Greggs Bonus Fiasco

[Theland]

Greggs workers awarded a £300 bonus but those on universal credit only allowed to keep £75 of it.

Is this fair?

[fiction-factory]

>It’s a one-off payment, not a pay rise.

It's extra pay, whether they call it wage, salary, bonus, commission.
And what if they pay it next year as well?
If there were a pay cut of any kind those affected would expect to get an increase in UC and of course they would be entitled. But you can't have it both ways.

[Mamyalynne]

A Bonus has been earned, it is not 'for nothing'.

I can see I am wasting my time.

UC is failing in its original aim.

[naomi24]

//Full time workers can be on UC too. //

Then they won't receive a full bonus. According to one worker most of them are on UC.

https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/greggs-bonus-universal-credit-rules/

[cashier]

I know Parliament decided on an amount that people can live off, but could anybody in Parliament actually live off the amount that was decided? I suspect not.

[Old_Geezer]

If working full time there is no reason to be on benefits and their employer should explain why they are. If not working full time then presumably the pro rata rate should make any unfairness minimal. I think one needs examples to see what and how big the issue really is.

[naomi24]

//A Bonus has been earned, it is not 'for nothing'. //

Indeed... and presumably some have 'earned' more than others. Bonuses aren't for doing nothing - but UC is.

[Canary42]

/// But bankers do not receive Universal Credit! ///

Oh ! !

What about 2008 when Joe Public bailed them out

[THECORBYLOON]

The bonus has been earnt but only 63% of earnings are taken into account. Even for those not on UC, approximately £100 is deducted for Tax and National Insurance if applicable.

[Theland]

UC is for doing nothing? Shame!

[naomi24]

What's the problem, Theland? It is.

[Theland]

Anybody who thinks benefits are for doing nothing is simply willingly blind and ignorant.

[THECORBYLOON]

"Then they won't receive a full bonus."

Employees will receive the £300 from Greggs regardless of whether they receive UC or no.

[nailit]

For God's sake, when will we ever stop this demonization of people that have to rely on benefits to top up their WORKING wage?

[douglas9401]

Never going to happen, Nailit, not when those in charge are of a mind to 'crowd fund' the ringing of a poxy bell for half a million quid to celebrate their blue passports and warm beer and think they're doing the country a favour.

[New Judge]

I don't think anyone is demonizing them.

UC for those work is meant to top up pay to a minimum level. If the pay goes up (for whatever reason) the UC goes down. Simples!

[nailit]

//UC for those work is meant to top up pay to a minimum level//
LOL, yes OK!
Some people on this site need to get into the real world rather than believing everything that your favourite Tory newspaper reports.

[fiction-factory]

>or God's sake, when will we ever stop this demonization of people that have to rely on benefits to top up their WORKING wage?

Has anyone done that here, Nailit? UC is appreciated by many, including some who plan their hours and earnings around it, and including some employers who know they can pay a bit less than they otherwise might (subject to minimum wage) as the state will in effect top it up via UC, but it is a top up.

Letting those who earn more keep their UC would be unfair to those who don't get a top up. Why should someone from Greggs earning X +300 bonus get to keep their UC when someone who already earns a salary equal to X+300 doesn't get the same/any UC?

[nailit]

//UC is appreciated by many//
WHO?

[fiction-factory]

^ so do some return it as unwanted or refuse to claim it ?

Of course many would prefer not to have to get it, but at the same time some plan their working arrangements around it

[Cloverjo]

FF//Why should someone from Greggs earning X +300 bonus get to keep their UC when someone who already earns a salary equal to X+300 doesn't get the same/any UC? //

Surely that person would also be entitled to UC?