| suze
|
| 923671. Thu Jul 12, 2012 7:15 pm |
 |
|
I've just been talking with my friend who spends part of her time working on a Work Programme scheme.
It turns out that 'yorz's idea has been floated a few times and under governments of both flavours, but neither flavour wanted to pay for it. That was largely for the reason that exnihilo suggested.
The alternative suggestion - that this benefit run on be considered as an advance against wages, which would then be deducted - had a bit more political support, but still never formed part of a white paper. The sticking point was whether employers would have to remit the deducted money back to the government, or whether they'd just be allowed to keep it. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the TUC wanted the former and the CBI wanted the latter; both claimed that the other system would lead to the end of civilization as we know it. (Well OK, not quite, but that was the gist.)
One other thing she told me - yorz's idea has been done in a limited way. Two systems ago, there was a scheme called ND50+, which was for people over 50 who had been out of work for two years. Anyone on this scheme who found employment did get up to £300 up front to tide them over until payday; it was a grant and did not have to be paid back. Scrapped in, she thinks, 2009. |
|
|
|
 |
| 'yorz
|
| 923680. Fri Jul 13, 2012 12:32 am |
|
|
£300 to tide you over until payday?! For 6 whole weeks? Wow. That will have paid for rent and council tax and everything else. Not. None of those who endorsed that unrealistic amount could have survived on it, but then, hey - they didn't have to, did they?
I'm not surprised that has not led to a run on the Job Agencies by the great unemployed.
If it is considered to be an advance against wages, why would the employer be allowed to keep it?! It ain't theirs to begin with. The re-entrant will have worked for his/her wages, so the employer should pay them every penny they're due. Any advance (paid-on benefits) should then go back into the Government coffers. The incentive should be for the employee, not the employer.
That is so infuriating - there is the soupçon of a Good Idea, somebody/party makes an almost deliberate halfarsed stab at it so of course it fails, and the idea will therefore be perceived as having been crap to begin with. To refloat it now will be nigh impossible.
It seems so straight forward: make sure the re-entrant will not drown by losing their benefits straightaway. Benefits that otherwise would last indefinitely now only have to be paid for 2 months as a financial (and psychological!) safety net. Everybody wins. |
|
|
|
|
| Posital
|
| 923689. Fri Jul 13, 2012 1:44 am |
|
|
No Bob Dole please... sorry - I'll wait till this thread has descended into flame wars. Might be some time.
(You didn't see me) |
|
|
|
|
| exnihilo
|
| 923698. Fri Jul 13, 2012 3:30 am |
|
|
| 'yorz wrote: | | Those changeing jobs should realise that in this day and age, nobody is secure in their job. What's the saying? You're only two months' wages away from being homeless. So- yes, somebody else is getting a financial boost; but it also means that if it's the already employed who needs help in the future, it'll be available to them as well. |
Would that that were so. As it happens the only time I've been unemployed for any length of time I wasn't eligible for any help at all, because I'd built up some savings while I was working.
For what it's worth I actually support a method that allows long-term unemployed people entering work (especially on low salaries) to keep some benefits to help them transition. But as I said, the parties won't do it because the voters won't wear it. |
|
|
|
|
| PDR
|
| 923700. Fri Jul 13, 2012 3:43 am |
|
|
| exnihilo wrote: | | But as I said, the parties won't do it because the voters won't wear it. |
It's the duty of government to do what is right rather than merely what is popular. This is the sort of measure a new government could introduce in its first year of office.
PDR |
|
|
|
|
| Efros
|
| 923701. Fri Jul 13, 2012 3:45 am |
|
|
| Quite agree, if you've been out of work for a while your money reserves tend to be so depleted that the monthly payment in arrears can be an awful experience. At least when you change job you have the salary from the previous employer. During one period of unemployment my neck was only saved by a mistake that the benefits office had made, they had been paying me less than I was due over an extended period, this was discovered and I got a giro for what was to me in those circumstances a large amount of dosh, this was 2 days before I started a new job. Perhaps that's a way to do it, a payment in proportion to the time you were unemployed paid when you get a job, funded by withholding a small sum from each giro. I'm not on board with the last bit but it may be a way to convince the "Let the lazy bastards starve" brigade. |
|
|
|
|
| exnihilo
|
| 923703. Fri Jul 13, 2012 3:55 am |
|
|
| PDR wrote: | | exnihilo wrote: | | But as I said, the parties won't do it because the voters won't wear it. |
It's the duty of government to do what is right rather than merely what is popular. This is the sort of measure a new government could introduce in its first year of office.
PDR |
Could and perhaps even should, but won't. They're too ruled by focus groups and rolling news. That said, I'm not convinced it is so straightforwardly 'right' as all that. Helpful, certainly, but that's not the same thing and in those circumstances what's popular, and cheap, will carry the day. |
|
|
|
|
| 'yorz
|
| 923752. Fri Jul 13, 2012 9:08 am |
|
|
| suze wrote: | | On the other side, it absolutely does make the system abusable - employers might hire people for six weeks at a time knowing that they won't have to pay all of those people's wages. After six weeks, the unscrupulous employer fires the worker and takes on someone else whose wages he will not have to pay in full - again, just for six weeks. Not desirable. |
Is it necessary per se that the employer deducts from the wages? The scheme is something between (local) government and employee, and has nowt to do with the employer who should just pay the wages in full. Perhaps a direct debet can be set up with the employee's private bank account so a fixed -modest- amount is deducted every month till the advance or whatever is settled.
