to boycott shops that use forced unpaid labour (aka slavery)?

[ChickenLickn]

These stores:

Boots,
Tesco,
Asda,
Primark,
Argos,
TK Maxx,
Poundland,
Arcadia group of stores run by billionaire Sir Philip Green, which includes Top Shop and Burton,

are all using 'workfare' schemes, forcing jobseekers to work 30 hrs/week unpaid for 6 months in profit making companies or face losing their jobseekers benefits. Mre details here.

Please avoid shopping in these shops as much as possible, this is basically slavery and is illegal under human rights law (and currently being challenged in the courts).

The good news is that Waterstones and Sainsburys have recently pulled out of the scheme.

"Also - how do they COVER the costs of the Au-pair or Nanny?"

nanny-shares can be cheaper than nursery places in some cases, especially if your home is used exclusively rather than alternating with the share family, but a lot of people don't explore that option because they hear "nanny" and think "for toffs" and just assume its always more expensive.

I should have been paid extra for taking on the interns (and training them in the process). I enjoyed it but it did eat into my personal productive time for the benefit of the team and interns.

I do not believe the interns should always be paid, but our company paid them v handsomely.

Well, you have been LUCKY with your zero-contract hours job then. One of my friends WAS doing a job on a zero-hours contract. She is a Lone parent with 3 dc, who left her husband due to him beating the crap out of her. She was guaranteed a MINIMUM 16hrs/wk when she was offered, and took, the job. She NEVER got more than 15 hours a week. So she was ineligible to claim Tax Credits. After 12 weeks, she HAD to give up - because she was in SO much debt through taking out doorstep loans to cover her childcare costs, at 400% interest, that she could no longer afford to FEED her dc.

THAT is the reality of most NMW, Zero-hours contracts in my area. She isn't the only person I have spoken to who has been left in that situation of having to get doorstep loans for food due to not getting enough hours on a zero-hours contract. It's all well and good having a zero-hours contract if you don't need to pay a nursery or after-school care.

Oh - and to the person that thinks that working to pay the childcarer is fine - it's NOT fine if it costs you MORE than you earn. It's NOT fine if it doesn't even allow you to break even. It's NOT fine if you are doing it for an entry-level job with no career progression.

It might be OK to do if you break even. It might be ok to do if it will allow you to keep your hand in with a career that you will have a chance for progression when your dc are school age. It might be OK if school-age childcare was any cheaper - which in school holidays, it ISN'T. it might be OK if it didn't cost £52 a day for Nursery when you are only EARNING £45.60 before tax. It might be OK if you don't WANT to cover all your basic living costs.

In the real world, for someone on NMW - it's probably going to be a struggle for EVER. Not just for a few years while your DC are young.

ReduceRecycleRegift - There is also the issue that TAX CREDITS WON'T HELP WITH THE COSTS OF A NANNY. You pay her NMW - then you are paying her your ENTIRE wage AND extra - because you will have had Tax and NI deducted from your wage - yet you will have to pay the Nanny AT LEAST the amount that YOU were paid BEFORE tax and NI - thus paying the Nanny MORE THAN YOU ACTUALLY RECEIVE.

And THEN you have to bear in mind that if you are in social housing, and the Nanny is EMPLOYED IN YOUR HOUSE - you, yet again, fall foul of your Tenancy agreement - which, in most cases, for social housing, state that you cannot use your home as a business. Which, as you are responsible for paying the Nanny's Income Tax and NI - you ARE classed as an employer running a business. Which leaves you in breach of your tenancy agreement, meaning that you will lose your home and be made homeless. On the street homeless...

Can you tell I have looked into doing this yet? And have come across 101 reasons why it is just NOT an option?

you might have, but not everyone does, there are lots of people out there who say it's impossible for them but they have not explored all options fully

if you nannyshare you can use the sharing family's home as 100% host house, so they're not working in yours, no not breaking rules (but of course you do pay a larger percentage as negotiated with share family).

TCs help with ofstead registered costs, nanny sharing helps with nanny costs

Its like people not takeing 0 contract hours, they might say they "can't" but IMO they're still making a choice.

"Why can't they just do volunteer jobs for charity's instead"

In theory charities can participate. In practice most will have nothing to do with this.

Employing a nanny does not mean you run a business, challenge whoever gave you that advice. Also, as ReduceRR said, getting the nanny ofsted registered means you can pay her up to about £250 a month out of gross earnings. If you hire a nanny who brings her own child along, you also usually pay less and get a playmate for your children.

