To think a years unpaid carers leave and 2 weeks bereavement leave

[PlayOnWurtz]

Are great ideas but wonder how much it will cost and whether businesses will actually implement them?

The bereavement leave is great. I had to go off sick as I was entitled to only 3 days, and I kept bursting into tears at work. After 2 weeks off sick, I was fine to return. The most we can get ever is 5 days.

I agree with the poster Upthread who said

I think it's disgusting that empoyees, especially women, will then be even more expected to care for relatives

Totally. It's a double win for the government... not only would you have workers not being paid nor able to claim benefits, but they'd be doing the jobs of carers/nurses/hospital transport personnel etc.

Totally. It's a double win for the government... not only would you have workers not being paid nor able to claim benefits, but they'd be doing the jobs of carers/nurses/hospital transport personnel etc.

This, exactly!

I think it's disgusting that empoyees, especially women, will then be even more expected to care for relatives would they though? I can't imagine anyone forcing me to take a years unpaid leave because its available. I can't see care providers being able to refuse care because there's a woken somewhere who can just take a year off unpaid. If you don't want or can't afford to do it, you don't.

not only would you have workers not being paid nor able to claim benefits, but they'd be doing the jobs of carers/nurses/hospital transport personnel etc. again it suggests people will be forced into it. And you can claim carers. The other option is quitting work and still only getting carers and having redcurd options to get back into work in the future

I think its shocking that a business has to be forced to give anyone 2 weeks bereavement leave.
These types of benefits are standard in other countries such as Germany and their economies are doing quite well.

As for the carers leave, its the govt taking the piss again. They are only interested in you if you are rich or in work full time. Anyone else is frass.

Have you ever cared for anyone MommaGee, or been close to someone who has?

Because if it was as simple as just 'not wanting to do it', there wouldn't be hundreds of thousands of people running themselves into the ground out of love and duty to an ill or disabled relative.

And no you can't claim carers benefits if you're employed, even if you're not getting paid for that employment.

I don't think it's true that you can't get carer's allowance if you're employed and not getting paid. I was getting carer's allowance when I was working part time and earning £100 a week so being employed doesn't stop you from getting it (but then I had to drop my hours and it worked out much easier to stop working altogether and claim income support). For carer's allowance it's the amount you get in wages that is important, so if you aren't paid any wages then you should still qualify.

Have you ever cared for anyone MommaGee, or been close to someone who has? yeah, I am a carer. I had to quit to care for my son. I meant that those of us who have to do, because we have to. So an option to possibly return to work is a good one if you think you'll be better able to work in a years time.
However where there IS an option - parent going into care home or shared with relatives etc, so for people whose current option would be to work and share or pay for care, you still have that option. The "now we'll be expected to give up work to do it" doesn't make sense. I had no option, lots of us don't. But if you have the option to not, then you still get to make that decision

For carers you have to work under 10 hours a week I think it is / earn under £110. So if you're not being paid for a year you should be eligible

My employer allows a career break (up to two years) for any reason, which would include looking after a relative, and also gives compassionate leave of a week for a death of family member (but they use their right to not discipline if the employee needs to take longer off work and is signed off). Considering they are very harsh on employees that are off sick or under performing, it is a nice benefit to know you have. However, it is a big company and I don't see how it would be sustainable for a smaller one.

Most public sector organisations give a maximum of 1 week. And that is only for a parent or child. Everyone else is 3 days or 1 day for the funeral only.

I think it is a very good thing that the impact of the loss of a child will be recognised in statutory terms.

In my workplace, I was pretty surprised that I was only offered two weeks bereavement leave after the loss of my daughter. To realise that was a employment benefit, rather than mandated by law, shocked me to the core. Dh had to take annual leave and then return to work after our loss, and we hadn't even had the funeral yet.

And yes, the loss of a child is a very particular form of grief. I'm part of a number of support groups and some women just do not make it. I've known two women that have not been able to cope and have taken their lives. The nature of the loss is not just about grief but also a type of existential crisis; everything you understand about life just ruptures in a way that is very difficult to treat.

So I think this policy goes some way towards recognising this impact upon parents.

@christinarossetti does that clarify what I meant? I genuinely don't want to cause offense.

Also to those saying it unaffordable to have year off, what's the alternative that's more financially viable long and short term?

And yes, the loss of a child is a very particular form of grief. I'm part of a number of support groups and some women just do not make it. I've known two women that have not been able to cope and have taken their lives. The nature of the loss is not just about grief but also a type of existential crisis; everything you understand about life just ruptures in a way that is very difficult to treat

Not denying it, but other forms of grief / need to deal with real world events following a death are euqlly deserving of the leave.

I'm afraid not Momma, as caring for others isn't a simple yes I will/no I won't for so many people.

Social and family expectations and pressures, inadequate services leaving people feeling that they have no choice etc all force people, especially women, into a caring role not particularly by 'choice'.

You're right though that you can claim (taxable) carers' allowance if you earn less than £116 per week though.

It's not financially viable for most people to either take a year off or pay for care. That's the point. The revenue collected through taxes and NI should be being used to fund vital social care services.

Ok I'll try again.

Atm the option is to give up work and be a carer. If you think the case requirements will be less in a year, then you just have to start looking for work at that time.
With this the option is that if circs are different in a year you'll have a job to return to

If you're deciding what to do and have choices then job security for the future will be a consideration. It might be viable to do that for a year if you know you'll have a job to go back to. Not everyone had choices, most of us don't but ATM for example my friends Grandad has gone into a care home rather than one of them taking a year out to care for him. It would give their family an option even though it isn't applicable to my family.

If we're saying that they will cut care provision because of this policy then that is a different aruement.

That's it, they will use this policy to cut care provision.

Women take time out of the workplace to care (and it usually is women), thus 'proving' that the existing health and social care services aren't necessary because women are 'choosing' to take on these roles.

Women take time out of the workplace to care (and it usually is women), thus 'proving' that the existing health and social care services aren't necessary because women are 'choosing' to take on these roles.

I agree.

I can also see me coming under hugh pressure - as I've taken time out for the kids - to do same for older relatives especially as it would only be a year - then of course at end of year we'd have manged without money so then there would be pressure not to go back.

^ I totally get what you are all saying and I have managed caring responsibilities on a single wage for a few years now... I agree with you and think that any policy, as well as recognising multiple forms of care, should provide paid care as well as be coupled with gender critical initiatives that encourage men to take leave as well.

So, at work we have a situation where a key employee's wife has been/is being diagnosed with what looks like a brain tumour that has metasized into the bone. She is ageing, and has had heart and transplant surgery in the last two years. Her husband, the employee, WANTS to care for her. We have looked after him fairly and generously (we think), with all the compassionate days he has needed off for appointments and treatment, all fully paid without cutting into his holiday entitlement. He too is nearing retirement, without much of a pension to look forward too (overseas employment). We are also nearing retirement age, and need to plan for succession by bringing in a younger person. However, the business can't afford both the existing (well paid) employee and the salary that we would need to offer someone younger. How does a small family business do the right thing and continue? I would be really interested to know what other people would do in these circumstances as I am going round in ever decreasing small circles.

Does the current employee want to leave his job?

You say that he wants to care for his wife, but that will obviously involve him not being at work for a period of time. Is that what he would like to happen?

Yes, is the short answer, but he needs income. A complex solution has been suggested that would enable working from home, at the cost of taking on some debt to acquire a related business. Done right, it could be profitably sold on.