Paid by the hour sounds like the zero hour contracts that we have over here in some jobs. Basically the employer takes a person on but only gives them work when they need cover for something - so the employee doesn't know from one week to another many hours or what days they are working. So it could be a full weeks work one week and then nothing for a month. But because they are now employed they lose there unemployment benefits - assuming they go any in the first place.
There's a big thing here at the moment with people complaining about the unemployed, in the 'they're lazy, they should get a job' sense. Completely ignoring the fact that there are (officially) about 2.8 million unemployed and about 750,000 vacancies - mostly part time and low paid, if the job adverts in the papers are representative of what really available.
The thing is not everybody who'd unemployed can get unemployment benefit. If you are under 18 you can't get it, even if you leave school at sixteen (although soon you won't be able to, you'll have to either do two more years at school or go on a vocational course - such as hairdressing or building). If you are under 21 you get a reduced rate. Even if you are over 21 if you are married and your husband/wife earns more pay than you'd get for 30 hours at minimum wage a week they don't get any as their spouse is supposed to support them while they get a job. If they've had a continuous full time job for more than a year before being made unemployed they can then claim unemployment for 6 months regardless of what their partner earns, after that they won't get anything if their partner earns to much. Not that it's a lot of money even if they do get it - it's the equivalent of 10 hours work at minimum wage (And there are still people who think it should be less.) They also have to report weekly to local job centre and prove they are applying for jobs or they'll getting their money stopped.
My family are in the situation where I work (because I had the permanent job) and my husband stays at home with our son. He'd been on short contracts before son was born and I was earning more than minimum wage, he so wasn't entitled to get any money. So we manage on my pay because child care costs are so high. Once he's old enough for school next year my husband will start to look for work again.
There isn't really the same live to work culture over all, it does exist in some jobs, but not really in others. I think it's because a lot of companies employ lots of people all on part time posts were you only work your fixed hours. Reason being it costs them, the employer, less. As below a certain level they don't have to pay national insurance contributions for you (national insurance is paid on all jobs of more than about 15 hours a week - and pays for the state pension and NHS). So it's actually cheaper for a company to employ three people working each working three hours a day than it is to employ one person working nine hours. It's not really in their interest to let you work more. Workers are generally considered disposable as there are often about 15+ people applying for a job at any one time.
It's a rubbish situation. The workers don't get a living wage and wouldn't be able to get sick pay or paid maternity leave. The economy suffers because people haven't got disposable income to spend on extras like days out etc, and the NHS and state pension suffer because they've got all these extra people to support who aren't paying in through no fault of their own.
The government's solution is of course to make people wait longer to retire (was 60, then 65, now 67, going to 68 eventually) and to make you pay for some NHS services, prescriptions for medicines, notes from doctors and anything at the dentist being the main ones. They won't tackle the businesses because all the people on these few hours a week jobs no longer count towards the unemployment statistics, even if what they're being paid isn't enough to live on.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2013-08-21 07:18 am (UTC)There's a big thing here at the moment with people complaining about the unemployed, in the 'they're lazy, they should get a job' sense. Completely ignoring the fact that there are (officially) about 2.8 million unemployed and about 750,000 vacancies - mostly part time and low paid, if the job adverts in the papers are representative of what really available.
The thing is not everybody who'd unemployed can get unemployment benefit. If you are under 18 you can't get it, even if you leave school at sixteen (although soon you won't be able to, you'll have to either do two more years at school or go on a vocational course - such as hairdressing or building). If you are under 21 you get a reduced rate.
Even if you are over 21 if you are married and your husband/wife earns more pay than you'd get for 30 hours at minimum wage a week they don't get any as their spouse is supposed to support them while they get a job.
If they've had a continuous full time job for more than a year before being made unemployed they can then claim unemployment for 6 months regardless of what their partner earns, after that they won't get anything if their partner earns to much. Not that it's a lot of money even if they do get it - it's the equivalent of 10 hours work at minimum wage (And there are still people who think it should be less.) They also have to report weekly to local job centre and prove they are applying for jobs or they'll getting their money stopped.
My family are in the situation where I work (because I had the permanent job) and my husband stays at home with our son. He'd been on short contracts before son was born and I was earning more than minimum wage, he so wasn't entitled to get any money. So we manage on my pay because child care costs are so high. Once he's old enough for school next year my husband will start to look for work again.
There isn't really the same live to work culture over all, it does exist in some jobs, but not really in others. I think it's because a lot of companies employ lots of people all on part time posts were you only work your fixed hours. Reason being it costs them, the employer, less. As below a certain level they don't have to pay national insurance contributions for you (national insurance is paid on all jobs of more than about 15 hours a week - and pays for the state pension and NHS). So it's actually cheaper for a company to employ three people working each working three hours a day than it is to employ one person working nine hours. It's not really in their interest to let you work more. Workers are generally considered disposable as there are often about 15+ people applying for a job at any one time.
It's a rubbish situation. The workers don't get a living wage and wouldn't be able to get sick pay or paid maternity leave. The economy suffers because people haven't got disposable income to spend on extras like days out etc, and the NHS and state pension suffer because they've got all these extra people to support who aren't paying in through no fault of their own.
The government's solution is of course to make people wait longer to retire (was 60, then 65, now 67, going to 68 eventually) and to make you pay for some NHS services, prescriptions for medicines, notes from doctors and anything at the dentist being the main ones. They won't tackle the businesses because all the people on these few hours a week jobs no longer count towards the unemployment statistics, even if what they're being paid isn't enough to live on.