To agree with workfare in principal?

[IAmMiranda]

Donning my flame retardant underwear - though note I'm not for the current scheme, but the principal is sensible.

Working for unemployment benefits makes sense to me - provided that the "wage" is fair for the hours and skills. Eg. £90 a week job sellers could equal 15 hours of charity work?

Taking into account disabilities, childcare and other responsibilities I really don't think its unfair to provide people with jobs to earn the equivalent of benefits?

I do think its wrong to line the pockets of corporations, reduce jobs for other workers etc but surely charity work is an option?

I think I've probably missed some huge glaring point but AIBU?

(NOTE: I have previously been in reciept of JSA and would happily have done 15 hours a week and had plenty of time to job search)

I think over the last 30 years we have turned from 'well its all your fault for getting pregnant' to never mind, there will be tons of support and no one will judge you if you are 16 , didnt take birth control and arent able to support yourself.

Dont worry, someone will look after you.

In my view we have made it easy to be pregnant, unmarried, young, and no money. You wont live the life of riley but there will be lots of things to claim. So, we have the highest teenage pregnancy rate in Europe.

If there were some downside to doing all of this (and I dont necessarily mean teenagers) and not letting people take little responsibility for at least some of the decisions they make, waste of space boyfriend, no birth control, no money and then becoming pregnant perhaps we wouldnt have women (and men who make a run for i) seeing it as an option for them

But some people are misguided and make poor decisions. We then reward them for these poor decisions (and I dont only mean with money), they learn that they can make the same mistakes again and again and no one will judge them or point out their decision making.

So, they carry on doing it.

I have a friend who teaches teenage girls who have been excluded for school for bad behaviour and who have become pregnant. The vast majority feel they are not complete without a 'bloke'. You are seen as sad without a man and they want to have children when they are 'young'. And old is 301 They dont see any point in getting a job experience or qualifcations at all. They are going to be a full time mother and they Dare people to critize their choice. If it looks like their benefits are going to be cut for whatever reason the way around it goes around like wildfire. Having another baby in the same circumstances is often the answer - so they do.

sugarmouse that is the single most stupid thing I have ever heard anyone say regarding abusive men.

Abuse is about power and not to do with how a woman looks or shitty nappies etc. please please look at the Women's Aid website because you are dreadfully misinformed.

handcream, that is where the limited vision comes in. This is where so many young people are let down by their own parents and the system generally.

You need to have good role models and you need to want to do something in order to do it. If school is generally seen as a waste of time, and your own parents don't care what you do, as long as you hurry up and get out of their house, then how the hell are you going to make decent choices yourself?

There is something about our culture, our attitude, our education system, probably our benefits system that is failing young people from disadvantaged backgrounds. I don't have the answers, but certainly what we have at the moment isn't the solution.

I think that's nonsense handcream.

Quite frankly, I think that women of childbearing age are put in a crazy position, where they are constantly told that having a child as a teenager is a TERRIBLE THING to do, but they must not be selfish and LEAVE IT TOO LATE, as they will surely be barren as soon as they hit 35. When, exactly, are women permitted to have children?

And why is it supposed to be so dreadful anyway? People have been having children in their early adulthood since time immemorial. And if you look at employment trends across Europe you find that most young people's careers don't really start getting off the ground until they're in their early to mid 30s nowadays. In that context, there's something to be said for raising your family while you are young and not earning a peak amount, rather than interrupting your career just as it is taking off and losing the income and professional capital you've accrued.

Still, you might be interested to know that teenage pregnancy rates have been falling for years. In 2012 it was the lowest it's been since 1969.

What do you mean by 'taking responsibility' anyway? Is that code for 'have an abortion'?

HeadsDown, the teenage pregnancy rate may have dropped, but it is still the highest in Western Europe.

I don't have a problem with teens, over the age of consent being pregnant if they have some kind of support structure and have managed to complete their secondary education. By support structure, I mean financial, as well as emotional and physical.

I do agree that it feels as though women are caught between a rock and a hard place with not getting pregnant when they are young but not leaving it too late either. Feels like there is a narrow band of "acceptable" pregnancy age.

^For someone with two or more children, that is a considerable amount, and tbh the estates of certain citis are stuffed with people who have never done a days work in their lives and have no intention of doing so, meanwhile raising the next generation of criminal NEETS.
and before people start howling with indignation, I have lived on estates and seen it with my own eyes.

Which government decided to make work not pay?
and then tell us we were so lazy that our jobs would have to be done by immigrants?^

Yeah, I live on one of these estates.

I was a stupid teenager. I made very bad choices. I'm still reaping those repercussions now - and so are my children. I intended to go and get a career, baby in tow. I never intended to end up a single unemployed parent on workfare. What keeps fucking up my life is recurrent MH problems. I keep drumming it into the kids that they must get an education, get themselves off this estate. My son has gone to uni, my eldest daughter is (like me) a young mother, but she's doing it with a career path in mind and a loving partner. The only reason they are technically NEETS is her current health problems which means neither can work. Once those are sorted, they have big plans.

As for me, I'm still diligently applying for jobs, I will get work at some point. I'm certainly taking all training offered and volunteer work to boost my cv. Although it saddens me to hear that a 'mother of four with a uni degree (close, a diploma) and no recent work experience' is someone that employers probably won't consider.

ElleMorte - stick with it. Don't get downhearted - each situation is different.

Headsdown - 'what do I mean about taking responsibility' - of course I dont mean abortion. Your responsibility comes well before 'finding you are pregnant'.

