and the former being anything over the current JSA rate but below the "admin threshold". I see this as being deliberately vague and confusing.
The problem I see for UC "clients" is this: what group is a person going to be in from month to month if their wages fluctuate? For instance, one month they earn over the JSA current rate (the administrative threshold) and one month later earn under that amount?
Well, they are clearly going to be bounced between one group and another dependent on their wages from one month to the next. This appears to be deliberate, in order to put pressure on a worker to continue earning over the administrative threshold amount so that they will remain in a group where they are not hassled as much.
The problem with this is that, in the real world, an employee has no choice about what hours their employer is going to give them from month to month, particularly when it comes to zero hours contracts, which this government has encouraged employers to use. There is also the fact that the DWP will be working one month in arrears, which presents another problem for the worker - they may be in the wrong group during a month when their earnings have increased.
I'm not sure if anyone will see what I am saying, so I will use an example:
Ted goes to work in April and at the end of the month he's paid £400. This puts Ted's earnings above the single rate of JSA (the administrative threshold amount) and Ted is treated with a "light touch" in May by the joke centre "wank coach" due to his previous month's earnings. Ted then goes to work during May and at the end of May he's paid £200. The DWP then puts him in the "give Ted some hassle group" in June because he didn't earn enough money and he is subjected to the full on "you are a scumbag" treatment at the joke centre. (They do it to part time JSA workers now who earn below JSA rate and it will be no different under UC). During this treatment Ted's hours have risen and he's working more hours, yet this is ignored because he's in the "give Ted some hassle group" until the end of the month.
Tough luck on poor Ted, but I can see this happening to a worker month after weary month, being bounced between one sort of treatment and another, while having to work at the same time.
A sanction may be reduced from 100% if a claimant’s circumstances change such that they move to the no work-related requirements conditionality group
Taking the example of Ted, when would that be caculated from bearing in mind the "month in arrears" situation I have just outlined?
I see many problems arising in this one area alone. Someone will be in the "give them some hassle" group, working more hours and earning more money but still be subjected to a sanction, all because it's "calculated" one month in arrears and the DWP live in la-la land.
Moving on to the obsession with "how many hours" someone works and how people are going to be misled when in the "hassle" or "no hassle" groups:
Even CAB are putting out the wrong information about "working hours" on their web page about UC.
www.citizensadvice.org.uk/benefits/unive...mmitment-what-group/
If you would be in the ‘work preparation group’ or ‘work focused interview only group’, you’ll be expected to work 16 hours.
No, absolutely incorrect. There is no "expectation" that someone works for 16 hours, yet this arbitrary number is trotted out time after weary time by DWP employees, WP providers and other misinformed State incompetents. The correct sentence should be "you'll be expected to work the equivalent of 16 hours x the minimum wage, divided by 12, including a £5 or £10 disregard" (i.e the administrative level).
If you would be in the ‘all-work-related activity group’ you’d usually be expected to work 35 hours per week.
Wrong again. Is there anything on that page that CAB has got right?
The correct sentence should be "you'd usually be expected to work the equivalent of 35 hours x minimum wage, divided by 12, including a £5 or £10 disregard".
What is going to happen is this: UC claimants are going to be told by DWP employees, CAB and WP providers that they have to work for 16 or 35 hours a week, which is not true.
Under JSA part time workers are already sanctioned and subjected to the Work Programme etc, so UC is not new "in work conditionality" (as I point out in the comments on the newest Johnny Void posting) because they've been practicing "in work conditionality" on JSA part time workers for a very long time. It is merely being spread out to include those who are in work and claim benefits and who have escaped having to sign on. They are now going to be subjected to the same sort of swivel-eyed lunacy that my partner and I have found in our local joke centre and on the Work Programme. If the way they treat part time workers now, under JSA, is anything to go by then UC part time workers who are earning only slightly above the "administrative threshold" level (it may be as low as a fiver) are certainlly going to be faced with exactly the same sort of disrespect that I have seen inflicted on my working partner. I think it will be a bit of shock for them to learn (if they have never been subjected to it) just how dreadful the way that "lower earnings" wage slaves are treated by "higher earnings" wage slaves in JCP offices.
Oh, and it is looking highly likely that a "higher earnings" wage slave who works in our local JCP office is going to get my "lower earnings" wage slave partner sanctioned for not thinking she's Lord God Almighty. Into the breach once more...
That'll certainly teach them for making you wait for breakfast.
)
