To think she should look for work?

[Daisydoodo]

my sister is on the migration from tax credits to universal credit. Her husband works and earns around £25k a year and does not aspire to earn anymore she has 6 children 3 over 16 and 3 5-16years she was complaining today that she may be expected to start looking for work when she migrates and how she thinks it’s unfair as she is only just getting her life back now the 5yo is in full time school. AIBU to tell her to get a grip and get a job? I feel awful for saying it but it’s getting on my nerves as I was expected to return after 6 months mat leave. Should the UC system force her to look for work

@ClairDeLaLune well done to your brother 👏 👏

I really don't understand why someone with a partner has lower work requirements than a single parent. With a partner you have the option to work evenings or weekends.

Absolute piss take.

Have as many kids as you want. If you're paying for them.

All these criticism of the OP sister when to me, it looks like she's actually made the smart choice. I'm assuming the ops sister and her husband are low skilled. So if she had worked all these years it would also be in a minimum wage job. Adding up the money, she might end up marginally better off, or worse off if you add in travel costs and the loss of other benefits like fsm. For this she would no doubt be working really hard (as low wage people always do) with little autonomy and trying to squeeze everything else in around a job she likely hates.

The problem is the system. That people working minimum wage job can't afford to live. I bet the sister would have got a job long ago if it had brought financial benefits for the family. And as for being lazy, I doubt it if she's got six kids.

One question though. Where does she live OP? Has she got a tiny house with them all squeezed in?

Wouldn’t we all love to not have to work. Unfortunately life doesn’t happen like that for most people so yes she should look for a job. Most people have to go back to work within a year of having a baby, she should count herself lucky to have had five years off since her last one.

I agree with this.

.

Surely getting back into the workplace IS getting her life back? Isn’t that what that means?

I mean it would be great to have kids at school and have that time as totally free time, in which I include things like housework as it’s what I do in alot of my free time, but unless you’re independently minted, you can’t do that.

But the husband is part of the household so he does need to take part in caring for his own home and children.

Plus that “hardest job in the world” but refers to the time when they are babies and toddlers, and there all the time. Once they’re at school, it’s no longer the hardest job in the world (I mean it never was literally but it can be very hard) and it’s reasonable to expect people to look for work. Find to leave it a few weeks to get a bit of a rest but as a long term thing it’s not reasonable.

Even if she worked, most of it will be on childcare as the older children need to study for A levels abd GCSEs.

There is a deep disdain of SAHP even when they don't claim benefits they are looked down for letting feminism down and relying on a man, for not being a good role model ...etc
But it's 100x worse when they are claiming benefits.

I bet none of those posters mind middle class sports injuries costing the NHS or the environmental impact their frequent holidays, home swimming pools and 4x4s cause. It's only when a poorer family wants to exercise their HUMAN RIGHT to have a family and put it first within government rules that posters love to judge.

If you don't like the rules of the system, use your votes or campaign for change.

And the comment on the children ending up just like their parents, that is not necessarily true and if it were true or most likely then isn't the sister a victim, a product of her own circumstances and deserves kindness and support to break the cycle? No, it's more fun to demonise and name call her. 6 kids and lazy? Sure ok.

we all know or have heard of rich spoilt children born to self made parents, if the rich kids success that's mostly down to nepotism. The problem is that this society looks down on family values and the importance of a solid family unit and absolutely worships money.

It's part of the system to demonise SAHP and shame benefits users to coerce them back into
Meanwhile our children are raised by strangers, getting obese, lonely and cyber bullied because both parents are run ragged by a job who will toss you out any minute.

Lastly, dogs issues are absolutely not the same. Dangerous dogs kill and maim. They are bred for tossers who gloat in having a danger dog. I hope the law gets even stricter on dogs and their owners.

Ah thank you for clarifying (and another poster who responded)

Would be nice for the OP to confirm whether the person is question is in receipt of anything like that, but I think this thread is just for creating froth.

She is being unreasonable. Being a SAHP with school aged children is a luxury, and the state will not fund this.

That being said, I don't believe she is lazy. But maybe a little out of touch which perhaps isn't unusual with being out of the workplace for so long.

It's only when a poorer family wants to exercise their HUMAN RIGHT to have a family and put it first within government rules that posters love to judge.

It’s everyone’s human right to have a family. It’s not your human right to want taxpayers to fund it so you can not work. If you want to stay home; fine, just don’t expect working people to fund it forever.

Nah, you're looking at this too deeply.

I just don't agree with people having children they can't afford. We're not talking about people whose lives have changed beyond recognition due to circumstances outside of their control, we're talking about a woman who has chosen to have 6 kids who cannot afford to care for them without claiming benefits. That's a lifestyle choice. A responsible adult would not choose to have 6 children if she knew she would have to use tax money to feed & clothe them. It's the very definition of irresponsible.

And to all the people criticising the husband for doing low paid work. Requiring people to 'get a better, high paid job' this attitude is part of the problem with society. People doing low paid work are almost always doing essential and hard work to keep society running. They deserve respect and recognition for this and to be able to afford a decent standard of living not a life on top up benefits and poverty. As a society we would miss bin men and supermarket shelf stackers a lot more than brain surgeons and astronauts. The point is we need them all though. The solution isn't paying people more benefits, it's to get the 0.01% to stop hoarding all the profits, that their workers make for them, for themselves.

There is no human right to have a child. Otherwise, us infertile women who aren't eligible for adoption could sue someone for breach of our human rights.

Even setting aside the law, nobody has a right to bring another human being into the world. If you're not able to adequately care for (emotionally, financially, or otherwise) a vulnerable human being then you have no right to produce one.

You have the freedom to have a child and nobody can stop you from doing it even if the child is likely looking forward to 18 years of abuse or neglect, but that isn't the same thing.

@ElevenSeven having a child is not a human right.

When I had five children under 11 at home I still managed to work weekend evenings and earn some money

She won't be getting benefits for the youngest child as assuming they are 5 by the age description in first post which means they were born after the 2 child limit. The older 3 who are 16+ will be approaching the cut off age for child benefits in the next few years. So, quite soon they will have 3 children/young adults who they cannot claim for. What will they do then? I suppose they will tell them to claim jobseekers element of UC or whatever young people can get and contribute to the household costs if they stay at home, or are they likely to get jobs considering the examples they have been set?

It's not really your business whether she looks for work - I don't think it's up to anyone else to say what she 'should' do. But she shouldn't be moaning about it to you and she sounds pretty lacking in self-awareness if she doesn't realise how badly she's coming across! So I can see why you're annoyed at her going on about it.

Why would they not be likely to get jobs? Their father works and their mother is a SAHM. Do you think that all children with a SAHP don't get jobs?

Yes, these ‘lifestyles’ often run to 2 or 3 generations.

Lol at middle classes having frequent holidays and home swimming pools.
There is no "human right" that states you must be able to have 6 kids at other people's expense.

It's not a HUMAM RIGHT to have six children you can't afford! You reckon these kids are so well looked after......

Yeah loads of time to parent six kids! But they decided it was their right to have someone 6 kids, so if they're working all day, either in or out of the home.... it's a life choice that they chose.

Part of the problem here is that jobs are so badly paid, that people need to be topped up with benefits. And housing/general cost of living isn't proportional to what people can earn in many jobs.

That said, I do understand the resentment people feel towards working full time and cutting their own mat leave short or having fewer kids than they'd ideally like, and then seeing people be supported by the state when those people have clearly had more children than they can reasonably afford.

It's also a problem that the people who work hardest aren't always the best paid - it's so often luck of the draw whether you end up earning well or not and is nothing to do with working harder or being more capable or making wiser choices.