And no, again, having an au pair or live-in nanny should not be a sublet unless there is a lock on their room and they have certain rights. An au pair is treated like a teenaged daughter of the family so to give her somewhere to sleep is no more of a sublet than hosting a family friend.

Social housing allows people to be childminders, not every childminder owns their own home I would very much doubt. If you have asked in writing for an exception to have a nanny working for you and social housing say no (not just read the website etc) then theres still nurseries, afterschool clubs and childminders. All will be Ofsted registered for tax credit purposes.

If you have friends in similar situations then its the ideal opportunity to work around each other and do each others childcare - its perfectly fine if not for payment although im sure you'll have an excuse as to why this cant work either. Theres also the time they are with the NRP/s, no reason not to work then and very few constraints.

As for "that working to pay the childcarer is fine -It's NOT fine if you are doing it for an entry-level job with no career progression" Why is it not. Do you think its perfectly fine then to have children and not support them even if it means a basic job. Benefits are not supposed to be a lifestyle choice.

ReduceRecycleRegift, i agree there are lots of ways round it but most wont look outside the box when the state is giving them more money than lots of people get by working. If people were willing to work and used benefits as the intended short term safety net then the government wouldnt need schemes to ensure people get jobs or give something back.

Circumstances can and do change, but choosing to have 2/3/4 children knowing that you cant support them if the relationship breaks down is a choice made as an adult and the consequences need to be accepted.

Zero hours contracts are ok if that's what you signed up for.
But to previously go from 37.5 hours per week, signed and contracted for to nothing whilst workfare do your job?

You can't provide for a family on that.

Sorry.... what is this bollocks about people in social housing having nannies?

Social housing is for people on incomes so low that they can't afford nannies!

And if your circumstances change and you COULD support them before?

Hosting a family friend for more than 7 nights is ALSO classed as a sub-let.

If you have friends in similar situations then its the ideal opportunity to work around each other and do each others childcare - its perfectly fine if not for payment although im sure you'll have an excuse as to why this cant work either. Yes. Not everyone has friends that are WILLING to look after their dc. And if your shifts overlap - who takes the day off??

Theres also the time they are with the NRP/s, no reason not to work then and very few constraints. And if they DON'T spend time with the NRP? What then? I have a child who didn't see her NRP (his choice) until she was 13yo. In those 13 yrs, I have been in work more often that out, granted - but it doesn't change the fact that MOST NRP's put THEIR employment first, or are unwilling to help other than having the dc every other weekend. Or in a lot of cases, not even THAT much.

As for "that working to pay the childcarer is fine -It's NOT fine if you are doing it for an entry-level job with no career progression" Why is it not. Do you think its perfectly fine then to have children and not support them even if it means a basic job. Benefits are not supposed to be a lifestyle choice - I'm saying that TAX CREDITS are NOT a 'lifestyle choice'. It's not a 'lifestyle choice' to be paid NMW for your job FFS. TAX CREDITS are NOT a 'lifestyle choice', they are a BUSINESS SUBSIDY ALLOWING EMPLOYERS TO PAY LESS THAN A LIVING WAGE TO THEIR EMPLOYEES.

Why is it OK to say that if you have a NMW job, and therefore can't afford to have a child without Tax Credits, that you can't EVER have a child? I can't get my head around the fact that some people think it is fine to tell people that WORK FULL TIME that they can't have a child because their employer won't pay them enough to cover basic living costs.

Make the employer pay a NMW that covers the cost of having one/two dc. THEN start moaning that people shouldn't be 'having children and not supporting them even if it means a basic job.'. Because a basic job DOES NOT SUPPORT A SINGLE PERSON LET ALONE A COUPLE OR A LONE PARENT WITH A CHILD OR CHILDREN. £11.856 before tax and NI. Could YOU support a child on that, without Tax Credits? NO? Then you are saying that no-one on NMW can have children...

TAX CREDITS ARE NOT A HAND-OUT TO 'FECKLESS SCROUNGERS', THEY ARE A BUSINESS SUBSIDY PAID TO ALLOW EMPLOYERS TO PAY THEIR EMPLOYEES LESS THAN A LIVING WAGE.

The government is ending the 16 hours thing - they are sticking it up to 20 hours. So if you work 16 hours and claim tax credits, you are going to be stuffed.

