Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Workfare scheme for loan parents of children as young as 3, as of next month.

999 replies

WaterLoadaCack · 01/04/2014 21:54

kept that quiet didnt they

OP posts:
morethanpotatoprints · 03/04/2014 19:23

Fedup

You quoted me up thread. I hope you didn't think I was calling sp scroungers, because I wasn't and wouldn't.
I just wanted to clear that up.
I am in support of sp and think this is the most awful thing this gov have done to date.

HappyMummyOfOne · 03/04/2014 19:26

Well said African.

Jellybean, i can choose to work or stay home. As it is, i choose to work as it sets a better example to DS and means DH and i share all aspects of our life. It also means i have a safety net should should things go wrong.

Morethan, i have every sympathy or empathy or those that deserve it. Choosing not to work and then moaning that you are expected to do something for your benefits doesnt warrant sympathy. If they are worried about their childs future them they would be doing everything possible to gain work not avoid it.

Subsidising childcare means workers pay tax, the childcare people pay tax and after a few years childcare is not needed or the person may have gained a promotion or better job. Long term gain for short term assistance. There is no gain to paying people to not work or to to few hours.

The NRP should, of course, pay support but slating them for not doing so when not supporting the child yourself is just pot kettle black and loses the argument from the start.

unicornpoop · 03/04/2014 19:28

People, with or without children, should never have the option to live on benefits if physically able to work. Trotting out excuses or moaning doesnt excuse the fact that its plain lazy. Why should the person who works 40 hours a week on NMW end up with the same as a person doing nothing.

Because thats how much it costs to scrape by and hold down a house, pay bills and feed a family and if they werent given it, they would be in the gutter with nothing to feed their kids because....

there aren't enough jobs!!!!!

Would you rather them have nothing and their kids starve to death so your taxes can be spent on...lets say...the war? Or another pay rise for MP's? Or another bankers bonus?

MoominsYonisAreScary · 03/04/2014 19:29

Until ds2 was born I was working in a nusing home so was at the time dh, same company different homes. They always worked my shifts around his so no problem with childcare.

When ds2 was born they decided they wouldnt continue to do it so I couldnt work anymore.

We decided that I would do a years access course and train to be a nurse.

Then 4 months before I was due to finish we split up. I went on IS until the course was finished.

Government were paying the deposit for childcare at the time, BECAUSE THE DEPOSIT FOR NURSERY IS EXPENSIVE! Especially when you are a loan parent on IS.

Great I thought, except they wouldnt pay it until id started work and the nursery wouldnt let him start until it was payed.

Luckily my mum loaned me the money and I was able to go back to work. Not everyone is that lucky

Misspixietrix · 03/04/2014 19:29

Dontcare indeed. I wonder if they put Lee Rigbys wife under the same umbrella? You know because she should have planned right?...

HappyMummyOfOne · 03/04/2014 19:29

Dontcare, this is about people who dont work. Plenty of lone parents work so dont twist the argument. Its no different to work fare for those on JSA be it male or female, married or not.

heisenberg999 · 03/04/2014 19:31

Do you live in London moomins? Here a deposit is not needed although I worked at one nursery that the owner asked for a 25 deposit but we used to waive it as I personally thought it was outrageous as people wouldnt even have their tax credis through.

DontCareAboutYourShoes · 03/04/2014 19:32

Again no response about the fact that workfare is reducing jobs.

And happy, I remember your attitude on other threads. You have major issues with lone parents but yes specifically those who don't or can't work. You regularly jump on women asking for advice about child support because HOW DARE THEY WHEN THEY DONT SUPPORT THEIR CHILD THEMSELVES aka they are in receipt of benefits. Never mind why they are on benefits of course.

Misspixietrix · 03/04/2014 19:33

Happy you're also subsidising the workfare contractor with tax payers money. You're subsidising their wage bill. No thanks I prefer companies who can be arsed to pay their staff properly.

YouTheCat · 03/04/2014 19:33

No it isn't. How is the lp supposed to pay for childcare. Yes, there's 15 hours provided but what about covering travelling time? How is a lp supposed to pay for that?

Giving lps the chance to undertake some training whilst their kids are in nursery is fine. Forcing them to stack shelves is not. It means there are less paying jobs out there to start with because places are using workfare - so that's a false economy. It doesn't get anyone back to work because there is no job at the end of it. It doesn't give any decent work experience either.

MoominsYonisAreScary · 03/04/2014 19:35

No I live in nottingham and actually it wasnt a deposit that iirc was only 100, it was the months childcare up front, although some asked for a week which was still over £150

stubbornstains · 03/04/2014 19:35

I've got some broad bean seedlings going spare potatoSmile

I've come to the conclusion that happymummyofone is actually Ian Duncan Smith in disguise. The arguments are spookily similar...

cory · 03/04/2014 19:42

HappyMummyOfOne Thu 03-Apr-14 18:20:41
"Morethan, you already know i dont use childcare unless you know something i dont as you seem to insist I do.

