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?

[woofgang]

ermmm yes?

[New Judge]

As I understand it those receiving UC are only allowed to earn a fixed amount before the benefit is reduced. The idea is that the benefit tops up their earnings to a specific level. If their earnings increase then the benefit will decrease. It's not a fiasco, it's common sense.

[Mamyalynne]

//Universal credit originally aimed to incentivise claimants to earn more by introducing a work allowance allowing them to keep hold of more of their benefits as their income rose. However, this was cut in 2015, and only partly restored. Claimants’ earnings over and above this allowance are in effect reclaimed at a 63% taper rate.//

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/jan/13/bonus-blow-for-greggs-staff-prompts-call-for-benefit-and-tax-rethink

Put simply, if you're on the bottom rung - stay there.

[Patsy33]

Government should override this rule and not be so mean!

[Theland]

Yes but it was a bonus, on top of normal wages.
The poor workers must have felt kicked in the teeth.
Bankers enjoy bonuses..

[New Judge]

//Put simply, if you're on the bottom rung - stay there.//

Er...no.

Parliament has determined that people need a minimum amount to live on. It expects people to earn that much as far as they can but will help to top it up to that amount if necessary. When the individual sees increased earnings they no longer need that help. If they want to get off the bottom rung gain some experience, skills an/or qualifications. Lots of people do so.

[New Judge]

//Bankers enjoy bonuses..//

But bankers do not receive Universal Credit!

[Mamyalynne]

Let's see some encouragement to aim higher then, rather than sticking the boot in at every opportunity.

Of course under the rules as it stands it's correct, but fair? No.

Were it fair then everyone would lose the same chunk of their bonus.

[margarettom]

What I don't understand is the £300 is presumably for full time workers. Those working part time would surely only get a proportion of the £300, reflecting the hours per week worked. As I presume people on UC can't work full time, maybe they would get less anyway.

[naomi24]

I assume the workers who aren’t on Universal Credit are earning more than the rest which, if they’re all on the same rate of pay, means they are working longer hours - in which case they should get a bigger bonus. The rest are getting a bonus every month.

[Mamyalynne]

No hours limit on UC Margaret.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41487126

[fiction-factory]

Like New Judge I don't see a problem with UC being reduced. If they'd had a pay rise of £300 rather than a bonus there would have been no grounds for complaint about the UC top up being reduced. A bonus amounts to the same thing as a pay rise or overtime pay- it gives more pay. Or are some saying UC should continue to be paid even when earnings increase?

[Theland]

I agree with Mamya, correct but unfair.

[Cloverjo]

It’s a one-off payment, not a pay rise. Taking a big chunk of it demoralises and de-incentives the workers.
Unfair on Greggs’ bosses too. They wanted to reward their staff, not the government or taxpayer.

[Mamyalynne]

As I said @ 18.10 they moved the goalposts from giving people incentives when they trumpeted the scheme.

[naomi24]

How is it fair for those working fewer hours to receive bonuses equal to those working longer?

[Theland]

Cleverjo - yes

[naomi24]

Mamyalynne, giving money for nothing was never an incentive to work harder.

[Theland]

I presume they are all full time but low paid.

[Mamyalynne]

I don't see where hours comes into this.


A part time worker be they on UC or not will get the bonus accordingly, however the UC recipient will always get less.

Full time workers can be on UC too.