The idea that an employer should be allowed to deduct any amount from somebody's wages and then stick it in his own pocket is preposterous.
As for "They're too ruled by focus groups and rolling news" - the recent commotion with Murdoch and twiffy donations should have at least as a result that governments steer clear of that kind of interference. |
|
|
|
|
| exnihilo
|
| 923758. Fri Jul 13, 2012 9:23 am |
|
|
I agree it should have nothing to do with employers, it's between the recipient and whatever organs of the State they receive benefits from.
As I say, I'm not against it provided that it's not too costly. The employee will still get their wages for those six weeks, just at the end of that time, so they should never actually be out of pocket. The only issue is rent and bills which might arise during that period and there should be some mechanism for allowing benefits to continue or for a loan (perhaps from a nationally owned bank?) to be made to cover the transition period - both cases should be repaid.
The Councils already have mechanisms for recouping 'overpayments' so why not simply pay the Council Tax & Housing Benefit for one month beyond the start date of a new job and then claw it back later? If someone declines to pay it back the sanction could be that they'd not be eligible for it again should the circumstance arise. That might even encourage more people to save a bit more while they're in work.
In the case of the employer who only employs for six weeks I can't see the advantage to them, they don't get let off with paying wages as the wages for those six weeks will still have to be paid in arrears. There ought never to be a material advantage to the employer. |
|
|
|
|
| PDR
|
| 923763. Fri Jul 13, 2012 10:22 am |
|
|
| exnihilo wrote: |
In the case of the employer who only employs for six weeks I can't see the advantage to them, they don't get let off with paying wages as the wages for those six weeks will still have to be paid in arrears. There ought never to be a material advantage to the employer. |
The advantage isn't to the employer - it's to te employee who might take eight six-week-long jobs per year and thus qualify for multiple grants. But it just needs some thinking to prevent, that's all.
PDR |
|
|
|
|
| exnihilo
|
| 923764. Fri Jul 13, 2012 10:26 am |
|
|
Indeed, I was replying to this:
| suze wrote: | | On the other side, it absolutely does make the system abusable - employers might hire people for six weeks at a time knowing that they won't have to pay all of those people's wages. After six weeks, the unscrupulous employer fires the worker and takes on someone else whose wages he will not have to pay in full - again, just for six weeks. Not desirable. |
THere's no sense in which an employer get's away with not paying employees in full. |
|
|
|
|
| suze
|
| 923776. Fri Jul 13, 2012 10:53 am |
|
|
| exnihilo wrote: | | In the case of the employer who only employs for six weeks I can't see the advantage to them, they don't get let off with paying wages as the wages for those six weeks will still have to be paid in arrears. There ought never to be a material advantage to the employer. |
But there would be under one of the options we've discussed.
If the system adopted were that whereby the benefits already paid were deducted from wages, and the employer got to keep the deduction - the system which the CBI wanted - then there would be an advantage to the employer.
That advantage would be £71 per week, assuming that the worker hired was over 25. It would only last for six weeks, but it could last indefinitely if the employer fired the worker after six weeks and immediately took on a different unemployed person.
Now, if you're going to say "But it wouldn't happen like that, the employer would have to remit that £71 to the state, since the state has already paid the worker that part of his wages", well I would agree that this is how it ought to operate. But from what I learned last night, the CBI opined that the idea was a non-starter on that basis. |
|
|
|
|
| Spike
|
| 923777. Fri Jul 13, 2012 10:54 am |
|
|
| exnihilo wrote: | It's not just an issue of political will, to u'd need to explain to taxpayers why someone who hadn't worked was going to effectively be paid many hundreds of pounds more for those six weeks than someone who was just changing jobs - and at their expense.
I understand the problem of the benefit trap but to make this workable it would probably need to be a loan or advance. |
Could you not simply change the tax code or personal allowance of the new worker (an 'I've just come off benefits code') so they pay off the extra 6 weeks of benefits over a year. That way they pay it back gradually, so it isn't a burden, but they do pay it back - even if they change jobs.
This seems so simple, there must be a flaw in it. Possibly that the taxman doesn't speak to the work and pensions man. |
|
|
|
|
| exnihilo
|
| 923779. Fri Jul 13, 2012 10:57 am |
|
|
| You'd think it would be simple, but they often don't speak. For what it's worth I've never fully understood why personal tax and benefits are not seen as two sides of the same coin and run by the same department. |
|
|
|
|
| Spike
|
| 923781. Fri Jul 13, 2012 11:01 am |
|
|
| Would seem sensible, wouldn't it. Ah.... |
|
|
|
|
