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?

[jim360]

I can see the point being made earlier that higher-paid workers should as a rule get more as a bonus. But the thing here is that Gregg's themselves wanted to award £300 to every worker, regardless of that worker's salary. In that case, the fact that some workers are having to repay more of this than others is unfair because it is undermining the intention of the company to reward all its workers equally.

[Gromit]

Fundamentally, supermarkets and chains like Greggs should be employing people on a living wage where they do not have to rely on the taxpayer to top up wages on Universal Credit.
That is not to say they increase the minimum wage and increase their costs, but instead employ people for 32hours/week not 16.

That way, employees will not having to claim a taxpayer funded benefit, and will not be out of pocket/time for working overtime.

The Government do not like that because they would sooner 3 people have a sh1 t wage and claim UC, than one person has a proper job and another person is unemployed.

[naomi24]

Gromit, //No one wants a 14 hour/week contract, they would sooner work 28-32hours and not have to waste such much of their time claiming additional money in benefits. //

Nonsense. There are plenty like the person Ladybirder mentioned earlier who don't want more hours because that affects their benefits. An unpalatable truth, but the truth nonetheless.

[Spicerack]

Cloverjo
//Unfair on Greggs’ bosses too. They wanted to reward their staff, not the government or taxpayer.//

Well, seeing as the taxpayer has been subsidising Gregg's bosses' wage bill all year, I think they might reward/give a little relief to the taxpayer without complaint.

[THECORBYLOON]

What proportion of Greggs' employees are part-time and what proportion are on Universal Credit?

[Mamyalynne]

IT is said those figures aren't known at the momment.

Purely anecdotal of course but this here.....

//Just asked my Greggs inside informant if everyone is chuffed about their ~£300 bonus?

"Not really. Most of us are on Universal Credit. We'll get the bonus end of Jan & it will be taken out of our UC payments in March. They've basically just handed £7m back to the govt." //

Source

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

[THECORBYLOON]

GROMIT, Greggs pay all their employees more than the National Living Wage.

How would you force Greggs and other companies to employ more full-timers?

If they have more full-timers, what happens to the remaining part-timers who would then have to be made redundant or work fewer hours?

[THECORBYLOON]

Would Greggs' employees be better off without the bonus or no?

[venator]

sorry, this is straight from Corbyn's PMQ soundbyte. I'm sure there is someone who lost out, but all low paid staff got an iPhone and £300, and all the Greggs staff I spoke to seem very happy indeed, not least because they feel sure they have job security.

I feel sorry for Corbyn. Destroyed and discredited, forced to sit at PMQs

[jim360]

Well, possibly. But as seen above anecdotal evidence suggests it's more widespread than just some*one*. Should it matter the scale of the issue, anyway?

[Cloverjo]

I was more concerned about the workers than the bosses. Greggs wanted to reward its staff but loads of their reward has been taken away.
Perhaps they should have kept quiet and paid them in cash. (Only slightly joking)

[emmie]

perhaps it is correct but i do agree it's unfair.

[fiction-factory]

Isn't the question in the OP flawed. Surely they are allowed to keep all their bonus (subject to nay tax or NI due)- it's any UC top-up that will be reduced.

[TheDevil]

Simple, if those who are upset about the bonus wish to receive the whole bonus, come off of universal credit.

If those who are on universal credit don't mind, then on story.

[cassa333]

Oh I’m on a 21 hour contract with a national supermarket (in the customer cafe) and I am actually looking to drop some hours so not everyone wants 30 hours or more.

However we do have one woman who lives on her own that does need min 30 (but would prefer nearer 35)but at the moment only has a contract for 24. I’m going to see if I can port come of mine to her.

In any case sometimes flexibility of part time workers is better for the employer. Five people on a full time contract are not needed all day. For some jobs you need more people during busy times and less in the quiet times. More full time staff doesn’t cover that.

[ludwig]

I've not been following this, but how would this even happen? Are they supposed to recode the UC software to include a phrase that says 'Except for Greggs employees' ?

[Gromit]

The whole point of UC as opposed to jobseekers is to make going back to work more appealing than being jobless and just collecting benefits.

Unfortunately it is failing dismally because once people have worked 14 hours (earning £503/month) the disincentive to work more hours kicks in. For every extra £ on minimum wage they earn, they lose a third in reduced benefit.
So they are working for £5.50/hr.
And this is 2020, not 1970.

[THECORBYLOON]

If they work extra hours, adding the wages and the UC, do they have more money?

[THECORBYLOON]

GROMIT, do you have an answer to my questions at 00:11?

[fiction-factory]

>So they are working for £5.50/hr.
No, they are working for something which is above the minimum wage- something nearer £10 an hour.
Anything else- tax, NI, clawback of top ups is a separate issue depending on each individual's circumstances