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)

[PtolemysNeedle]

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.

That sounds like a bit of a flimsy argument, but I'd be prepared to listen to any evidence you can come up with that outcomes are better for children who have a SAHP until school age.

Unless you can prove that the vast majority of children really will be better off with a parent at home all day rather than being in childcare part or full time, then there is no valid reason why a government should pay for people to leave work to look after their own children.

[JassyRadlett]

Moonrise - that's not what UC will do. I may not agree with the way it's set up, but it's important to be accurate and not scare people unnecessarily. The below is from February.

Age one or two

If you aren’t already working, you will be asked to attend interviews to discuss plans for a future move into work. If you do choose to work, or are working already, Universal Credit will help to cover your childcare costs.

Age three or four

You will be expected to take active steps to prepare for work. What this involves will be agreed between you and your work coach and will depend on your circumstances, but might include some training and work-focused interviews. If you do choose to work, or are working already, Universal Credit will help cover your childcare costs.

There is a paucity of information on who's looking after the child during this activity, I agree about that.

[MoonriseKingdom]

I agree that it is not the equivalent of the requirements for the unemployed but it is more than that expected of SAHM parents previously. It will attract sanctions for failure to attend interviews. I also wanted to make the point that this is not a lone parent vs SAHM in a couple debate. Where UC is claimed it will apply to both scenarios.

[LotusLight]

Ghost said:
"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."
That is not true. Believe it or not plenty of we single mothers don't get a penny of housing benefit, tax credits or even child benefit. I have never even had help towards full time childcare costs.

[GoodbyeToAllOfThat]

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.



Good point.

[JassyRadlett]

Yes, I agree - but I'm not sure if it amounts to putting pressure on people to work once their child turns 1. That's all I was saying.

[JessBear123]

I for one feel the 30 hours between 3 and 4 years should start at a much earlier age but its a start.
Why shouldn't people in single parent families work?
No one is being forced to go back to work.

[LotusLight]

It all sounds very sensible to me and very wooly and easy to get out of - jsut being called in for chats and to plan.

[pollyisnotputtingthekettleon]

I was a sahm for a long time, my wages just didnt cover childcare costs. I wanted to go back to college. Single parents got free childcare and coarse paid for. I didnt. The Gov were happy to get those on benefits back to work so the bill went down. They didnt want sahm with a partner as that wouldnt alter the figures. Those on benefits also got free dental care free meals free etc which others didnt get. Same boat different rules.

[JassyRadlett]

It all sounds very sensible to me and very wooly and easy to get out of - jsut being called in for chats and to plan.

What sounds sensible on paper can be very different in practice depending on the Jobcentre in question, how they are performing against targets, and the nature of their management. How DWP structures the programme is also critical to whether it is supportive or punitive.

There is also the question of childcare, which is not covered in anything I've seen.

As an aside, I'm unclear how anything can be both sensible and woolly....

[PtolemysNeedle]

Child are is a big issue, but it's something that people need to think about before they conceive, or if their pregnancy was unplanned, consider before they decide to continue with it. People can't just expect to have babies willy nilly and then have other people not only pay for their child but for them as well.

Our responsibility to pay our own way in life, to house, feed and clothe ourselves, does not end as soon as a positive pregnancy test appears.

[morelikeguidelines]

I don't think they are trying to force the mums you speak of to work. Single parents they probably are trying to force back and there is probably a lot wrong with that.

They are also giving help to those to need to work for financial survival / stability.

But not trying to force sahps to work when there other half earns enough. Why would they? And how could they even if they wanted to?

[SouthernComforts]

Surely saying that the government 'force' mothers back to work when their child hits 2 is like saying employers force working mothers back after x months?

The government basically provide 2 years maternity pay. Pretty generous I think!!

I say this as a lone parent that worked 16-20 hours from 1-5yo and full time now dc is at school.

On the other hand, a family member left school at 16 with no quals, had 3 children in the following 10 years and now the youngest is 2 is thinking about getting a job. Erm.. in the nicest possible way she is going to struggle to find anyone to employ her with no gcses and no job history. What do the government do then? Genuine question.

