31/08/10 September Competition: win a 'for the few' T-Shirt 23/08/10 Latest Thinkpieces published 22/08/10 7 in 10 demand lending rate cap to cover all forms of credit 09/08/10 End Legal Loan Sharking: latest coverage 02/08/10 End Legal Loan Sharking campaign launched today

Compass poll

Latest comments

End Legal Loan Sharks

Education and the Good Society Statement

Join Compass

Mailing list

Events

High Pay Commission

How to live in the 21st Century

News filter

Cash-in-hand work is a survival mechanism explains Maeve McGoldrick

Monday, September 29 2008

"I am not a statistic, I never wanted to have a life on benefits, I used to work and I really enjoyed it. When I worked I was a real grafter I loved being financially independent. Now when I work it's for cash-in-hand and it's at times when things are really tight. Living in fear of being caught is a terrible way to live but what is scarier is giving up benefits altogether and having no safety net."

These are the words of Susan, a single mum who has been on benefits for eight years after her partner left her, eight months pregnant and with a child of one. Benefits are the only way to survive for many parents in the UK and often they are not enough to live on, and by no means do they provide a comfortable life for parents, let alone their children.

With very little money to spare, if anything, after all bills are paid parents often turn to cash-in-hand or informal paid work to make ends meet. Often irregular, temporary and low paid; this informal work provides emergency cash at times of unexpected and unbudgeted expense. This kind of work takes the pressure off and means that parents can afford to put food on the table, heat the house, pay the debt collect knocking on the door, or simply to buy a birthday present for their child. It means that at certain times of the year, such as Christmas, when money gets really tight parents can make a few extra pounds one or two evenings a week, in the pub or on a building site. Many people do not intend to play the system when they do cash-in-hand work, they quite simply do so out of need, not greed.

Their situation is being made worse by the increasing cost of living as a result of the economic downturn. As we all begin to feel the pinch and think twice about what we cannot afford, families living in poverty must think about what they can afford. As the weekly shopping increases and bills total up to more than what people can afford, counting the pennies for many families in poverty can mean choosing between food and warmth, and the daily struggle becomes even harder.

People are increasingly forced to find extra cash as quickly as possible, thinking about today and not tomorrow .This means the increase of personal debts and families spiralling further into poverty. Loan sharks and pawn brokers are providing the extra help that is absent from Government policy. Job cuts mean that vital progress of getting more lone parents into work could soon be undone. As a survival mechanism parents turn to cash-in-hand work, to make a small amount of emergency funds to help ease the effects of the credit crunch.

The underlying cause of Child Poverty is unemployment among parents, in particular mothers. This is due to a lack of flexible, high quality, affordable childcare and a shortage of part time and flexible jobs. Nowadays jobs are no longer nine to five and often many low paid jobs are based on commission. The times have changed and yet the benefits system does not reflect current labour market conditions. There is no in-between stage, no stepping stones for parents to cross from benefit into work and no long term safety net to eliminate their fear.

There are currently very few incentives to encourage people off benefits. In fact current rules trap people on benefits and therefore in poverty. If a parent wishes to enter employment they will automatically lose valuable passported benefits such as free school meals and prescriptions. They will be entitled to enter the quagmire which is Working Tax Credits. They will have to pay large amounts of tax. The existing ‘work incentives', i.e. those financial incentives within particularly benefits which aim to progress people off benefits into work, such as earnings disregards, permitted hour rules, and in-work credits, desperately need to be reviewed and changed. For example, earnings disregards count as income when housing benefit and council tax benefit are calculated, actively disincentivising people to work. The government is giving with one hand, but taking with the other, effectively offering no incentive for those that do want to take small steps back into the world of work.

To address poverty and people being forced into cash-in-hand work Community Links, an innovative charity running community-based projects in east London (www.community-links.org) which aims to tackle poverty and deprivation, is leading the ‘Need Not Greed' Campaign, calling for long overdue and much needed changes in the benefits system. It is a national campaign with a coalition of over 50 organisations who share the goal of ending the reliance on cash-in-hand work as a way for hard working, ordinary families to survive. We believe Government must be willing to fully understand the real motives behind cash-in-hand work for it to change policy so that it is no longer a necessary way of life for so many millions in this country. Policymakers must recognise the changes needed to enable people to make the transition into formal paid work, gradually coming off benefits and out of poverty. We are campaigning for practical and modernised benefit laws, a better understanding of life in poverty and an approach which uses less carrots and more sticks, as a recent National Audit Office report proved to be more effective.

