Community Links

Community Links blog

Posts Tagged ‘Cash-in-hand’

What happened when Melanie Phillips met real people on benefits

Tuesday, January 5th, 2010

Last night was the first of Melanie Phillips’ two programmes on the ‘British work ethic’ on Radio 4, (listen on iplayer for the next week), which she also described in her column. I was particularly interested because we declined an invitation to help in the making of the programme, but also for her reactions to those people, struggling on benefits, who she met.

It’s very hard making judgements about other people, because there’s always a tendency to forget all the ways in which their life is different from yours. I got the impression that before the programme Phillips imagined people on benefits were mostly lazy versions of herself, with her access to money, support, education, social networks, and her ‘middle class elbows’.

She didn’t realise, for example, that people might not travel outside their town for work because they just couldn’t afford the bus fare. Or that a man might not challenge his doctor over a diagnosis that had left him in pain and on a cocktail of pills for many years. To her credit, in both these situations she admitted to having had her eyes opened. But these are just two examples, and there must be many other ways in which her eyes are still closed.

I’m still not sure she realises, for example, what it might feel like to apply for a low-paid, no-skilled, unbelievably dull job with no chance of progression and the prospect of years spent doing it. She dismisses a young man’s assertion that he wants to do an interesting job with fairly casual disdain, but is it really too much to ask, or atleast aspire to? The problem, perhaps, is that he has no idea how he could progress from an entry-level job into a more interesting one, or even what jobs might interest him. He needs access to jobs and support just as much as the man on incapacity benefit, and far less than Phillips probably did at his age. I’d be interested to hear what he thought of her portrayal of him in the programme.

I don’t want to be too harsh though – her column today shows admirable recognition of many of the problems of the benefits system. And to a great extent we all share the difficulty of truly putting ourselves in someone else’s shoes, rather than just imagining ourselves standing where they are.

In her column she notes that ‘not surprisingly, no one who was on the fiddle agreed to speak to me.’ Our Need NOT Greed campaign works with many people she’d consider ‘on the fiddle’, and we hope she’d be surprised to find that, again, it’s usually the system rather than individuals’ failings that forces them into it. For example, as we highlighted last year, people on Jobseekers Allowance who get a part-time job are only allowed to keep £5 of their wages. In this situation, can you blame someone for not declaring their work? In our experience, informal work is a great sign that people want and are able to work – we now needs a system that makes it worthwhile doing it legally.

A Year of Social Change

Tuesday, December 22nd, 2009

As we reach the end of 2009 the national team at Community Links have been reflecting on the last year … and begining to plan for 2010.

In 2009 Community Links has seen more and more people come through our doors, as people struggle and demand for our services increased. In Newham Community Links  carried on running much needed local services -  youth clubs, the New Deal, our own school, provided advice and support to families struggling with debt and welfare, and much more. And we’ve continued to share our learning nationally, achieving considerable success.

Projects that our national team have worked on this year include
The Parliamentary launch of our Need NOT Greed Campaign in February, to the National Talent Bank in June, Chain Reaction in November,  including the launch of three more Council on Social Action reports and much else besides.

We have produced a short report on our activities: you can read it here.

To all those with whom we’ve worked, a warm thank you. To those with whom we haven’t, how about next year? The election, unprecedented regeneration, the European Year Against Poverty all provide us with enormous opportunities for social change. We look forward to seizing that moment with you.

Wishing you a peaceful Christmas and a joyful New Year
The Community Links national team.

£5 earnings cap traps people on benefits

Friday, December 4th, 2009

Today saw the launch of our Need Not Greed campaign’s demand for the earnings limit on Jobseekers Allowance to go up from £5 to £50. It was discussed on the Today Programme (mp3), and Nicola Smith of the TUC gave a great interview on BBC Radio 5 Breakfast (mp3).

People on JSA face a £5 cap (or ‘earnings disregard’) on the amount they can keep each week when they get any kind of paid work. Above this amount, benefits are deducted at the same rate as earnings, which means claimants who take on part time or occasional work are often little better off.

Our experience shows that this low cap on earnings often removes the incentive to take the first step back into work and can push people into illegal cash-in-hand jobs.

The £5 cap was set in 1988 and has never been raised. We argue that raising it to £50 a week would immediately allow people on JSA an easier route back into work. It would allow them to take on a few hours of temporary work to build up experience, and give people more flexibility when moving off benefits.