We are a free country. We can get together and have sex with whom ever we like. We are not 'forced' into relationships as in other cultures.

So, with this freedom comes responsbility.

Heads - do you really think a 16 year old with no qualifcations thinks that she will have a baby and then kick start her career in her mid 20's. Really.... With no work experience and qualifications. It is very likely that any children she has copy what their parent does!

Sometimes it's hard not to be downbeat, especially when the prevailing attitude in the media is 'workfare scum' etc. The last time I was job hunting (and the time before that, actually) , I went for a job, had an interview, started work. Times are different now.

Also, last time I worked, I ended up having a full nervous breakdown. So I'm a little anxious about going back into employment, if I'm honest.

Headsdown, life is really bleak for both the teenagers & their kids when they get pregnant. It doesn't follow that they get serious about their careers in their 30's when their counterparts are just having babies. But I suspect you already know that.

Handcream, that's exactly what I planned to do. After I had dd1, I went out and got myself onto a college course. And it went really well until my MH crashed. I've tried several times since and each time the same things have ended it.

But as I said my two older kids have not made the same mistakes. Neither left education before 18 and ds has gone into higher education.

Mental health and disabilites are of course to be taken into account.

However if Heads really feels an average 16 year old without qualifcations really thinks like that we really are in trouble...

I understand that people will be put into a role after 3 years. That is a hell of a time to allow people to get a job. In my company when you are on the bench you are forced into a role in 3 months!

Its not unreasonable IMHO. If you have had 3 YEARS to look for a job and still havent found anything then you are mucking around at interviews, looking for the wrong roles and playing the system.

3 YEARS to find a job!!

I probably wasn't an average teenager anyway. My MH problems were certainly established by then. Although I dread to think what my life may have turned out like had I got into drugs instead of having dd1.

I am wondering. Does anyone disagree that 3 years to find a job is plenty of time - or not.......

"Mucking about at interviews"? have not been intentionally "mucking about".

Still I have a husband and family, so I can do fixed warehouse shifts (for which they generally don't interview) regularly enough to escape your disapproval.

I've been looking for two and a half. I must have applied for over 300 this year alone. I've had two interviews this year. I apply for jobs that fit my (admittedly lacking) skills and that I've had experience in. I dress smart for interviews, I'm never late and I try make a good impression. The last two interviews I was told I hadn't made it but they'll keep me in mind for future vacancies/ please apply in future. I guess even being > < this close means I'm still unemployed.

Posting and running, school event to get to...

Oh sorry, you said "mucking around".

Of course people throw an interview. When we have people on the 'bench' at the company I work for people mess up an interview. That's why the 3 month rule was brought in.

Why so different when you are out of work for 3 years?

well, we probably wouldn't go down the cul-de-sacs if people didn't try and pick over every aspect of Workfare opponents' lives, in an attempt to paint them as feckless.

The rape babies/domestic violence bit was actually started by someone trying to make out that the majority of women are not in control of their reproduction and therefore everyone should be entitled to handouts.

So kind of the opposite .

There is something about our culture, our attitude, our education system, probably our benefits system that is failing young people from disadvantaged backgrounds

What would people describe as a "disadvantaged" background? I'm genuinely interested.

When I was a child, my (single) mother had nothing and had to go without food to buy me nappies. My childhood was very very poor in terms of money.

When I left home at 17 I had absolutely no money whatsoever. Despite "only" having state education, I came out with three a-levels (AAB) and competed for a scholarship to go and volunteer in South Africa for 6 months. When I returned I went straight to work - I had had a part time job since I was 14 which probably helped me get into employment.

Several times I was unemployed and on JSA. With the except of the pitiful benefits I recieved no help from anyone. I kept a roof over my own head and food on my table. I lived in a bedsit for a year and then moved up the chain in rented accomadation.

I have just turned 22 and about to finalise buying my own house in a nice area with a 10% deposit that I worked 3-4 jobs over the last 3 years for (averaging about 75 hours a week).

I started off with nothing and have been and will claw my way to financial security.

Not once did I expect or feel entitled to help of any kind.

This is why I don't understand "entitlement" to benefits, why I don't understand when people cannot support themselves (with the obvious excepts of those with disabilities, victims of abuse etc etc).

Honestly - we should be celebrating our independence, the fact we are educated alongside men, the fact that stats show time and time again that girls do better at GCSE's and at A'Levels then boys. My father filled in the family tax return on behalf of my DM not so long ago because clearly she was too stupid to do it herself. He always knew what she earned because she had to tell him, it was the law. He on the other hand never revealed his earnings. They are now divorced!

We arent forced into marriage to someone we have never met or even worse sold to someone. We arent denied education like some cultures.

Yet, we arent taking these opportunties and embracing them. We are blowing it for ourselves. We are the only ones TOTALLY in control of our pregnancies. We can take or not take birth control. We can take the pill and cover any situations where we are likely to be carried away. We can stand on our own two feet.

For some though, they arent complete without a man (any man). They make poor choices because actually their parents/parent did the same and it didnt do them any harm. They ignore the red flags and lie and become defensive if someone steps in.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of that discussion, there was no need to specifically quote a domestic violence victim and tell her that of course she'd had full reproductive autonomy. Not to mention the implication about abortion.

Well, I suppose there was a need, if the quoting poster wished to showcase her ignorance of how domestic violence affects victims. An unusual motivation for posting, but it's a possible one. (If you use methematical definitions.)