If Susan and her children are to escape poverty then the Government must recognise and utilise the value of cash-in-hand work; as an attempt to move towards financial independence and as a way to develop self esteem and confidence. Changes in National policy to enable the transition from cash-in-hand work to formal employment will help Government hit the Child Poverty and Employment targets. Yet for National policy changes to be effective the Government and society must truly understand and differentiate between people working cash-in-hand out of greed and those forced into doing so out of need.

Maeve McGoldrick, Need Not Greed

To find out more about people working out of need, not greed, share your experiences or to find out how you can support the campaign please get in touch with Maeve McGoldrick on 02074739644 or on maeve.mcgoldrick@community-links.org. Check out our website www.informaleconomy.org.uk and help change the current system and thinking by supporting the Need Not Greed campaign

Support the Need Not Greed Campaign at the End Child Poverty Rally on the 4th October, Trafalgar Square

Share using AddThis AddThis

Want to write an article like this? If you’re a Compass member you can submit your own articles and start your own debates on the Compass debates member’s section, an autonomous space for our members to initiate debate and discuss ideas.

To keep updated on the latest Compass news, please join our mailing list.

Comments

  • ««
  • «
  • »
  • »»
1 to 14 of 14
Posted by Martyn Rosen 
on 30 September 2008, 5:44:48 PM
Maeve, I have a lot of sympathy for the fundamental cause you are espousing, but comments such as "It is vital to differentiate between need and greed. " do your cause nothing but harm. It is simply not possible to differentiate - one person's need IS just another person's greed; it's not for you to judge who NEEDS what.

I honestly cannot understand why you have used this euphemistically termed "cash in hand" (for which read "tax evasion" and/or benefits fraud) to make the simple case for a proper minimum level of benefit. It's exactly the same case as for a minimum living wage, pension, or carer's allowance.

If you then add an increase in personal tax allowance, so that anyone receiving that minimum is not taxed, you have completed the case for Susan and everyone like her. But to make a special, and different, case for people who happen to be able to work but cannot live on their benefits is, I believe, a bad mistake.

Posted by Paul (Here ...... Somewhere)
on 30 September 2008, 2:41:51 PM
Just to echo Robert's view on slave labour.

There are hundreds of thousands ( if not low millions ) of carers earning less than £ 51 per week for horrendous hours , some 24 \ 7 , under intolerable conditions.

In it's wisdom , the government is in the throes of switching all recipients of Carers Allowance across to Job Seekers Allowance !

What an injustice ..... carers already have employment , as carers ........ !!!

Until such time as " Caring " is legally defined as " Work " , the use of slave labour, which currently saves the taxpayers over £ 80 BILLION per year, will continue ...... unabated.

And .... all readers are only an accident \ illness away from joining our ranks.
Posted by Richard (London)
on 30 September 2008, 1:21:47 PM
Robert says:
"This has to be the most stupid thing to come here so far."
....Hmmm! A very bold claim!

He goes on to expand
"Why would anyone want to encourage people to work in an illegal trade of slave wages."

Indeed. Why would anyone want to do this? On my reading of the article and debate following it nobody is encouraging this position. Quite the reverse, the emphasis is on changing the circumstances of those who are forced to work in this situation ... "out of need not greed".

I wholeheartedly agree that it is appalling that people are exploited - working for "slave wages",however much we both find this distasteful Robert - it is happening. Today. in a workplace near you, and its likely to get worse as we feel the effects of the credit crunch on our high streets in the run-up to Christmas. No one is suggesting this should remain the case.

Robert finishes his contribution with:"
And people who do work in this type of work, you have to ask why are they not working,"

Picking through this final confusion what strikes me is that the people he condemns ARE working... prepared to do something to feed the family. Criticism of struggling families who have been forced into a demeaning situation by inadequate benefit regulations is not the answer.

Changing the welfare system to recognise the everyday lived reality of working-class peoples lives might be a part of the solution.
Posted by Robert 
on 30 September 2008, 12:53:24 PM
This has to be the most stupid thing to come here so far.