[JessBear123]

But why is it wrong for them to go back to work when most working 2 parent families don't get a choice?

[NoRockandRollFun]

There is no policy to get mums ( why just mums eh?)of toddlers back to work. The Govt are proposing to increase the 3+ Free childcare from 15 to 30 hours. Three years olds are hardly toddlers. Go back to work, stay at home, up to you.

[Toofat2BtheFly]

Can we just wait and see what is announced before all the debate .

I know we will be affected somehow but the more I read the more of a nervous wreck I'm becoming ...

Can we wait for the actual facts before the scaremongering .

wishful thinking but it might not be that bad , I'm hoping

[NoRockandRollFun]

This policy
//www.gov.uk/government/news/government-brings-forward-plans-to-double-free-childcare-for-working-families

[Aermingers]

I certainly felt forced back to work. Because like a lot of women my partner doesn't earn enough for us to survive on one income.

But the governments position is that if your partner works they won't give you any help to stay home. They will only pay towards childcare. Basically they will pay anyone but me to look after my child. I take home after childcare about £75 a week, but that money is essential. If the money that was paid to the childminder was paid directly to me I'd be able to afford to stay home. Yet if I kicked my husband out tomorrow I could be paid to stay home.

It annoys me that these threads all end up' about 'poor hard done by single mothers' when actually they are given a huge amount of help to stay home which other women just don't get.

And as for the idea that this should go beyond five, and that they should be paid to stay home when their children are at school in the care of other people - that's just laughable.

[Aermingers]

NoRockAndRoll yes that's very nice. It's just 'up to you'. Yeah, I'll just quit my job and we'll just stop paying the rent and buying food. That'll work out brilliantly, why didn't I think of it before.

[NoRockandRollFun]

Yes aermingers it is up to you. Feel free to do those things, the government ( as the op seems to think) is not making mums go back to work. The policy does not state that, if you feel you should go back to work ( or perhaps you never stopped working ) to pay the bills etc. then this policy should surely help?

[NoRockandRollFun]

aer I do agree with you about paying anyone but me to look after my child It's daft.

[Aermingers]

But that's what I mean. The government's policy left me with no choice but to go back to work. It may be dressed up as 'helping' people go back to work, but in reality it's compelling them, because it has created a situation where you only have enough money to survive if you do so. I had no choice whatsoever.

[Hestheone]

I am a lone sahm on benefits,it wasn't by choice,the plan was my exdp would support us all on his wage after maternity leave,but we broke up and he quit his job so get no maintenance either.but I couldn't stay in a job where I would be out of the house for 40 hrs a week and putting my 7 month old dd2 in crèche/child minder for those 40 hrs to be bringing home a significantly lower wage than if I stay at home and care for my children myself,I fully intend to be back in the workforce as soon as is possible once she is in school,and will manage the childcare costs for school holidays etc somehow.

[toomuchtooold]

I agree OP. The increase to 30 hours of childcare for working parents is a big old subsidy to be giving over, it sends a pretty clear message that the government wants children to be looked after in childcare from an early age. PPs have said "you don't have to take a job and use the hours, nobody's forcing you" - well of course not, it's not the bloody DDR, we can't be forced to work - but the money that's being spent to provide this benefit is ours collectively and it's being used to tip the balance firmly in favour of going out to work.

I always think too, who is this for? If you earn enough money to cover childcare, why do you need it paid for in these days of austerity? And if you don't earn enough to cover childcare i.e. at or near minimum wage, why the hell are we sending you out to do a job that is economically less productive than looking after your kids? Looking after children is a skilled job, doesn't matter if it's your own or someone else's.

[NoRockandRollFun]

30 hours of free/subsidised childcare people! What you do during those 30 hours is your business, a paid job would seem like the most sensible option but it's not compulsory. Talking up those hours is also not compulsory. Am I being stupid? Are there any hidden cost/penalties?