Am I being unreasonable to think that the Government's policy to make mums go back to work is misguided?

[mountaingoat]

Just interested in what mumsnetters think about this one. I've been a working mum and a SAHM so I have no axe to grind either way. It just strikes me that:
if mums want/ need to go back to work then they should be given every opportunity to do so. But, why should it be a policy that mums must go back to work? Why is it better for mums to go back to work? Surely it is just a matter of choice?
I would guess that Messrs Cameron and Osborne have (a) rarely spent a day looking after babies and pre-school age children and certainly not for months or years on end 24/7 - and actually have no idea what is involved; and (b) their experience of childcare for their own children is probably highly paid and qualified nannies or very smart nurseries. My kids have all been through nursery and there are wonderful nurseries out there. but there are also nurseries which are mediocre, and if there is a quick, ill thought out expansion of childcare provision, there will be more mediocre nurseries out there for sure. Why is it better for a mum of pre-school age children to leave them in a nursery with a crowd of other toddlers being looked after by a teenager with an NVQ2 in childcare, than to stay at home and look after her own children until they do go to school?
I don't want this to turn into a wm v sahm thread (yawn)
also, I'm talking about situations where one parent is working to pay for the family and the other parent is staying at home to do the childcare. Not talking about families where no-one is working and they are expecting to stay at home with the kids and for the state to fund it (think these people mainly exist only in the minds of Daily MAil journalists anyway)

[MrsNextDoor]

Connie you're stating the obvious. The difficulties which will be faced when lone parents are forced to take any job going will be huge. There will be sanctions for those who don't...and again...what will these (generally low earners) do during school holidays? They won't be able to afford clubs and playschemes.

[morage]

I think all parents should be able to have one parent at home, if they want, until a child is old enough to go to school.

[llammallamamissesmama]

These threads always start off theoretical, voicing opinions and end up being personal. It's such a shame. I wish everyone could share their ideas and we could debate them and share our experiences respectfully. Maybe it's because it's written, not spoken so comments can appear snarky. As I've said, huge contentious issue, it's always get heckles bristling.

[elderflowerlemonade]

MrsNextDoor, if the lone parent has a source of income that allows her to stay at home, she can do so.

She is not entitled to benefits allowing her to do so indefinitely.

[tobysmum77]

I just dont agree with that morage.

In terms of holiday clubs etc it isn't impossible to provide some level of assistance. Of course it is complex because some people have more family support, some dc will be on holiday with their other parent at some point and some people have nothing.

[keeptothewhiteline]

It unsettles me because it undermines the very important job of nurturing young children.
And also undermines the important work of those who care for them- whether it is SAHM, childminders or nursery staff.
By all means I think there should be support for mothers who go back to work soon after having kids, but we need to keep choices open.
Lets provide more help for young adults to get into work, the long term unemployed, or those who are forced to retire earlier than they would prefer.
Lets find ways of making it easier to get parents back into the workplace if they have taken time off to care for kids.
Lets tackle youth unemployment.
There are plenty people in society who could contribute to the wealth of the country without pressuring women who are already doing a valuable job in caring for their babies.

[MrsNextDoor]

Jassy I will try to find a link. In the meantime I have found an interesting blog which points out some of the issues which will be faced...here's an eg.

a lone parent with two children, working 15 hours a week, earning £10,000 a year, with childcare costs of £2,600 a year, is currently entitled to approximately £6,105 child tax credit a year. She would get this for her children even if she was not working, but because she is not doing enough hours, cannot get any further help from the working tax credit or the childcare element. She does not meet the Gateway conditions for universal credit in the current stage of introduction, so cannot claim the potentially more generous help available through that. If she applies for tax-free childcare, she will be able to get £520 from the government to top up payments of £2,080 that she makes from her wages into a childcare account to cover her annual childcare costs. But she would stand to lose all her £6,105 child tax credit. She should be warned of this risk before claiming, and she should be able to switch back, but this is likely to cause a gap or delays in payments at the very least.

[elderflowerlemonade]

It only pressures them if they are reliant on benefits in order to stay at home. If they are staying at home because of a spouses salary or another independent source of income there is no pressure and they can stay home indefinitely. Otherwise, they are required to work.

[32percentcharged]

I dislike the way some people refer to the 'valuable job of looking after children' as if this is somehow being threatened.

Raising children to become emotionally well adjusted, confident and successful adults is of course hugely important... But it isn't the preserve of women and neither is it the preserve of women who give up work for x number of years.
We all benefit from children who grow up to be happy and successful, but let's not kid ourselves that the only way that happens is when a parent doesnt work

[keeptothewhiteline]

Who said that 32?

[Alfieisnoisy]

I have always worked and when DS was born it was with the plan to go back to work which I did when he was six months. We had enough money saved to see us through that six months but financially after that I needed to go back to work...I wanted to go back to work too. Initially part time but once DS reached three I was working pretty much full time as the breadwinner. ExDH was also full time but was able t spend two days at home during the week rather than at weekends which meant we only needed three days of childcare instead of five.

For me work was a necessity for my own sanity and I definitely feel better in work than out of work. Adult conversation for a start, plus the satisfaction of achieving things and a good salary.

Currently I am a Carer and it drives me mad sometimes. Have tried going back to work recently and it was just impossible. I managed it for seven months and then had a mini stroke which nobody can explain beyond stress.

My employer was not too happy about time off for appointments etc for my son either.

But work is sanity, and freedom and self reliance and adult conversation. It's bliss.

[JassyRadlett]

Thanks MrsNext. By the way, I'm not suggesting that things aren't horribly tough for many lone parents or that their aren't ridiculous anomalies in the system, like the one you've mentioned above.