Why would anyone want to encourage people to work in an illegal trade of slave wages. people who pay cash in hand do it for one reason, not to pay tax to get cheap Labour, anyone who says we should be working within this does not belong here.

And people who do work in this type of work, you have to ask why are they not working, is Susan saying cheating is better then working.
Posted by ian (wales)
on 30 September 2008, 12:04:52 PM
susan,s desire will remain a desire, in this area, the best susan could hope for is a job in a supermarket

as for greed, lets consider how much the national audit office spends on wineing and dining, take the case of the former employee of nao who claimed of taxes payers money on lunches than in one month than the average wage pays in a year.

one thing i do agee on the propaganda aimed aginst those "enitlled" to benefits if disgusting.
Posted by Maeve McGoldrick 
on 30 September 2008, 12:00:57 PM
Ok Ian again I take your point, in fact I completely agree that there is a real difficulty in finding suitable jobs that the Government has promised. That is why we want to encourage the formalisation of jobs people are already doing - if they so wish to continue in that direction. A perfect example is a lady who used to make and sell her on clothes informally on the street. After receiving support, guidance and security she was able to formalise her business, come off benefits and is now trading (formally) with big clothes companies. This can be applied to any kind of work people do - gardening, DIY, child minding. The benefits of this are that it will stamp down on rogue employers and will ensure that people are covered by insurance, have the proper qualifications and can expand their potential business through open marketing and advertising. Many people choose cash-in-hand work as it is local, has flexible hours and they are more confident in that environment. Again by formalising the skills and jobs already there we will create a better sense of community and increase local economies and create social cohesion. We are concerned about the direction of the current green paper - it focuses a lot on training people for new areas of work and I do not necessarily believe this is sustainable, for the point you just made Ian. Also sanctions could easily push more people into the informal economy and possibly off benefits altogether – further into poverty and socially excluded. A much more practical solution would be to use what already exists and help formalise and develop these skills and jobs. Again this is handing people over more choice and control of their own lives – something you are stripped of when living in poverty.
Posted by Maeve McGoldrick 
on 30 September 2008, 11:42:12 AM
who want it. It is important to refer to Susan and her desire to work formally in the context I have just set and not how the media and governemrtn departments have created. It is vital to differenciate between need and greed.
Posted by ian (wales)
on 30 September 2008, 11:37:56 AM
who wrote this, yes cash in hand does go on and i will never condemn those who are forced to do it. ms mcgoldrich where are these jobs for all those single parents to come from are they to be conjoured up out of thin air, i know a woman with three children who did all the right things-after her husband left her-did retaining, attended course, gained qualifacation, worked for 3 months on work placement, and what is she doing now partime cleaner still living on benefits and still hoping for the well paid job she trained for these schemes are a farce, most end up doing low paid jobs, the jobs just arn,t there.

ms mcgoldrick as the saying goes "you don,t live in the real world".
Posted by Maeve McGoldrick (London)
on 30 September 2008, 11:37:00 AM
Firstly I understand where you are coming from Rebecca, the Need Not Greed campaign is not about condoning benefit fraud, and neither Robert is it about giving the ok to the informal economy or the black market. In fact, in both cases it is quite the opposite. It is about realising that the informal economy is a reality, it exists in the UK and people living in severe poverty do so out of need not greed. Many people want to move out of cash-in-hand work and into the formal economy. We are campaigning for a system to enable this transition to happen and encourage people to declare their work without the fear of falling deeper into poverty through the immediate loss of benefits (they need to be tapered off gradually). By providing the right support, incentives and guidance people can formalise their work and become financially independent. Furthermore people will benefit from working tax credits, minimum wage and paid holidays. The National Audit office has estimated the informal economy in the UK to be 12.3% of the GDP that is £120 billion. If Government was to seriously consider harnessing the informal economy, and the skills and entrepreneurship that exists they would be a lot more likely to hit child poverty and employment targets as well as bringing in a massive financial return at a time of economic trouble

The National Audit Office and countries such as Belgium show that carrots work much better than sticks. Currently there is a zero tolerance approach from the Department for Work and Pensions. Over the coming weeks a new anti fraud campaign will be released. This involves a target aimed at the benefit thief. This kind of advertising is a scare tactic and will only prevent people from coming forward and asking for the help they need to make the transition. We know from our grassroots experience that people are stuck in the informal economy and are desperate to get out but they are terrified to come forward - how will this approach eradicate child poverty and encourage a trusting relationship between the JCP staff and benefit recipients? If anything it means children will pick up fear and secrecy from their parents. Prevention is better than cure and that is why we also propose educating children about the realities of life on benefits at school, the traps of the informal economy and the benefits of working formally.