At the moment, many people getting these kinds of jobs do not tell the jobcentre, knowing that doing so would jeopardise their income. In doing so however, they’re breaking the law.

However, increasing the Earnings Disregard alone is not enough. We’re asking for this now as a measure which could be quickly implemented and make a large difference to the lives of people trying to move off JSA. In the end nothing but a complete overhaul of the benefits system would really allow people to make that smooth transistion off benefits and into work.

To find out more, you can download a briefing paper about the campaign or visit the Need NOT Greed website.

How to really Get Britain Working

Tuesday, October 6th, 2009

Get Britain Working (logo)

The Conservatives are talking about their plans to Get Britain Working at conference this week, and they’re focusing on welfare reform. I’m glad they’re concentrating on the issue, but they’ve failed to look at the real reasons why people struggle to get off benefits into work. If only they’d listened to the experts, people trying to do just that.

David Cameron’s high-profile proposals to retest everyone on incapacity benefit, weed out the 600,000 who ’should be working’, and further involve the private sector in getting people back to work, are really nothing new. The Government are doing very similar things already, and there’s no evidence it has been particularly successful.

However, it’s significant that he’s still pandering to the view that people idly scrounge off benefits (more about that next week), and it’s a shame that he hasn’t recognised – in the way that Iain Duncan Smith did a few weeks ago – the huge barriers that people face when trying to get off benefits and into a good job.

In fact, the Get Britain Working report doesn’t really contain any analysis of why people aren’t already moving into work. There’s little evidence that the Conservatives really understand the lives of those they’re claiming they will help.

People who come through the doors of Community Links want to work (would anyone really want to live in poverty?) But plenty of things stand in their way. Some – like a lack of skills and confidence – might be addressed by Conservative plans for support. But the much larger ones – the sudden loss of housing benefit, the insecurity of the job, the fact that after 16 hours work you’ll be no better off, the discrimination against and lack of facilities for disabled workers – aren’t mentioned at all. And it’s these that really matter.

Luckily, we’re in Manchester this week to tell the Conservatives what will work – how they could enable people to progress off benefits into employment. We’ll outline some of our proposals later in the week, but for now have a look at the Need NOT Greed website and try following @neednotgreed on twitter to join us there.

The nanny state vs benefit fraud – which side are you on?

Tuesday, September 29th, 2009

Over the weekend the papers highlighted the case of two police officers told that taking care of each other’s children for a few hours a day was illegal – they should have paid to be vetted and registered as childminders. The law was intended to protect children, but its zealous enforcement has been widely mocked: the women were police officers (who don’t need vetting?); and the ‘reward’ they earned was reciprocal childcare. But imagine a very similar story, with a slightly different slant.

‘Single mums caught cheating the system – when will we end the scourge of benefit fraud? Two single mums on benefits were charged with benefit fraud yesterday, after enforcement officials discovered what they described as an ‘illegal childminding business.’ The women explained “from time to time one of us would look after both kids, just while the other had to go somewhere for the day. We’d usually give £20 or so, just to cover the cost of food and a bit of travel. We didn’t declare it because we knew we’d lose some benefit if we did, and it really wasn’t much money.” Officials saw it differently however, and have charged them with failing to declare earnings while on benefits. They could have their benefits reduced or stopped, and be forced to pay back benefits they’ve already been given.’

There’s really not much difference, other than the social status of the offenders (police officer or single mum on benefits), and the odd £20. Still, many of those frothing about the ‘nanny state’ and Britain’s burgeoning bureaucracy would no doubt be equally righteous in their indignation towards these ‘benefit scroungers’ and their fraud.

In reality, many women on benefits do a bit of childcare on the side, and would be only too happy to declare it, if they knew that they wouldn’t end up worse off. This kind of part-time, community-spirited work needs to be encouraged, not penalised. But while the police officers have public sympathy behind them, the women on benefits are struggling along with far less support.

Finally, while the story centres around the legalities of looking after children, it inadvertently highlights the challenges facing many parents (particularly mothers) – the need for affordable, accessible childcare. These particular police officers were lucky in having each other (until OFSTED intervened). Many women aren’t so lucky, and either end up paying out a large proportion of their wages in childcare, or just can’t work in the jobs they’d otherwise like. That’s why Community Links has repeatedly called for an increase in the availability of good quality, affordable and “open at all times” childcare, and run childcare schemes throughout Newham (and yes OFSTED, before you ask, we are completely legal).