Edam - 20 hours is for CARERS, and only those carers in receipt of Carers allowance. For a lone parent whose dc are between 5yo and 12yo, it will be 24 hrs. For a Lone parent whose dc are over 12yo, it will be 35hrs.

For those in a couple - one person will HAVE to work for 35 hours, and the other for 24 hours. At NMW. To qualify for the in-work portion of the new Universal Credit when it comes in in April 2013.

So, if you CAN earn more than the equivalent of 59 hrs a week @ NMW, then you are allowed to have the in-work portion of your benefits. If you aren't, as a couple - then you can't...AND you get made to go on Workfare...

Children are not a right, parents bring them into the world knowing they are going to be responsible for the next 18 years at least. Therefore if you have them knowing you cant financially support them then benefits and tax credits are supporting a lifestyle choice.

As you chose to have four children (some after being diagnosed and not working) then you can hardly moan that life is unfair and that the government should allow people to take from the system and wait for the ideal job to land in their lap.

Look for loopholes in the social housing agreement that stops childcare in the home but the job centre know that probably 90% of people use childcare outside the home so its not really a factor.

Those that want to work will always find a way, for those that dont or come up with a million excuses as to why its not for them will face sanctions etc, we cant keep going as a country paying out in benefits what we do so that people can choose to stay home at other tax payers expense.

And for those who had children that they COULD provide for before disability kicked in?

Wow there is some selective reading going on this thread. RRR as I have expressly stated myself retail and care jobs are not deeming or of no value. They are valuable enough to deserve proper pay and employment rights.

Whoever made the assumption that only those claiming benefits would object is quite thick. I object. For the reasons given. My academic or employment record nor personal set up is relevant (educated to post graduate level, professional qualification in HR Management and the bank own my own home). Neither is my political affiliation relevant because this does not meet either left or right objectives (no political affiliation).

I am amazed none of the supporters or the "it's not so bad" lot have addressed the economic impact - one that I have even calculated for you with a very conservative figure. Is it because you don't understand the economic impact even when spelt out or is it just because you don't want to think about it?

You are right. You should bocyott my workplace too! If I don't show up or don't do anything they don't pay me! It's outrageous. The neo-Fascist Cameron Junta needs to be overthrown by violent force. Making people do things in exchange for money is just like slave trade.

is not relevant.

but helpfully provided for the hard of thinking/those lacking imagination

MissKittyMiddleton "A supermarket historically has taken on an additional 1000 hours of labour for the Christmas period. This labour has generated approx £1260 in income tax (assuming 20% rate). This year the supermarket fills those same unskilled hours with Workfare workers from the job cebtre. Let's say there are 5 of them and they work for 6 weeks (it's actually 5.7 using 35hr week). The state pays each of them £65 per week = £325 per week = £1950 for 6 weeks work. This means the treasurery makes a loss of £3310 (£1260 + £1950). This example does not include the negative impact of the loss of those workers wages had they been paid at NMW nor the amount the government pay the supermarket or the scheme administrator to run the scheme"

Yes there is a loss in income tax paid, but the amount paid in WTC far outweighs any income tax paid so even if they were temps not placements the government would be worse off so its a non argument. They dont just get JSA though, they are likely to be getting HB and if they have children maximum tax credits, FSM etc - all of which add up to a very healthy income and no tax deducted either.

Picture this all of you who think this could not happen to them.

Tomorrow your child gets hit by a bus.
Said child survives but with brain trauma that causes severe personality changes and autism. Your child has lost its ability to comprehend actions consequences and danger. Possibly the brain damage has led to mobility issues too.

Your child now needs intensive physiotherapy at the hospital three times a week. Speech and language therapy weekly. Paediatric review on a frequent basis. You have so many appointments to contend with that you have to give up work. Plus there's then the six month to a year fight with the Local Education Authority to get your child into a special school as they can no longer cope with mainstream education.

Your child's needs are deemed appropriate for middle rate care Disability Living Allowance as despite the fact they need to be supervised every waking moment they sleep for 6 hours at night. So you get the princely sum of £55 a week to live on.

Only.... your child gets middle rate not high so you're expected to do Workfare on top of everything else you're doing.... full time hours. You can't do this because no childcare will take your child on (at £10 an hour....) as they can't cope with the behaviours. So you lose your benefits, your home.... everything.

