Childcare is not a dumping ground for the unemployable

Gosh, it is almost like some people are not fit to work... But Mumsnet tends to go apeshit when it comes to supporting these people because you seem to assume that everyone on benefits is a lazy workshy grifter

I kind of object to calling people with those various circumstances 'unemployable'. They may not be suited to childcare but it doesn't mean they're not suited to another kind of job. Plus some of the things listed are things that you can develop through training.

Apart from that, in my experience a lot of people bounce around several low paid sectors and I see it all the time in work histories in my current job - childcare, social care, retail and call centres. The most common qualifications are hairdressing/beauty and minor childcare qualifications. People are funneled and shoehorned in to those types of courses and jobs for some reason - despite childcare and social care being highly regulated.

In that sense not much has changed since I was at school where people from certain areas and circumstances never receive any guidance on the potential of their lives and low paid jobs catch them.

No, I'm not. I'm not the poster who said that. I'm aware there have been benefit frauds committed on a larger scale and in an organised way by criminals, including landlords and employers for example. The point I'm making is that it's highly unlikely individual lay people are receiving PIP via fraudulent means. The examples you give as to how this might happen are not realistic. Brenda down the road isn't going to have stolen hospital stationary and forged a consultants signature to support her claim. When Bernard went into a care home, they will not have neglected to do the financial assessment that revealed his PIP, enabling his son to continue to recieve it fraudulently. The average person isn't going to invent a complex health condition, lie convincingly to doctors, go through tests and treatments they don't need for £79 a week.

OP there is indeed a shortage of childcare workers/early years. I am not sure if you are aware but very recently the government changed the criteria for Apprenticeships in some subject areas including care of young and elderly. The apprentices no long have to pass functional skill in English and Maths. 16 to 19 year old still have to do English and Maths but not pass, those starting older, don't even have to do it, so the bar is getting lower. The thinking behind it apparently is so that learners are not disadvantaged and it gets more people into work!
A separate theory I have is that SOME young ppl have not experienced good child care themselves so not had stories read, been played with, encouraged to learn and we are left with young ppl who have few soft skills.
I can see how it could be very frustrating for you, and parents are so desperate to have their kids looked after(understandably) to work they are having to put up with this too.

I think this is only the case if you think of care of a small child as being restricted to their physical requirements of food, cleaning, toileting etc. It is not true as soon as you make proper consideration of a child’s developmental needs.

That would likely change though with time if it became more usual for men to be in early years.

Not all parents feel that way either, All my DC's have/had a male keyworker and he has changed/changes their nappies.

This sounds awful - and shit for the children too!

Surely the employer also bears a share of responsibility though, for employing them?

I agree forcing people off benefits into unsuitable work is not acceptable though- this should be considered highly skilled work!

Well you couldn’t really direct boys into childcare. You get threads on here when a parent encounters a male nursery staff member and they get worried in case they change their child’s nappy (both male and female children) and a lot of the comments agree and say no male should be changing a non family member child’s nappy.

So even if you got more men into childcare the women would likely still be doing the changing/loo supervision because the parents wouldn’t allow the men to do it.

Why do you think competent criminals would not be interested in PIP fraud? Remember you were arguing that there is absolutely zero fraud.

But if you work in childcare you are not 'just' caring for healthy children. We have children with diabetes in our setting for example, and life threatening allergies. Also, childcare involves setting targets so each child meets their goals, writing reports, keeping records, dealing with parents, etc. It's not literally just 'caring' as in changing nappies, comforting them and wiping noses etc.

Yes, the state ends up subsidising big businesses who won't pay higher than NMW, and won't employ more than the bare minimum. The whole system is a mess.

It's interesting this is childcare because it is usually "anyone can do care work" whereas in my opinion it is easier to care for a healthy child than an adult with complex needs.

Yes, and supermarkets aren't as desperate for staff as care and nurseries. The reason those sectors get used as a 'dumping ground' isn't because it's better that way, it's about which employers have more choices. I agree with the poster upthread who talked of cases that sounded like a horror film.

One of the unfortunate consequences of having a relatively high NMW. Which there's been good reason to raise, since our COL is spiralling and we've done fuck all to stop propping up property prices. People have to live. But what it has done is made some of the more simple and repetitive jobs unviable, without any corresponding societal agreement on what's to be done with and for people who 30 years ago might have been capable of them.

You don't make your argument any more compelling by trying to discredit my comments as being based in my 'innocence'. I'd be extremely surprised if your knowledge and experience of the benefit system and claimants was greater than mine. And yes indeed, people could well attempt all of the things you suggest. The point is, the number who successfully do will certainly be tiny. There are checks in place to make such things impossible for the vast majority of people, even if they were minded to try. If your brother in law and the woman in the chip shop and your neighbours cousins partners friend are all in your opinion fraudulently claiming PIP, then you must know some fairly competent criminals. Because the idea the average lay person is able to get away with complex disability benefit fraud is nonsense.

I agree with this (though I presume you mean boys who obtain poor GCSEs). But the push towards these careers happens earlier than GCSE choices - it happens from nursery where specific things are seen as ‘for girls’. Made worse by this gender obsession that says girls who like football are really boys, or that boys who like pink and sparkles must really be girls; reinforcing sexist stereotypes. It is also one thing I find curious about the poor in America - women often seem to do construction roles in contrast to the UK.