Dynamic Benefits report missed a paragraph on the informal economy

Thursday, September 17th, 2009

I think there was a paragraph missing from the Centre for Social Justice’s Dynamic benefits report yesterday. I’ve copied it below, just incase.

Furthermore, the barriers that stop people getting jobs, coupled with low benefits rates, often force them into informal, or cash-in-hand work. The informal economy is worth £120bn each year in the UK, 12% of GDP. Recognising and addressing this could prove vital to the success of our proposal.

People on benefits often take cash-in-hand work because taking on formal work would make them worse off, as we identify above. Reforming the benefits system would help remove the need for cash-in-hand work, thereby boosting the formal economy. Ensuring that those already working in the informal economy are welcomed into the formal economy, rather than punished, would then harness the entrepeneurship and effort of these workers for the rest of the economy.

Being involved in a campaign on the informal economy means I’m usually looking out for it, and yesterday I found it buried on page 295 of the report. I’ll quote in full: “A further advantage is that this more generous disregard will mean that many of those working in the informal economy can be recognised, and have their income regularised.”

It makes the point (specifically in regard to single adults), but just not very loudly – I think they might have missed the significance. Centre for Social Justice – in the event of a last-minute eureka moment over the informal economy, feel free to copy the bit above. Many of those you’re aiming to move off benefits are already working in some way. Formalising this, rather than punishing it, means you’ve created a load of extra jobs and have a load more money flowing into the economy. We’ve covered the details of how this could work elsewhere (pdf).

Still, its glaring omission aside, the report clearly illustrates one of the most significant barriers stopping people getting a formal job: they might well end up with less money. The report recognises (pg 96, if you’re interested) that Community Links – working with people in this situation every day – has said this before(pdf), but usually to counter the charge that people stay on benefits purely out of laziness. Perhaps everyone’s beginning to realise that in the current system, people often need to stay on benefits. This is an important shift in the debate, whether or not the report’s recommendations are eventually taken up.

It proposes to tackle this problem through radical change to the benefits system, and many of the specific proposals are very similar to ideas we’ve been suggesting for a while. Again, it’s nice to hear them talked about so widely. But crucially, what will happen next? Will the ideas be taken on and developed, looking beyond the immediate problems of the benefits system and considering other factors like informal work? Or will they be quietly dropped, as politicians desperately look for cuts and shy away from a large initial investment?

Welfare: fit for purpose? Benefits and employment

Friday, August 21st, 2009

Image Credit: The Guardian

Benefit Busters was shown last night on Channel 4, questioning how to get lone parents off benefits when they are financially better off not working. It was the job of Hayley Taylor to find the answer, and she did this through her A4E Elevate course aiming to build single mothers’ confidence to get them back into the labour market. Or, was she bullying a group of slightly vulnerable mums, some of which had serious issues of debt and possible drink addictions, and neither of which Hayley had any professional qualifications in what so ever? I haven’t quite figured out what A4E stands for yet but it could be something to do with Accident and Emergency.

On the whole there were a number of job successes, and possibly one career success - that belonging to Hayley herself. I am still trying to figure out who benefited from this programme. It was apparent that the mothers were eager but profoundly lacking in confidence, it was apparent that the system was completely flawed but no Goverment Minister was interviewed as to why the current welfare reform bill hasn’t addressed the existing disincentives. It was also apparent that what the most vulnerable really need is intensive support, professional advice and guidance but instead they got ‘tough love.’

With the latest unemployment figures at a shocking 2.44 million, an increase of 220,000 in the past three months to June 2009 and talk of the real figure being 6 million getting the reform of the welfare system right is more important now than ever. The Jobcentre Plus is possibly the most popular venue in town right now; with a noticeable increase in the range of customers, and therefore an increase in the range of skills and capacity required by the staff, placing a heavy burden on Jobcentre Plus staff.

Current reforms mean government are employing large private organisations like A4E to deal with the long-term unemployed whilst they get to grips with the latest recession wave of white collar workers. The BBC Radio 4 programme “Face the Facts, the JCP isn’t working“, aired last Sunday interviewed people recently made redundant, people with impressive CVs and keen to find employment yet they were completely let down by the JCP service.  The same frustrations voiced in this programme were echoed by the long term unemployed in our report Working Alongside.

