Working expectations for parents on UC

[BlackCatGreyWhiskers]

AIBU to find this really frustrating? Basically there is no expectation for parents to work until their child is age 3. So if a family has more than one child that could be several years.

Whereas maternity leave is only 9-12months.

Especially as universal credit claimants can actually get help towards childcare expenses.

I don’t understand why there is a mismatch between the employed and unemployed?

When I went back after maternity, my pay was around £1500 and my childcare £800, then after I went back with my second my childcare went up to £1200. So I earnt next to nothing for 5 years before the eldest started school.

Why are you expecting me to enlighten you on how you formed your opinion of something you mentioned? Is it because you don't actually know that much about the German system overall and are trying to back track?

Also it doesn’t make sense you saying there is an expectation for employed mothers to go back to work. That’s between you and your husband. The government doesn’t care what you do! My friend is a stay at home mum to an 8 year old as her husband funds this. On the other hand I’ll need to go back when my son is 3 years old I have no choice as I am claiming UC so will be forced. You however could stay off if your husband agreed, the job centre won’t force you back into a low paid job.

It's not shitty.

Op thinks that those on UC are better off and is giving her "woe is me" attitude because she only had a year off work.

She has the option to do it to, so there's no need for jealousy.

Obviously she won't because she knows she's better off working, but admitting that doesn't quite kick off the same benefits bashing, which is clearly what she wanted in the first place.

Getting a contracted job for starters and not relying on a zero hours contract job.

I completely agree with the original post. We need more people actively contributing to the economy, not taking advantage of the system. Being out of work for three years and relying solely on state support shouldn't be considered acceptable — it’s not beneficial for the individual, their family, or the wider economy.
Long-term dependence on government aid can reduce the chances of re-entering the workforce and sets the wrong example for children. Choosing to have children is a personal decision, and with that comes the responsibility to provide for them. It’s not something the government should be expected to fund indefinitely.
Yes, the system is far from perfect and needs serious reform, which is no easy task. But I’m genuinely shocked at how many users here seem to think it's fine to have no job and no economic contribution. It's frustrating to see this mindset becoming so common.

@4pmwinetimebebehholiday clubs are only free for children on fsm here. If you work but get UC you pay.

Yes, because it's that simple.🫣* *

Two low earners equals £48,000 a year so we were fine to have two children thank you

@Gettingfitat41 I don’t judge anyone for claiming UC and I also wouldn’t want to see benefits abolished altogether. What I’d like and what I think I’ve made clear, is to have had the same opportunity not to work whilst my children were preschool aged with the same protection afforded to me. So it was a choice rather than just which had most negatives.

I mean, that’s a very low amount for a family of 4. Choices were made.

You have had the same opportunity.
Other households are only getting UC because their household income is low enough to need support. Yours clearly wasn't low enough.

I agree OP.

There’s no policy or legislative protections for women to leave work and return on the same wage, or retain their jobs for a period of 3 years. Conversely, UC claimants retain their income and are expected to begin to LOOK for work when their child turns 3.

Most of this thread makes no sense.

OP, your argue that you would be ‘better off’ on UC but in reality you wouldn’t because you probably have a partner earning and if you put an actual claim in you may well get nothing. Assuming their earning is a reasonable amount. Or indeed, you are very likely to get less than £300. So you would not be ‘better off’.

Claims are done by household not by individual. To get an actual idea of what you might get on UC you can use an online calculator and put in your partners income then see what you might get.

You could both get yourselves into a position where you don’t work and live on UC, in that circumstance also very unlikely to be ‘better off’.

Single parent households are much more likely to be able to claim enough UC to live on but then for them to be able to work before their child is 3 must be extremely hard. May be possible if they are returning to a job after maternity leave on a good salary but going into entry level fairly inflexible employment and trying to juggle single parenting with that, and earn enough to pay childcare and survive would be like playing a game you can only lose.

I am not one but I don’t imagine being a stay at home single parent on UC is a road to a life of fun and financial abundance either.

I think many people are imagining the policy not to push those parents to look for work before their child is 3 is because it’s best for the child but surely it’s because that just wouldn’t work economically and practically for a single adult household.

Do you know what the employment market is like right now? Graduates with no children or other responsibilities struggle to get even the most basic roles. Nobody should imagine that employers are queuing up to employ the parents (mothers to be honest) of babies and children.

Disagree. Some people in our society are benefitting from free or lower cost housing and subsidised living costs which effectively allow them to stay at home with their children longer.

Those who are in the middle classes and therefore aren’t on a low income but not a high income either are squeezed and have no option but to go back to work sooner so that they can pay for everything.

No, I don’t think that’s fair. It’s hard working full time, even part time depending on job role and raising a family. Not to mention the stress.

but people only receive UC as there are usually in a single income household. So we gave half the amount if not less to live on than yourself. If I was still with my husband I would not be entitled to UC.

But you had that opportunity. You could have left work and claimed UC. Am I missing something?

No, it’s because I included the detail I thought was relevant and don’t feel compelled to respond in greater depth because you’ve insisted I should.

What makes you feel so entitled to tell me what to do and how to interact on a thread on MN?

No, you want extra protection.

You want 3 years off, with the option to go back to your job, with all of the benefits of having been in employment for those 3 years.

UC claimants get 3 years off but then have to look for work and have not had the benefit of being employed for 3 years.

You made your choices, you just want the best of both worlds.

Then why did you leave your husband? Choices were made.

Yes you’re missing the mismatch in expectations and the provisions made by the State for one set of parents to the other. If you’re employed you don’t have the option to stay home. UC do. Without being penalised. The lack of employment is a penalty for the previously employed Mother. I’m not sure how else to phrase it. You don’t have to agree - but that doesn’t negate the point I’m making.

Yeah the age has crept down, my friend who was on one of the older benefits didn’t have to work until her youngest was at school - so I guess age 5? And I think she had a year to find paid work.

That was back in 2017 when she finally started working and at age 31 that was the first time she’d worked except a few part time jobs as a teen.

There’s a choice. My partner works 8-5:30 and I work 8pm-1am so I’m available in the day, I don’t do it for a barrel of laughs, I do it so I can work to give my children nice things and show them you have to work for them.

I understand being a single parent or on a low income and would never begrudge anyone help, my argument is the people that think UC is a lifestyle because they get paid more than working so they don’t.

example - an acquaintance lives with her partner (off the record) they both get benefits and she also claims mental health issues on top so more ££ and swans off on days out getting her lips done and tattoos when she pleases.

Isn't it extended to working women as well? Working women have the option to decide not to return to work and claim the £400.14 per month instead.