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)

[NRomanoff]

No one is being forced back to work. The policy helps people who want to return to work, do so. There isn't anywhere that it says people MUST take up the 30 hours child care. There are many people who don't have the choice to go back to work because of child care costs. This will help them.

I am horrified if single par ta of 2 years olds are being forced to work, or will be under the new rules. Can some one link where it says this as I have not seen to form a full opinion.

[PtolemysNeedle]

I am a single parent, I was a single parent when my children were small, I still don't see how anyone think they have the right to SAH and have that paid for by other people. Especially at times like this when our education and healthcare systems aren't being funded as well they should, it baffles me why anyone thinks they are so important that they should be fully funded to stay at home looking after their own children.

I think there should be far more done to provide subsidised childcare for babies and young children, and I think far more should be done to ensure that NRPs contribute to the costs of raising their children, by them paying the government back for any extra benefits their ex gets as a result of being alone. But there is absolutely no way that SAHPs are so valuable to society that society should have to pay for it.

[CatOfTheGreenGlades]

The sooner we start talking about parents in this context instead of mums, the better.

When people have kids they can be faced with the problem that childcare is so expensive that it's a financial loss to work. If they want to work rather then be on benefits in that situation, I think it's important that the state helps - by subsidising childcare and legislating a living wage (not that this govt would do that...)

If people want a parent to be at home with their DC because they think that's better than having them in childcare, that's reasonable IMO. No one who has small DC to look after should be forced to leave them in a childcare setting by the govt. I would have thought this "small state" govt would agree with that too. Encouragement, and making it easier to do so, is different.

It is not mums go go around having kids and setting up this intractable problem, those selfish mums. It's humans who have kids and who are jointly responsible for them.

[morage]

I don't think staying at home with your children until they reach school age, should be a luxury choice only open to the well off.

[PtolemysNeedle]

Why not morage? What is it that makes having children and being a SAHM so important to society that society should pay for it?

[formidable]

well it's not morage.

Anyone can do it if they don't mind living on benefits and being poor.

[GoodbyeToAllOfThat]

I don't think staying at home with your children until they reach school age, should be a luxury choice only open to the well off.

My husband and I are relatively well-off, we both have advanced degrees and big jobs (although I've stepped back a bit). I was back at work at 7 months with my oldest and a year with my youngest - the latter a project in Stockholm. I didn't do this for the love of the job, I can assure you.

The people who like to stay out of the job market for 10 or 12 years in the name of nurturing their children are the same ones who you'll find complaining about their lack of job prospects when they're "forced" to find employment i.e. their benefits are restructured.

[Alfieisnoisy]

I cannot deny that the first few years of parenting were poor ones financially, even then we were better off in work than on benefits. I think people SHOULD have the opportunity to work and experience that same feeling of having the money to pay bills that you know you have earned.

There's a strange satisfaction in getting paid one day, watching the bills get paid and knowing you have the rest to live on and enjoy .

One of my friends is from Lithuania, she is aghast at how we do things here and says that in her country parents HAVE to work unless there is a disability and that parent is a Carer. There are no child related benefits at all

My cousins in Switzerland tell me the same about their country, a child is lovely but it's considered a family matter and the family are expected to support the child....and that includes the extended family too.

[morage]

I am talking about children who are not old enough to go to school. In many cases children will do better at home than in a mediocre nursery. That is why the Government should ensure all families can have one parent staying at home until school age, if they want to.
If you are better off, you will be able to afford good quality care.

[GoodbyeToAllOfThat]

That is why the Government should ensure all families can have one parent staying at home until school age, if they want to.

It's been this way until recently. I can see the effects all around me from a particularly deprived estate in proximity to my house, women start having children very young and space them out so that they're never without one under 5. Surely you can see the problem with this policy?

[morage]

Alfie - My friend who lives in Switzerland was aghast at how little childcare there is and the very poor quality of the little childcare that existed. Children seem to be taken care of by a SAHM or extended family. Extended family is important in Switzerland. But in reality, not everyone has extended family that they can, or would be willing to leave their young children with.

[popalot]

They want you to go to work to pay taxes, simples. The more women working, the more money in the bank.

[VeryPunny]

I agree - I think that we are beginning to hold up the idea of both parents back at work for most of the time when children are still young as the norm, and I don't like it. It means that spending time with your young family is going to become the preserve of the rich and middle class.

We should support families by tax breaks, subsisdies or what have you, but it should be down to the parents as to whether or not they want to use those benefits for childcare or to support one parent to work less (or not at all) outside the home. Parents staying at home with children fulfil a valuable role, which I supsect the Govt. doesn't like because they can't find a way to tax it.

[ghostspirit]

oh yeah im sort of on the fence. i think every mum or dad should be able to stay at home until their child is school age. after that i think parents should work. but there should also be more help so parents can work. ie free/affordable childcare. i still dont understand why is 30 hours free childcare is only given to people with 3-4 year old. what about people with younger children that want to work but cant afford to due to childcare.

i dont think its just single parents but 2 parent familys as well should anyone be funded to stay at home after school age? i dont know

it also sometimes cost more to put a parent into work in some cases. ie in a low paid job: HB still being paid/child tax/working tax/70% of childcare being paid. probably cheaper to stay at home in some cases?