Everyone chooses to become a parent its not like you wake up one day and a child has been delivered. If you choose to become a SAHP then you know in the event of the other person leaving that you have no means of support unless you had a private income beforehand. If you have a job and are turned down for flexible working, then you can stick with it until you find something else. At least with recent experience you are far more employable. All life choices."

Did you miss morethan's post where she explained that her son's workplace are taking on workfare staff and sacking 30 of their workers. Would you care to explain to those 30 workers that it is a life choice for them to suddenly find themselves unemployed?

morethanpotatoprints · 03/04/2014 19:46

stubbornstains

Thank you, we have a much smaller garden now don't know what we'll grow.
We are fortunate to be able to make adjustments like this and still manage the same lifestyle. I'm more than aware that the majority aren't. It is wrong that you are vilified for wanting to bring your children up yourself. It annoys me there are many reasons why people aren't working but if you don't work you are considered lazy or feckless.

DontCareAboutYourShoes · 03/04/2014 19:48

The thing I don't get as well is why do people even care what other people are doing? I mean, when I worked, paying my taxes as you do, I didn't give a shit if it went to people on benefits or not. I didn't care if someone wasn't working while I do because it literally did not affect my life at all.

So why do people care so much? So much hatred for people they don't know?

Chunderella · 03/04/2014 19:48

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

morethanpotatoprints · 03/04/2014 19:51

cory

This is just the one that he works at, but he works from store to store and sometimes different areas so I've asked him to let me know what he hears and will report back.
He and his gf are saving up for deposit only 21 and 22, they work all the hours god sends, don't have any luxuries and never go out. They have reduced to one car as well. She works on check out and has done since leaving school, even managed to avoid redundancies in the past. They are really worried now and I feel for them.

HappyMummy

Good enough work ethic for you, considering you say that sahps are not good role models for a good work ethic.

Misspixietrix · 03/04/2014 19:52

Precisely chunderella subsidising the benefit claimant AND the money leaching corporations who scrounge free (sorry paid for by taxpayers) labour. Yep. Brilliant resourceful use of taxpayer funded schemes.

Feminine · 03/04/2014 19:59

happymummy why do you have so little empathy for your fellow humans? When l worked l paid a fortune in tax... Like another poster, l couldn't have cared less what was done with them? Out of interest, what should family life be like? What is the perfect solution in your opinion?

HappyMummyOfOne · 03/04/2014 20:02

Cory, of course redundancy isnt a choice but the person would have recent experience, final pay and would go to JSA contributions based. If they go straight to IS its a given they dont intend to job seek.

I doubt the workfare people are taking jobs. They are short term, come with no references or checks so are unlikely to do the full job. Either the store doesnt need them due to seasonal lulls or they just didnt want them.
If they are paid per person they dont need to get rid of the existing staff as the wage bill wont go up and they can concentrate on using the placement as its meant. Who knows what skills they have or what knowledge they hav and i would imagine they need a hell of a lot of supervision.

YouTheCat · 03/04/2014 20:09

What the actual fuck?!

If you haven't paid enough you don't go to JSA contributions based. Many on IS would love to have the chance of an actual, paid job.

So that ASDA haven't made all those people redundant because they have workfare in to do their jobs then? Really? Have you even read anything people have said here?

cory · 03/04/2014 20:12

HappyMummyOfOne Thu 03-Apr-14 20:02:13

"I doubt the workfare people are taking jobs. They are short term, come with no references or checks so are unlikely to do the full job. Either the store doesnt need them due to seasonal lulls or they just didnt want them."

They will be taking unqualified shelf stacking jobs which would otherwise have been paid with the minimum wage. When their term is up, the company can just get a new load of workfare people in.

"If they are paid per person they dont need to get rid of the existing staff as the wage bill wont go up and they can concentrate on using the placement as its meant"

Put it another way: if they can get the job done by using staff paid for by somebody else and save the wages of the people they used to have to pay, why wouldn't they prefer that?

Several threads on MN over the last year or so have given examples of companies that do use workfare in precisely this way.

DontCareAboutYourShoes · 03/04/2014 20:13

You really don't understand business do you, happy? The wage bill won't go up but guess what, workfare means free labour so they can use that to make the wage bill go down. So bye bye asda staff. Hello workfare staff! That's how they are taking the jobs.

jellybeans · 03/04/2014 20:18

' I didn't want to leave my children at a young age either. But life's a Bitch. .. If you choose to have children you have a duty to support them. End of'

Financial support is just one aspect of raising a child yet it seems the ONLY aspect many here focus on.

unicornpoop · 03/04/2014 20:19

Even if the companies weren't reducing the amount of jobs by using workfare....there still wouldn't be enough jobs.