I just haven't been able to find much on what you're saying about 2 year olds, or links to the new set of funded hours for working parents which I think is what OP was mainly referring to (hence my suggestion that the hours change makes no difference to those who currently want to SAH).

Anyway, keen to learn more so thanks in advance.

[yetanotherchangename]

"There are plenty people in society who could contribute to the wealth of the country without pressuring women who are already doing a valuable job in caring for their babies."

^^ This.

[conniedescending]

Or lone parent could work full time rather than 15 hrs and take advantage of the new 30 hrs free education, using tax credits to pay for the rest of the child care.

They could Work hard to develop themselves during this period and progress in career so by the time children are at school they can afford wrap around care and holiday clubs. If they save throughout the year the costs for holiday clubs can be spread.

If they choose their work and role wisely they may have moved to a career that encourages flexible working/ working at home so they will have more options in the school holidays.

By the time children are at secondary school and more independent they'll be in a solid career with prospects.

They may have decided to become self employed instead, by childminding for example so can stay at home, earn and build a business. Outcome when children are at secondary school is the same as above.

Or they could sit at home on benefits and when children are at secondary school they'll be starting from the bottom rung with a 15 year void to try to explain?

Parents who work nurture their children too btw

[elderflowerlemonade]

But the nursery places available for working parents are for children ages 3 and above - not babies.

I am a SAHM but even I am able to see that crippling childcare costs are a huge issue in preventing women who might want to returning to work - and it is usually women who are adversely effected by this.

It used to be the case that single parents with a child aged twelve or younger were not required to seek any form of paid work. That was I feel a rather misinformed idea - not only did it extend and bloat the amount of time someone was reliant on benefits it effectively made them practically unemployable when they were required to return to work.

[RufusTheReindeer]

I think it would be nice in threads of this type if we changed the words "benefits" to the word "help"

For what it's worth on another thread I was shocked to see how high some peoples wages were and they were still receiving help (tax credits) but I think that people who are on low incomes, single parents etc should receive help (benefits...financial or otherwise) as much as possible

[Kampeki]

The government isn't saying that anyone must go back to work. It is a choice, it's just not a choice that matters so much it's worth the taxpayer paying for it. It's a luxury choice, that should be paid for by the only people it affects or benefits.

^^This.

And I get that it's hard for single parents, but I don't think anyone has the right to stay at home with their kids. It's a luxury and not a necessity. Many married parents don't have the option of staying at home either.

[Sleepybeanbump]

The govt policy is definitely skewed in favour of working mothers. The nursery provision vs the tax arrangements that favour two income families over a single income family earning exactly the same overall makes that perfectly clear. And it's not right. It should be about enabling choice, not forcing people's hands.

[claraschu]

I think that the problem is deep in society's attitudes. I do feel SAHPs are not valued enough and are often made to feel less worthy than someone earning lots of money.

I also feel that young people are not educated enough about the extreme challenges facing single parents (and indeed couples). In general, we need much better sex and relationship education from a very young age. Sex, relationships and birth control/abortion should be a normal topic, not a source of mystery and embarrassment. I personally feel that abortion should be seen as the normal and acceptable solution to an unwanted pregnancy. I also feel that young women should not be told that pregnancy is a simple matter of "your body: your choice"; in the bigger picture, pregnancy is an almost insignificant part of the huge responsibility of raising a child. I don't think young people talk and think enough about this complex subject, which leads to a situation where many people are having kids without thinking it through in a realistic way.

Older women who desperately want kids, have thought about it for years, and plan to be single parents are not the issue here.

[formidable]

Christ I'm glad I'm a working lone parent outside of the UK.

Here I get subsidised childcare - 100 quid a month for 45 hours a week.

Enables me to work full time, provide a nice home for my child, clothes, holidays.... we have a lovely life.

No bloody way would I come back to the UK to take my chances!

[ghostspirit]

it sounds like op is saying you should be able to stay at home if partner is working. if you can afford it. so if your a single parent should not have the right to stay at home with child? unless on quite a high wage. is mum not claiming tax credits to allow her to stay at home with the child?

[Sleepybeanbump]

Actually, looking at it economically it's not straightforwardly only a positive thing to have more people in work. One of the side effects of the move towards the norm of two income households has been the rise in the cost of living which now makes life harder for single income families than it was 30 or more years ago. Encouraging / pushing more and more women back into the workplace will exacerbate this.

I am a feminist, and I'd rather have women able to work if they want to, but it's a complex thing and nothing is black and white.

[pinkdelight]

"many families choose one parent to stay at home...with their child. How are lone parents to have that choice?"

But it's not the government who has given them that choice. It's the financial situation of the family. I don't see how it suddenly becomes the government's responsibility to give lone parents that choice beyond the first two years.

There are many choices that families with more money - whether together or lone parents - can afford to make that those with less money can't afford, on many levels. I'm not saying it's fair, but I do find myself agreeing with elder on this.

And the summer holidays are a nightmare for all working parents, lone or not.

[whois]

No one is forcing you to work, if you can afford not to.

I can't afford not to work. I don't see why lone parents should be funded to stay at home anything past school age.

[Tryharder]

The Government policy to help working mums recognises that most families require 2 incomes these days to survive.

If you're 'lucky' to be supported by a man who earns a good income, then you have the 'choice' to SAH or WOH.

Single mothers no longer get the choice to spend the rest of their lives on benefits. That's 'austerity' for you. Some might argue that's bad, some good

I used to work with someone (at Tescos) who was very cross at having been forced back to work. She was a single mother of one 16 year old NT boy. She would only work school hours as she felt her son needed her otherwise. That's nice but why should the taxpayer support that?