[MoonriseKingdom]

www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/48897/universal-credit-full-document.pdf

This is not just about lone parents. Couples who are currently receiving benefits such as CTC and housing benefits will also have requirements to meet under Universal Credit.

This document suggests that if you are either a lone parent or the lead carer (ie SAHM) in a couple and your child is age 1-5 years you will fall under the category of keeping in touch with the job market. This will require you to attend work focused interviews with threats of sanctions.

When UC comes in many people currently claiming CTC, WTC, HB etc where only one partner works (or even when one partner works FT and the other part time) are going to get a shock to find the government is targeting them too.

[MoonriseKingdom]

If you are the SAHM in a couple receiving UC when your youngest child reaches 5 the full JSA requirements to actively seek work will also hit. I think there will also be pressure on people working part time and claiming UC to seek more hours.

[Pippin16]

Ive often thought that government policy shouldn't be focused on a clear cut WP or SAHP divide, but in encouraging companies to be more receptive to job share/ part time/ working from home. Im currently attempting to work out a flexible working policy with my work as i'm due back in 3 months. If i succeed it will be the first time in 25 years they will have done anything like this. Im genuinely surprised they are even considering it to be frank given my experience of them. Im lucky enough to be in a situation where i can be a SAHM running my own business if they say no, but i appreciate this is not the case for anyone. I admit i never really gave much thought to lone parents (not much experience) but this thread has made me think more about the issues they face. It also convinces me even more that the government should be working more at making flexible options more attractive to companies. I get the argument for your child look after it but lets be honest its never that simple is it.

[SomewhereIBelong]

I am for now a SAHM - or "housewife" or "voluntary sector worker" or "part time carer" or some combination of the above, not sure how I define myself really...

No one has told me I need to work for money.

I claim nothing - since despite being told I am wonderful, needed, helping out in ways that are totally invaluable, my DH thankfully earns enough to keep us.

[Ange80]

But why should couples feel guilty just because of single parents being well, single? It's about the household in itself and I think that each household should have at least one working parent were possible but if a household only consists of one parent then that parent should go out to work, sorry.

[LotusLight]

1. Nothing does children most good as high mother's income really. Child outcomes can be predicted based on income. One of the best things you can do for your child is work in higher paid work.
   

1. It ensures girls are not brought up with a role model that women are a domestic servant who provide sex (if the husband is lucky) cleaning and childcare in return for women being kept. It is morally and politicalyl better if women work and indeed out earn their husband. I enjoyed earning 10x what mine did. It rocks! It has meant I paid for 5 children at private school from 3 - 18, that they could graduate without any student loans or debts and can be helped to buy a first property. If you become a housewife you usually cannot achieve that.
   

1. It makes for fairer more equal marriages as neither parent is burdened with the domestic sphere only.
   

1. It tends to ensure in the 50% of couples where there is a divorce that the wife has a full time wage and can support the family whereas after divorce if there is only one family income the family is usually screwed.
   

All kinds of other reasons, not least that children knowing several loved adults - father, mother, granny, child minder, nanny tend to do better than just one 24/7 mother influence. None of us is perfect so it is best to have that dilution of influence and love is infinite so having several people who love you is better for the baby or toddler.

It's deadly dull at home and domestic drudgery and no one thanks you for it. If it were such fun at home men would be rushing to do it. Avoid staying home like the plague for the good of you and of your children.

[ghostspirit]

couples should not feel guilty because a single parent is single. but the single parent should still be able to stay at home just like a couple. if they want to.

light for me im not educated enough to get a high paid job and to be able to pay for my kids to go private school etc. But i have a low paid job and it is a very basic job but i do feel so much better in myself for doing it.

also weather a stay at home mum of couple or single stay at home mum benefits or not. might be very hard getting a job after being at home for so long

[Ange80]

No not neccesarily. If say in the couple where the man works and the woman stays at home then they may rely partly on tax credits, but for a single parent to be at home then they will rely solely on benefits, how is that a good thing?

[ghostspirit]

ange but then a single parent still relys on benefits if at work as well. ie working tax/childtax/hb/council tax/70% of childcare.

it cost less for the govenment if the single parent stays at home.

[flora717]

I am a SAHM. I receive no benefits. At all. I (like many mums in my position) also volunteer at school to pick up the shortfall of funding for childcare/ education and for families where their financial planning for their family was hit hard by a change in circumstances.
Blaming others because somehow you buy the propaganda if only they'd work harder it would all be fine is misguided at best.
Wages appear to be the issue.
This government does not appear to be interested in that. Nor are they motivated to collect taxes the public purse are owed from companies and businesses.

[MoonriseKingdom]

Ange if you look at the document I posted above any parent of children over 1 who claim UC will have requirements related to job seeking.

Under UC the government regards all benefits claimants as the same. I really think this will be a shock to some who currently look down on the unemployed without acknowledging that the benefit system is allowing them to be a SAHM or work part time.

I personally feel that it is wrong to be putting pressure on people to work once their child is 1 if there is no widespread provision of decent, affordable childcare. It is also a problem that jobs are increasingly requiring people to be available to work evenings, weekends etc when child care provision is very limited. I often work 12 hour shifts (9-9 day or night shifts). If my DH wasn't around to provide evening or night child care I can't imagine what I would do.