Workshy Mothers.....yes or no ?

15 Dec 2008

Quote by Steve
Well Shireen has just lost her job so lets see how long she has to search to get a job and how long it will be before she is labeled a work shy parent....

Sorry to hear that Steve... its such a worry at any time of the year but puts a downer on things when its meant to be happy time for everyone!
Local jobs advertised in my area (Bristol) last week 190 - most of these jobs were looking for specific skills, were outside the Bristol boundary, or short-term/temporary! Its not so easy when your out there an been unemployed for a while....
As for voluntary work - its not that easy being able to do it, you still have to be available for work at short notice and do your job searches and prove it, you can do only so many hours, the organisation has to go through a few hoops to sign you up....and then you have that person sat behind a counter at the unemployment office, treating you like your trying to get out looking for paid work when suggest doing some voluntary work!
Hopefully they will make it easier for those who really want to get out of the house and gain some experience, build up their confidence and self esteem again...

15 Dec 2008

Quote by Deviants
It takes 2 parents to make children, why pick on just one?
Think you seem to forget that a lot of single mums have no experience, a lot being in long term relationships or married where the husband/father was working and supporting them all, its ok saying lets force them into work but are we also going to force employers to employ them, given they have no experience working? Especially when there are another 30 or so people applied for the vacancy that does have the experience, just wished it was all as black and white as that.
We all know there’s people out there who sponge off our benefits system, but this is not a scheme intended to weed out the spongers, its nothing more than an opportunity to pick on one section of our society, funnily enough the weakest, next they’ll be saying we should never retire and work till we die so they can cut the benefits bill more.
Whether you agree or not kent the fact is that if most of these single mums did get a job they would be entitled to more benefits than they get now as help with child minders and working tax credits would double or triple the benefit they receive at present.
So the question is, do we want to cut our annual spending bill, or do we want to cut unemployment figures because we cant have both and unfortunately cutting the unemployment figures costs us more.

In a quick answer to your post, I would suggest you pop along to any post office on a Monday morning, and see how many Mothers are there.
Of course there are loads of others that take the piss out of the system but....in this instance the artical was about single Mothers.
Why can't any member of society be it male or female, who can work be made to do something? IF they are able too.
In this scenario the Government have singled out single Mothers and for me rightly so. And before anyone slates my views MY own Daughter would fall into this too. She is a single Mother who could do something, but why should she if she is not forced
Sorry but the time has come for a massive shake up of the whole welfare system. Give to the REAL people who need it and let the able bodied do something, anything for their money.
I do not want to hear about people being allowed to stay in million pound houses that their councils are paying massive ammounts for. The trouble is so many have no incentive to work, no ambitions at all. That is the sad culture that is now out there.
Force them to work for their money, because I have to work for mine. No work no benefits....a simple logic that in the long run will only have massive benefits itself for us all.

15 Dec 2008

I am a single parent. With a view..
I am a single parent..who has always worked.
I am a single parent who returned back to work before maternity was over in order to survive.
I am a single parent who had to put her child into after school a day a week in order to do her shift at work at the cost of £4 a session but didn't get any help with that as they have to be in there for over £10(3 sessions) a week for the help to be beneficial.
I am a single parent who in may, extended my contract by 7 hrs per week(now 27) to try and make life a little better. I feel no benefit from doing this.. because the state takes it off me in other ways.
Do you blame so many people for sitting at home? Unless people have a family willing to help out... who looks after the children in school holidays and all the inset days that are dished out every year.
The law says, i have to send my child to school..which i do quite willingly every day... there for i can manage to hold down a job. When the school has an inset day, I cannot just take my child to work with me...nor can i just take the day off.
Something has to change.

