Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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:
OhMerGerd · 02/04/2014 00:23

Apologies if I've offended you.

My argument was if there was a genuine desire to support people rather than punish or score political points then courses would seem a better idea.

And personally when I was in this situation donkeys years ago I managed to get a free short course which I had to attend about 15 hours a week in return for an extra tenner on what was then called income support. I'd got a degree but no work experience or quals in the area I wanted to work in. Didn't get any free childcare though as it was before all that came in but it was a lifesaver. DD 1 was 12 months when I started and 18 months when I got my first pay in the career I am now doing well in.

Not for everyone I know. But some might welcome it more than compulsory 'work' that distorts the market and depresses wages. Just a thought.

whatshallwedo · 02/04/2014 00:29

Genuine question, instead of workfare taking jobs away from Tesco and Poundland etc why can't it put people into voluntary positions such as in a hospital or for a charity? Surely that way people can gain experience in roles which would never have been paid.

Darkesteyes · 02/04/2014 00:31

"no eat is fine for healthy adults" no eat means they wouldnt be healthy for long. It is not fine for ANYONE to go without food Its a basic necessity not a luxury.

Darkesteyes · 02/04/2014 00:33

whatshallwedo I have a husband with COPD If he has to go into hospital i would like to have him cared for by someone who wants to be there.

Tweasels · 02/04/2014 00:33

The only way risk taking can be made more viable is if benefit payments stayed in place until a certain steady income level was achieved/maintained or benefit payments were flexible and could be paid some weeks and not others. Also, the application procedure would need to take about a tenth of the time it takes now.

This won't happen because they have no interest in lone parents or anyone for that matter achieving their potential or finding fulfilling meaningful jobs. They just want you off benefits, whatever the cost/implication to you and your family.

wigglylines · 02/04/2014 00:34

"Genuine question, instead of workfare taking jobs away from Tesco and Poundland etc why can't it put people into voluntary positions such as in a hospital or for a charity? Surely that way people can gain experience in roles which would never have been paid."

Because the point of workfare is not to get people into decent jobs. If you think that you are missing the point.

The point of workfare (along with most Tory policies) is:

  • to win votes
  • to make profit for big business

In addition, it lowers the official jobless total.

It is not about helping people. That is why no workfare employer has to even pay lipservice to the idea of training or imparting skills or knowledge, it matters nit what the work is to them.

bochead · 02/04/2014 00:35

OhmerGerd - I would have loved funding for the course I'm doing now rather than the 3 years it took to finally gather the resources together. That's perhaps a couple of years sooner I could have rejoined the workforce? I dunno?

Special academies are being created in England to take all those non-statemented SN kids that noone else wants. SN's are the most common reason I've come across for mothers not attempting to rejoin the workforce in some capacity as soon as their kids get to reception, yet educational provision for these children is deteriorating year on year at the moment. This obviously has a knock on effect on the ability for these parents to work.

I also wish the general public would realise that more women become lone parents in their mid-thirties or forties than in their teens. MOST women would prefer the happy 2 parent family model and are actually left feeling pretty devastated when their long term relationships don't work out. Vicky Pollard is actually a fictional character and statistically is the stereotypical representative of a miniscule proportion of lone parents.

I wish the white collar sector of the labour force would wake up and realise that the working classes were decimated 20 years ago. This go round it's the graduate jobs that are being outsourced. Also that when society returns to the halycon days of "upstairs, downstairs", they themselves will be firmly shoved "down stairs" in competition with furrin housemaids for work.

wigglylines · 02/04/2014 00:36

Sorry, I forgot another Tory aim, they also want to dismantle the welfare state.

Again this is not about helping people or improving the quality of life for the population as a whole. That is not their aim.

bochead · 02/04/2014 00:38

Most adults will skip a meal or two if it means getting a step closer to their goals. I don't personally know a single parent who would ask the same sacrifice of their child (shrugs shoulders), though I certainly know a good few who have skipped meals at various times to ensure their child was properly fed.

Tweasels · 02/04/2014 00:42

Sad That should never have to happen.

DontCareAboutYourShoes · 02/04/2014 00:43

Happens a lot I think :( I often only have one meal a day so I can actually buy fruit and veg for my dd. We are fucked as she grows and eats more.

whatshallwedo · 02/04/2014 00:45

darkesteyes hospital volunteers don't tend to be allowed to care for patients unless they have expressed a desire to do so such as helping with feeding.

Those that don't want to be there could transport records for example.

Yes I probably am missing the point of workfare because I want it to be in place to help people not figures but I guess it never will.

MexicanSpringtime · 02/04/2014 00:59

Oh dear, oh dear. Just read the first page, but so many people worried about their taxes going to lone parents, when most of their taxes are going to the bail-out of the banks, but heck, why let a fact get in the way of envy.

The money paid to lone parents, when I was a lone parent, is barely enough to live very basically.

BillyBanter · 02/04/2014 01:19

Threads like these really bring the cunts out of the wood work don't they.

If someone is working they should be paid for it, by the company they are working for. they are not getting paid on workfare. They are working for free. Job seeker's allowance is for, well the clue is in the name. If they are working then they shouldn't be getting JSA but wages.

Why do you like your taxes subsidising Tesco's wage bill. Bunch of fucking mugs.