Zero tolerance is completely suitable and necessary for people committing fraud out of greed but it will not work for people working out of need. According to the TUC there are an estimated 2 million vulnerable workers and this approach may simply push them further underground, further into poverty and create greater social exclusion. We are campaigning for a change in government attitude, but also and just as importantly, for a change in society. There are consequences to using the term benefit scroungers and we need to start providing the help for the many people
Posted by Jonathon Hawkes (Fleet)
on 30 September 2008, 11:21:59 AM
Think I agree with both comments -

Spot on Robert - Labour didn't bring in the minimum wage in order to see people continue to work cash in hand for poverty wages. It's a disgrace in a 21st century economy. However, I don't think the writer of the article is celebrating the practice - I think she is highlighting the need for the system to change. Unfortunately, there seems to be very little detail here regarding what does need to change, so for a start:

Legislation to introduce a living wage (say, £7.50ph)

A concerted effort in the direction of job creation (more apprenticeships, more investment in industry, make it harder for companies to lay off staff)


A properly funded and supported return to work programme for those who wish to return to the workplace but through circumstance, find it difficult to do so.


In short - in the past it's been a basic principle of all political parties that work is the way out of poverty. Rising fuel bills, rising food bills, the seemingly endless upwards drift of Council Tax (this has got to be replaced by a local income tax) means that government can no longer give that guarantee.
Posted by Robert 
on 30 September 2008, 10:38:20 AM
Thats the problem if Susan works part time or less hours and earns insufficient she can still claim benefits she also has working tax credits. The idea is that people in work will not be worse off.

Have we not seen enough of TV programs showing people working at jobs when claiming benefits.

The fact is cash in hand or the black market is an area Unions have fought like hell to stop. People might say well yes paying Susan £10 a day to work in a local café is fine, but the rate should be £45 a day plus she gets insurance and she gets to pay tax.

Are we really saying that she should be allowed to work for somebody who does not have the balls to pay them the going rate for god sake we are going back wards not forward.

If Susan can work part time for cash in hand why not work part time in a paid employment.

I've seen the cash in hand market it's called slave Labour.
Posted by Spyro (London)
on 30 September 2008, 10:27:19 AM
Hi

I don’t know if we are all reading the same article but I dont think that the writer is saying that, in the case you present, Susan ‘HAS’ to commit fraud to live.

You are right that they might both struggle. However, I think it is more likely for Susan to get a cash in hand job as she is unemployed (thus she has more free time than Rebecca who has a low paid full time job) and Susan is also on benefits (meaning that a part time low paid job will make her lose her benefits).

Correct me if I’m wrong but what the writer says sounds like common sense to me.
Posted by  
on 29 September 2008, 11:30:01 AM
Right here goes Susan has a child, the child is young so she does not need to work, so lets look at two people Susan at home on benefits, Rebbecca working.


Susan will get £58 income support

child allowance £18

child tax credit £40

rent/council tax £100

Total £226 a week



Rebbecca works for 35 hours take home after stoppages £165

She has one child £58

£223

Rebbecca would not get rent or council tax payment.

as you can see Rebbecca is a lot worse off.


So why has Susan got to commit Fraud to live.

Both people will struggle and they do struggle but to say that Susan has to commit fraud to live is ridicules and again make the rest of us who have to live on benefits spongers.

If Susan can work for cash in hand then Susan can dam well get a job.

I cannot believe you wrote this.

  • ««
  • «
  • »
  • »»
1 to 14 of 14

 

Leave a comment

About you










Your comment

Please do not use HTML tags in your comment as they will be displayed as normal text.

We take no responsibility for the content of comments posted on this website, which represent the views of their authors alone.

Please enter the two words in the image below. This is an anti-spam measure designed to prove that you are a human, not a computer.