Or is this not ageist

[daisyinthemeadow]

Watching wanted a very personal assistant, disabled people looking for carers.

They all say they want someone young.

Aibu in thinking this is ageist?

well I would want a youngish person for my adult disabled child.
why would a 20 yr old want a 40 yr old(example)to be their carer, they spend a lot of time together

If a parent has 2 children both with SEN and has her own limitations when it comes to movement and needs help taking children to the park etc so if one the dc legs it the carer can chase after them, she is not going to employ someone who is less mobile tha herself is she!
I know several teensgers that are employed using direct payment 2 or 4 hours a week to look after other teens. . One girls job was to take a girl with ds shopping or do teen things with her at the weekend etc
It's common sense

Why wouldn't a carer be mobile?

I don't think the pay day company is a fair comparison. You would obtain a post for a pay day company knowing exactly what it entailed, whereas responding to an ad for a carer wouldn't automatically lead people to assume that it would involve wandering around a red light district.

I think my disquiet came from the fact that the young people were looking for a friend. I understand that. But the 'friend' couldn't say 'actually, I'm not okay with that, I don't feel like s boozy night out, I disagree with prostitution' because they were the employee.

That's bound to be uncomfortable for both parties.

I do know someone who wants to be a carer in the case above and she has a limp and cant walk fat but wants to care for an active child that is liable to bolt

In that one case then that would be reasonable but most people over 25 are perfectly mobile as a rule

But why would a young teenager want someone 25+ to go shopping with when there are experienced teens like my dd and her friends that will do the same. Another tern i know takes a boy to the gym or a sports base

daisy I disagree, and think it is a perfectly fair comparison. You seemto be saying that because people (you? some of the people on a documentary?) were ignorant of what this specific job might entail that's a problem. Most sensible people would find that out before committing to a job. And the rest would learn quite quickly and may decide it's not for them after all.

Where the employer and employee are both inexperienced, yes, they may both have a steep learning curve, which results in one of them ending the arrangement. And that's okay/life!

Bruffin, my concern is that being a carer employed through direct payments is a job, like any other, and whilst I can understand why a young person might want another young person to work for them, that's not the issue so much as employment law (which states to discriminate against someone because of their age is wrong) can not only be ignored but in a manner that is open and honest about that.

It's because that is ignored that I wonder what else is ignored and, it seems, quite a lot.

If you are 19 and employ another 19 year old to work for you - great - and then, as happened on the programme, you go for a night out and there's a nasty fall and both parties have had too much to drink to make sensible decisions. Where does fault/blame lie?

It seems that the person employing the carers can dictate what he or she wants and that's fine so long as it is reasonable. I don't think the red light district example was reasonable and I think drinking and expecting your carer to join in is a bit unreasonable as well.

It's a worry for me for reasons I won't go into.

I don't think it's so much a case of not knowing what they are getting into: more that this can change so much on a daily basis that it could be impossible to really know or make any sound estimates.

The problem is, it's easy to say 'they (the carer) can leave.' They can in theory but which of us can just walk away from a job, especially a job involving a vulnerable adult, at a moments notice? Aside from the fact if they subsequently needed to claim benefits they would not be able to.

I think it is an area that needs looking at and tightening up otherwise I think it is open to exploration and abuse at both sides.

You can have positive discrimination though the want a carer/Pa that they get along with and if that is somebody their own age then it isnt asking a lot really a P A is somebody who works along side somebody so they can live their life not a carer who looks after them iyswim.

Understandable - but is it wise?

If you've had so much to drink you can't safely look after yourself, never mind the other?

If you get in at 2 am and have to manage a hoist/complex toileting needs after a heavy night out?

They wouldn't need a carer if they didn't require some "looking after" would they?

I guess they will have been interviewed and vetted and are meant to be responsible at work because it is a job. My sister goes on holiday nights out shopping etc for the person she works for she has been working as a carer PA since she was 18 she has never been pissed at work, tbf if a person has a SN that they need a carer P A then they have other people to help them employ somebody, im not naive though and exploitation can and does happen but who is to say an older person wont exoloit too.

I'm not saying that it wouldn't, just that I feel in permitting employment laws to be lax or even non existent, it's meaning that the work is not regulated and therefore open to abuse on both sides.

Ive just downloaded both episodes to watch i was just commenting generally iyswim

There are exceptions to discrimination law - personal care is one of them. You can state you don't want a male HCP to do your smear, and you can specify a male teenage actor to play a male teenager.

As regards the drinking buddy, prostitute-finding, best friend, carer role: I agree these lines are too blurred and expectations are skewhiff.

Well i just watched both programmes i thought francessca handled amsterdam really well there was some awkward moments though but they both handled it well tbh i can see why the disabled people didnt want an older person and surely there views on who they employ is more important than them being agiest it was an experimental programme to see how both parties got on .