3 ms·

People on unemployment benefit are denied those benefits if they turn down employment? Oh no! While I'm not saying these gigs are exactly long term careers it

by orf 8y ago

People on unemployment benefit are denied those benefits if they turn down employment? Oh no! While I'm not saying these gigs are exactly long term careers it's better for the state and for the person than not working.

DanBC 8y ago
In England you can claim UC while working, if you do less than 16 hours per week and less than (I think) £120.50 per week. This is a route back into employment for people who've spent years out of work. The intent is to provide a ramp from "no work, full benefits", though "some work, some benefits", to "full time paid employment, no benefits". (in fact, with tax credits, many people in full time (over 16 hours per week) work are also getting state benefits). This ramp is broken by the gig economy because zero-hours contracts make it impossible for the state to know how much top-up benefit to pay month to month. This plunges people into debt and poverty. The gig economy employers benefit because they don't have to pay a lving wage, they don't need to compete for workers by offering sensible wages. This is an unintented distortion of the free-market. If you believe in free markets you should wish to see the end of this distortion.
- ryanwaggoner 8y ago
  I’m not saying that we shouldn’t have a social safety net, but the “distortion” in the free markets here is the UC benefits, not a contract gig that lets the worker decide whether they want to work 0 hours per week or 100 hours per week or anything in between. That’s pretty free market to my ears, and having a sharp public benefits cliff that starts at 0 hours instead of 16 is the source of the distortion. Instead of blaming Uber for having work available for people who want to only do a few hours per week (or who can’t do more for whatever reason), why not blame the government for not updating their rules to better fit the actual reality on the ground?
  - DanBC 8y ago
    Uber can't have it all ways. At the moment Uber are exploiting the market to get paid employees, but without having to offer them the protections they'd normally have, and without all the tax and NI payments either. US companies really need to understand the English concept of "taking the piss". No-one expects companies to pay all their tax and obey the law all the time. What they do expect is that companies do not take the piss. Uber is taking the piss, and they're going to be regulated if they don't make changes. > blame the government for not updating their rules I'm doing that too.
  - DanBC 8y ago
    So, a follow up is this court case victory announced today: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46834533 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46834533 > Four working single mothers have won a High Court challenge over the government's universal credit scheme. > They argued a "fundamental problem" with the system meant their monthly payments varied "enormously", leaving them out of pocket and struggling financially Note that these are working mothers.

by orf 8y ago

DanBC 8y ago

In England you can claim UC while working, if you do less than 16 hours per week and less than (I think) £120.50 per week. This is a route back into employment for people who've spent years out of work. The intent is to provide a ramp from "no work, full benefits", though "some work, some benefits", to "full time paid employment, no benefits". (in fact, with tax credits, many people in full time (over 16 hours per week) work are also getting state benefits). This ramp is broken by the gig economy because zero-hours contracts make it impossible for the state to know how much top-up benefit to pay month to month. This plunges people into debt and poverty. The gig economy employers benefit because they don't have to pay a lving wage, they don't need to compete for workers by offering sensible wages. This is an unintented distortion of the free-market. If you believe in free markets you should wish to see the end of this distortion.

ryanwaggoner 8y ago
I’m not saying that we shouldn’t have a social safety net, but the “distortion” in the free markets here is the UC benefits, not a contract gig that lets the worker decide whether they want to work 0 hours per week or 100 hours per week or anything in between. That’s pretty free market to my ears, and having a sharp public benefits cliff that starts at 0 hours instead of 16 is the source of the distortion. Instead of blaming Uber for having work available for people who want to only do a few hours per week (or who can’t do more for whatever reason), why not blame the government for not updating their rules to better fit the actual reality on the ground?
- DanBC 8y ago
  Uber can't have it all ways. At the moment Uber are exploiting the market to get paid employees, but without having to offer them the protections they'd normally have, and without all the tax and NI payments either. US companies really need to understand the English concept of "taking the piss". No-one expects companies to pay all their tax and obey the law all the time. What they do expect is that companies do not take the piss. Uber is taking the piss, and they're going to be regulated if they don't make changes. > blame the government for not updating their rules I'm doing that too.
- DanBC 8y ago
  So, a follow up is this court case victory announced today: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46834533 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46834533 > Four working single mothers have won a High Court challenge over the government's universal credit scheme. > They argued a "fundamental problem" with the system meant their monthly payments varied "enormously", leaving them out of pocket and struggling financially Note that these are working mothers.