You have no private money behind you at all. You are at the mercy of the benefits system. You now have nothing, no way to make any money whatsoever.

This is what is happening. It could happen to any parent on here that doesn't have significant private means behind them.

Why can't people here realise that this could happen to any one of you? Any one of you could have you or your child disabled tomorrow.... today even.

Yet you passively read these threads and do nothing or you sit in your smug little bubble deriding those in this situation as not trying hard enough.

Disgusting.

Thanks Happy. Has confirmed what I thought. You don't understand it.

Maybe someone else will be along to explain it but I don't have the patience today particularly as what you have cut and pasted by me already refutes your argument.

what glitterknickaz said.

I have just lost a student on the course I teach because his benefits have changed from ESA to JSA therefore the job centre have told him that he is not allowed to attend college full time as he has to be available for work, not that there are any jobs in his area.
He was one of my hardest working students and could have progressed to university easily.
I have seen this happen so many times.
I am lucky enough to have a job (a professional job...yet still rely on tax credits) but would never be so presumptious to asssume a disaster couldn't take it all away from me.

Sorry Happy that was unreasonably harsh of me. I am on my phone so long reply is tricky but suffice it to say if we are already paying out other benefits the loss of the income tax plus the extra costs of paying for the scheme (JSA plus the admin costs) is not helping or economically viable. It just makes the debit to the public purse bigger while the big businesses get all the benefit.

I don't know about anyone else here but working for £1.26 per hour would not pay childcare costs for one child never mind food and utilities.

This is a bit lefty but decent pay for a decent day's work has never been truer.

And this is a bit righty but small state and a free market, capitalist economy cannot flourish while the state props up business profits with workfare.

HappyMummy - those who are on Workfare DO NOT GET WTC. OR THEIR CHILDCARE COSTS COVERED. So they are NOT working for their JSA - they are PAYING OUT WAY MORE THAN THEIR JSA IN CHILDCARE COSTS. They can't afford to FEED their dc while they are bdoing Workfare.

'Children are not a right, parents bring them into the world knowing they are going to be responsible for the next 18 years at least. Therefore if you have them knowing you cant financially support them then benefits and tax credits are supporting a lifestyle choice.' - So you ARE saying that people WORKING FULL-TIME for NMW can't have ANY children. Despite working their socks off for their crappy wages.

WHY do you think it is fine for business to profit from their work by not paying them a living wage, yet think that they should somehow be barred from having children.

I had ONE child after being diagnosed. NOT while my Ex-Partner was unemployed - he was working VERY hard, FULL-TIME. When I had an accidental pregnancy (contraception failure due to epilepsy meds if you must know), was I meant to do something that would be against my PERSONAL BELIEFS (i.e. termination, which, to me, is unthinkable, as I feel that a baby is a person from the moment of conception, and therefore has the right to life). Termination was against my personal beliefs when I was a HRT payer - and was STILL against my personal beliefs when I was reliant on TC's, and is STILL against my personal beliefs now that I am reliant on out-of-work benefits.

I ALREADY HAD 3 dc prior to my diagnosis. I was working FT, in a job that paid enough for me to pay HRT. I had £20k worth of savings. It doesn't last forever...

OK, the fourth child I could have terminated. Though the thought is anathema to me. BUT, my partner at the time was working ft, and we felt that the negative MENTAL effects I would suffer if I killed my baby, would be WORSE than me continuing with the pregnancy. That has NOTHING to do with whether we were receiving Tax Credits or not.

And we would have STILL made the same decision even if there WERE no Tax Credits to help us to feed and clothe DS3. Because we didn't make the decision based on MONEY, but on a mental health basis.

It's not MY fault that he later chose to walk out on me, is it? Was there something I could have done to prevent him walking out? Nope, that was HIS decision.

I have already tried to go back to work once in the 8 months since he left me - I had to leave after 3 weeks. My town has ONE SN childminder, who had my Autistic 13yo DD for just ONE DAY before she gave me notice. I cannot find ANY other childcare suitable for a 13yo dc with SN.

I WANT to work. I WILL work - when DD is 16yo, she should be able to be left at home alone for 2-3 hrs after college. By that point, DS1 will not need ANY childcare, DS2 will only require after-school childcare, and DS3 will be getting the Nursery Vouchers for 3yo's. THEN I will go back to work. But NOT on Workfare. I will NOT go out to work for LESS than NMW. EVER.