Well quite. Once again, I wasn't making some sort of "it's childcare or shop work" kind of point.

My point is that if someone is unable to work, a shop job isn't going to be some sort of easy back up failsafe option. Businesses these days cannot employ people who can literally only put items on shelves. I supported someone who was employed on a disability employment scheme in a major supermarket, but the job has evolved to the point at which he had to be managed out. He couldn't do any of the extra work that the entry level employees now have to do. So what are those people meant to do? They can get up out of bed and show up at a job, but these days businesses are cutting costs to the bone and won't facilitate an employee who can't keep up.

And to be abundantly clear I am NOT saying that childcare is a suitable option for such people either.

The point is picking the wrong stock leads to annoyed customers and loss of profits. In childcare, mistakes or negligence can lead to death.

Haven't read the whole thread but I think this is very likely. I live in Germany and about 10 years ago Schlecker went into bankruptcy (think a kind of Boots the Chemist). The inemployment office promptly sent all the female employees on a course to become childminders in their own homes. At the time I was doing the same course but I had (1) paid for it and (2) had to finance my own time off to accommodate the schedule. They were receiving full unemployment benefits. It may not have happened in a wide spread way but even the idea is mind blowing!

I think you're referring to me.

I wasn't trying to say that shop work would be unsuitable for some disabled people, therefore they should work in childcare. I was saying that shop work these days is not the simple job it used to be.

Picking for online orders isn't as easy as it sounds either. It involved extremely high speed targets and the use of difficult and temperamental handsets (I know, i've recently supported someone in the job).

Well you have just identified one way - by claiming for someone who has died. You could also claim for someone who has moved into a care home, or left the country. You could also exaggerate your disability/claim a non-existing disability to your GP - especially for conditions that are diagnosis of exclusion (eg FND). Or, as you mention, you could submit falsified medical records. People certainly manage to falsify conditions for insurance claims including obtaining false medical records. Why wouldn’t they for PIP? What a lovely innocent world you live in.

Precisely. Yet because you've got qualifications, many people would assume that means you could do an entry level job, because surely "getting qualifications is harder than working in a supermarket". People don't understand the reality of disability nor the realities of entry level jobs these days.

This I think, starts even earlier. The school I worked at offer Health and Sicial Care GCSE. Lots of students genuinely see this as part of their career path-nursing, psychology at A level, uniformed services and yes, care and Early Years. Done properly, it’s as demanding as other GCSEs. But, every year there’s a cohort of students who don’t want to do any of the other options, or frankly, aren’t up to them (and are definitely not suited to a job in either early years, senior or disability care)So they get shunted into HSC (and Art.) They come out with 3 and 4 if they are lucky. They don’t want to do it, the teacher is unhappy that her subject is seen as a dumping ground and that the validity and worth of the course is diminished.

@Elleherd: (quoted with slight edits)

I know two autistic young women with BPD funnelled into child care, via agencies offering training that they were mandatorily referred to by the job centre.

One is simply unable to understand needs or see the children as more than bottoms and noses to be wiped and to be told off. She finds the first two tasks disgusting and tells the children so. She sees making sure children follow rules as central to her role, and has been accused of repeatedly picking on specific children.

The other has been flagged up to her agency as having far too high a record of dramatic incidents related to children by several placements who don't want her back.

She is being diverted to disabled and elderly care.

I read your post with the same facial expression as when watching a thriller that's taken a relentlessly dark turn. This is awful. I feel sorry for everyone involved, actually - but why are these concerns not making it up to the government and its think tanks?

You're describing a chain of misery, starting with the two girls and multiplying as ever more children and vulnerable adults get hurt (plus, I'm sure, collateral damage all the way along). It's like dysfunction dominoes - the net outcomes will generate even greater support requirements, which will still be unavailable.

Please do respond to the consultation! https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/pathways-to-work-reforming-benefits-and-support-to-get-britain-working-green-paper

It's an awful situation. If we as a society can't support these people who are often unemployable through no fault of their own, then we will just have to accept substandard and potentiallly dangerous care for our children, elderly and disabled adults.

Sex offenders should also be found work. Do you think they should work in nurseries too? Or do you think that it is actually appropriate to have some requirements in place for specific roles involving very vulnerable people?

Someone up thread was suggesting shop work would be too difficult as it included ad hoc cleaning or picking things off shelves. This suggest some poster really don’t have a clue about childcare. Of course retail would be much more suitable. Of course childcare should be recognised as a role that requires skill, knowledge and, above all, a requirement to safeguard children.

The only real ways of claiming PIP fraudulently would be to do so in someone else's name, for a person who has died, or by an extremely complex and skilled procress of falsification of medical records. What you are no doubt referring to are decisions you disagree with because you feel the claimant has been treated too generously or they have exaggerated symptoms and the verification process has been lax. These things are incredibly rare. The process almost always errs on the side of refusal of claims, which is the reason 70% of tribunal appeals when the case is properly scrutinised decide in the claimants favour. It would seem odd that the same process that makes so many erroneous decisions against claimants is at the same time so lax it allows all these mythical liars and exaggerators to claim without supporting evidence.