CaramelisedOnion · 02/04/2014 01:26

I´m a lone parent who receives absolutely no maintenence from my son´s father and he is also no contact (his choice). I have always worked.

I currently work 23 hours per week. My local nursery is too expensive so I have to take a bus to the next town to be able to afford nursery at all. My the job that I have is a further 2 buses away. I work 4 hours per day Mon-Thurs and 7 hours on a Friday. I love my job, as it happens, but it should be noted that I am not making this massive commute to earn megabucks, I am a receptionist. There just aren´t many jobs out there for a trilingual graduate of Birmingham University with over 10 years work experience if that person also happens to be a single mother who needs to work within the hours of 9-5). And I live in a large northern city, so goodness knows what it is like for people in rural areas or smaller towns.

My daily commute is 3 hours. If I was doing my current job for free t a similar distribution of hours (lets say 3 hours per day) for the 15 hours on this genius scheme I would have to be paying to cover the 2 hours of that commute which takes place between nursery and work. You can´t pay by the hour, you have to pay either morning or afternoon session or both. That is full time nursery at 650 pounds per month (that, by the way is AFTER the 15 hours free have been taken off, not before).

The monthly income of a lone parent on income support and child tax credits with one child is around 533 pounds. SO if the above scenario were to occur, the family would be on -117 pounds before eating, paying the gas and electric, or travelling or indeed anything other than childcare. Unless the state will be providing free wraparound care? Offering more than 15 hours to account for the fact that people have to TRAVEL to work/ their unpaid slave labour !?

The government had better make sure they find workfare placements close to nursery schools. That´s going to be a challenge in itself, surely?

To all those smugly saying what a fabulous idea it is to force single parents who are on income support and have a preschool age child to take part in pointless unpaid work (by the way, the only other unpaid work in the UK that is non optional tends to be given to people who have been convicted of a crime) shame on you.

I wanted to continue to be polite about this, but sometimes bluntness is better. Anyone who supports this kind of programme is a complete and utter cunt who should take a long hard look in the mirror, and maybe have a scout around to see what happened to your soul.

Because this scheme, as it has been so clearly illustrated by other posters on this thread, will NOT improve people´s chances of employment. It will remove paid work from the job market, it will line the pockets of big business and it will potentially cause untold amounts of poverty and suffering for an already struggling working class.

OhMerGerd · 02/04/2014 01:35

I'm not complacent ... I know I'm always only ever one pay cheque away from the Foodbank, one accident away from DLA, one argument away from being a lone parent and one small push over the edge and clinging to the 'safety net' needing state support in the form of benefits. I'm under no illusion and I think it right that some of my taxes go towards helping others in my community. Theirs will one day do the same for me.

Misspixietrix · 02/04/2014 03:25

IS isn't available for lone parents from the moment your child turns 5. I see a huge problem in it. Take her off the umpemploymsnt list and Pay the bloody woman for the 15hours she does. Make the freeloading companies pay for their own labour. Taxpayers are not going to be getting a better deal. They will be paying for both the lone parents benefits and the fee to the workfare contractor. Pray tell how is that meant to help?

Misspixietrix · 02/04/2014 03:29

unemployment. Anyone missing a sock* somewhere?... There's a fair bit of bollocks being peddled few myths being handed round.

BlackeyedSusan · 02/04/2014 04:06

Children do not get diagnosed by the time thay are three. It takes a lot longer.

Nataleejah · 02/04/2014 04:23

I'm really against workfare. If large companies need jobs doing they should create more fecking employment places.

fideline · 02/04/2014 05:41

and maybe have a scout around to see what happened to your soul.

Well said caramelised

Sharaluck · 02/04/2014 05:50

I think it is only a good idea- as long as they are paid properly for it. I don't think it's right to work for free. Why can't the businesses involved pay them wages and make it proper part time positions?

Also I don't think it is fair to make it compulsory. Children are all different and some children aged 3 are not suited to nursery/childminders, so I think it would be unfair to remove all choice from lone parents in this situation.

Sharaluck · 02/04/2014 05:58

I think it is only a good idea- as long as they are paid properly for it. I don't think it's right to work for free. Why can't the businesses involved pay them wages and make it proper part time positions?

Also I don't think it is fair to make it compulsory. Children are all different and some children aged 3 are not suited to nursery/childminders, so I think it would be unfair to remove all choice from lone parents in this situation.

RuddyDuck · 02/04/2014 06:54

Surely people arent being made to "work for free", they will still receive benefits in excess of 15 hours x minimum wage.

I don't think the workfare scheme has been properly thought through, so I don't support it being the best solution. However, I also think that it is unreasonable to fund people to stay at home and not work, unless there are extenuating circumstances. I am not sure what the answer is, but the current system is not fair to the taxpayer.

People who are out of work need meaningful help and support to find a job. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect parents of 3 year olds to work. I went back to work when my dc were 6 months old, as did most of my friends.

YouTheCat · 02/04/2014 07:23

Ruddy, are you a single parent? Do you have family support? Makes a huge difference as to whether you can work or not.

Maybe if there was a proper job at the end of it more people would find it a good idea. But there isn't a job because these companies send you off back to the job centre and bring in the next workfare person to take up the place.