Welfare must be a first class service for all: capable of responding to the needs of a varying population before it can justify imposing threats like benefit sanctions or sending people to boot camps.

We spoke to Guardian journalist Jenni Russell and yesterday in her article in the Guardian she eloquently and accurately pointed out that errors in the current, outdated and rigid system and poor quality, low paid, erratic employment is the problem, ‘the solution is nothing less that a rethinking of the welfare system fit for the 21st Century’, because, as Hayley concluded ‘the systems not right; it just seems backwards really’

Cash-in- hand questionnaire

Thursday, July 23rd, 2009

As part of our continuing research into the informal economy we want to investigate the impact of the last 12 months of recession on informal economic activity or cash-in-hand trading. 

This survey is being carried out as part of our Need NOT Greed campaign aiming to move people out of poverty, off benefits and into work.

Please help us by completing a short online survey.

Brick Lane waiters get English classes but will it mean real change?

Friday, July 17th, 2009

Brick Lane

I’m definitely feeling up-beat about the Brick Lane project – the one that’s trying to help waiters stuck in dead end cash-in-hand jobs in Bangladeshi restaurants on that famous east London street. (See previous blog posts)

Last Monday we had a meeting at the Bangladesh British Chamber of Commerce (BBCC) where for the first time plans for English classes for waiters felt really concrete. Tower Hamlets Council has recruited English teachers, including a Bengali speaking tutor, and fixed a date for them to start. The BBCC is also hosting a dinner for the partners to meet restaurant business leaders where its chairman is going to ask restaurants to provide a minimum number of staff to take part in classes and encourage owners to offer staff time off in lieu for the time they spend learning English.

There is a ‘but’ though. The enthusiasm for English classes is almost in inverse proportion to enthusiasm for tackling the problems of low pay and informal working. Many of these waiters are working for much less than the minimum wage – as little as £3.00 per hour – as our “Waiting for Change” research report showed (download a copy here). Many get no holiday and don’t even benefit from cash tips left by customers. They work six days a week – 65 hours over split shifts – leaving them little time for anything else. 

There is a reluctance amongst all the partners to really address these tougher minimum wage / working conditions issues. Yes, English classes will help. It’s a first step and maybe this issue needs to be addressed at the beginning, which can then be the stepping stone to further activity in the near future. We know that trust is key to making change happen, and this takes time to develop. But it’s frustrating that things are happening at a slow pace particularly with the businesses who – to a large degree – are breaking the law and ripping of their workforce. We must continue to persuade them with the ‘carrot’ of business support to develop and improve their business practices, and maybe use the ’stick’ of the enforcement agencies to ensure they comply with employment law

Do you earn enough for a minimum acceptable standard of living?

Wednesday, July 1st, 2009

 

 
About a year ago we wrote a piece reporting on the launch of the Minimum Income Standards research.  This is an income  figure calculated to reflect what members of the public thought people need to achieve a socially acceptable standard of living.  Today the figures for 2009 have been published.

Last year the report delivered a grim analysis for those living on low incomes and claiming benefits. One  year on, after regular news of financial crisis and job losses, the picture looks even more bleak. Around one quarter of people in Britain are  living below the minimum income standard, and this is increasing as unemployment rises  People of working age who are claiming benefits remain well below the minimum income standard and far removed from an acceptable living standard. 

These findings have confirmed what we at Community Links have known for years that the current benefit system does not provide a sufficient income for people to live with dignity. In fact it pays people to stay in poverty.

Inadequacies in the benefits and tax credit systems are one of the factors that result in people feeling they have no alternative than to work informally – claiming benefit whilst undertaking cash-in-hand work. Our NeedNOTGreed campaign works to remove the need for cash-in-hand work by creating a modern, flexible welfare system.  Our work is summarised in our Social Change booklet on the Informal Economy.

But it’s more than just an argument about figures and statistics. The everyday experience of the people we work with in our own area of east London and communities like ours across the UK indicate the many ways families are struggling. The figures are translated into the child who hopes – but does not expect to get a birthday cake or the family living in overcrowded and unsuitable accomodation that can’t get away for a weekend at the seaside over the summer – or even afford regular healthy lunches whilst the free school dinners are not available during school closure. Our work on Child Poverty is summarised in another of our Social Change series.

Full details are available on the Minimum Income Standards website where a  there is also a ‘Minimum Income Calculator’ for people to check whether their income meets the MIS.