15 Dec 2008

Before single mothers are forced out to work then I think there needs to be a serious review of childcare facilities, out of school clubs, holidays clubs, reviewing the ages that children can be admitted.
We struggle horrendously each holiday as my daughter is now 12 and most schemes stop accepting at 11. My holiday allowance is 23 days, my children have at least 12 weeks off. The cost of having two children in summer holiday clubs is approx £1200 at which point I have to ask if it's worth me working or taking that time off unpaid, obviously my employer would prefer me not to do that.
I'm lucky that I'm part of a couple so we do still have money to live on but if I was single and having to fork out for childcare for holidays, £50 a week for Out of School clubs, along with travel to work/school costs then I personally wouldn't want to work but then I earn good money and it would pay me to work. If I was having to do all that on minimum wage? Then sorry food and rent comes first.
If my childen are sick then Morb and I share the care, if I was having to take time off when my kids were ill then I can understand them not wanting to employ me!
I can understand the reasoning behind the new moves, but it smacks to me of hitting the most vulnerable first in order to get the most impact.
Improvements need to be made elsewhere first before this will work otherwise in 10 years time we'll have a bigger problem with latchkey kids and non-supervised children wandering the streets after
I don't think it will work.

15 Dec 2008

Quote by kentswingers777
It takes 2 parents to make children, why pick on just one?
Think you seem to forget that a lot of single mums have no experience, a lot being in long term relationships or married where the husband/father was working and supporting them all, its ok saying lets force them into work but are we also going to force employers to employ them, given they have no experience working? Especially when there are another 30 or so people applied for the vacancy that does have the experience, just wished it was all as black and white as that.
We all know there’s people out there who sponge off our benefits system, but this is not a scheme intended to weed out the spongers, its nothing more than an opportunity to pick on one section of our society, funnily enough the weakest, next they’ll be saying we should never retire and work till we die so they can cut the benefits bill more.
Whether you agree or not kent the fact is that if most of these single mums did get a job they would be entitled to more benefits than they get now as help with child minders and working tax credits would double or triple the benefit they receive at present.
So the question is, do we want to cut our annual spending bill, or do we want to cut unemployment figures because we cant have both and unfortunately cutting the unemployment figures costs us more.

In a quick answer to your post, I would suggest you pop along to any post office on a Monday morning, and see how many Mothers are there.
Of course there are loads of others that take the piss out of the system but....in this instance the artical was about single Mothers.
Why can't any member of society be it male or female, who can work be made to do something? IF they are able too.
In this scenario the Government have singled out single Mothers and for me rightly so. And before anyone slates my views MY own Daughter would fall into this too. She is a single Mother who could do something, but why should she if she is not forced
Sorry but the time has come for a massive shake up of the whole welfare system. Give to the REAL people who need it and let the able bodied do something, anything for their money.
I do not want to hear about people being allowed to stay in million pound houses that their councils are paying massive ammounts for. The trouble is so many have no incentive to work, no ambitions at all. That is the sad culture that is now out there.
Force them to work for their money, because I have to work for mine. No work no benefits....a simple logic that in the long run will only have massive benefits itself for us all.
Excuse me but i visit the post office every monday morning, the only benifit we recieve is child benefit which unless i'm mistaken everyone with children is entitled to, so to assume that everyone who visits a post office on a monday morning or any other day for that matter is claiming benefits is just outrageous, talk about tarring everyone with the same brush? suppose you've never recieved child benefit or family allowance as it used to be known.

15 Dec 2008

If they want mums to go back to work perhaps they should put their money where their mouths are and start getting some Government subsidised (and compulsory) crèche facilities in all firms (with above a certain number of employees).
Half the time mums don't go back to work is because there is no affordable child care available (in some cases no child care full stop).

15 Dec 2008

god where do i start,
im a single mum and ive always worked, there was a time when i was a full time student, but i fell into a crap time where no grants, no learner funds etc so i still worked in the evenings.
there are jobs out there, not always our first options, but jobs nether the less. yes you might be worse off, yes you might have to get up at 6am etc but its work.
i was raised with a work ethic and i couldnt sit on benefits.
i wont get into the whole,absent parent, single ppl jobless row. this is about lone parents.
I did initially think the child being 1 was to young, but the problem is by the time that kid is school age the parent has probally had another child,so before you know it we're 15 years on benefit.
i dont so much hold for the forcing them to work,but at least start the process, like training and education.
re the coment about never letting us retire, well id go google your date of birth and retirement age, its rising all the time,why teh feck should i work till im 72 so some lazy arse can sit and claim the tax i pay in bebefits?
xxx fem xx

15 Dec 2008

Let's look at this from another direction.
You get made redundant. You claim benefits and look for work. You get told that, in order to receive the benefits you have to work. So you do the work and get paid the benefits - £52 a week I understand if you are single.
Question : would YOU go to work for £50???? It would barely pay my bus-fares! I'm not being greedy - but Jobseekers is NOT enough to live on. I wouldn't qualify for anything else.
If I am working I expect minimum wage at least (35 hours @ almost £6/hr = £170 after tax). If there is no work I will need benefits for a while. But once I find work, I will get paid and won't need the benefits.
That's putting aside the blood-curdling cost of childcare.

15 Dec 2008

Hang them all,it's all they're good for work shy lazy scroungers......it's the kids i worry about and what about house prices ....enough is enough

15 Dec 2008

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
Hang them all,it's all they're good for work shy lazy scroungers......it's the kids i worry about and what about house prices ....enough is enough

they have houses too! :shock:
lp

15 Dec 2008

Quote by __random_orbit__
Hang them all,it's all they're good for work shy lazy scroungers......it's the kids i worry about and what about house prices ....enough is enough

they have houses too! :shock:
lp
If only they were at work I'd shout for them to be sacked confused

15 Dec 2008

People on benefits (not just single mothers) get fringe benefits too, such as their rent and council tax paid for them - this is a big plus for them being able to sign on and claim as a lone parent.
Not to mention that they can work for up to 16 hours a week and still claim, although I would like to add that any part time earnings are taken into account and stopped out of the benefit (if declared)
I'm a single mother and I work full time, I want to be able to say that I worked damned hard to put a roof over my sons head, clothes on his back and food in his belly - unfortunately not all single parents have this mentality.
As Jaymar mentioned I would much rather be at home watching my child grow up and learning new things everyday but I can't.
I'm glad that the government has now realised (after many many years) that while they can get away with it, women will keep on producing in order not to go to work.
The new law coming in is going to reduce the age of the eldest child that a single parent (not all lone parents are female) can claim for, and this I think will be a big help. The age will be twelve, then in a further two years time it will be ten, and then reduced to seven within the next two years.
It is about time that lone parents realised that they cannot claim forever just because they have children, it is not a god given right.
Tax credits now help out a working parent/guardian by paying upto 70% of childcare costs, if this isn't one of the best incentives then I don't know what is.
As far as I'm concerned if one single parent can go out and get a job and pay their way then so should the rest of society.

15 Dec 2008

Workshy mothers....yep slate them.
Latchkey kids, with parents at work, running wild around the estates. Where are the parents???
These mothers can't win whatever way they turn. Keep throwing stones.......you may actually hit someone that deserves to be hit one day.
Dave_Notts

15 Dec 2008

They can win by educating their children in such a way that they would not run riots on the streets when their parents are out working, which is what any sensible parent would do would they not??

15 Dec 2008

Quote by Miss_B_Having
They can win by educating their children in such a way that they would not run riots on the streets when their parents are out working, which is what any sensible parent would do would they not??

Most of the "nice" kids who end up in trouble have sensible parents. They teach and educate them but they do not always do as the parent wishes............then the papers and others then berate the parents for not keeping an eye on them and where were they.
Dave_Notts

15 Dec 2008

Quote by Deviants
It takes 2 parents to make children, why pick on just one?
Think you seem to forget that a lot of single mums have no experience, a lot being in long term relationships or married where the husband/father was working and supporting them all, its ok saying lets force them into work but are we also going to force employers to employ them, given they have no experience working? Especially when there are another 30 or so people applied for the vacancy that does have the experience, just wished it was all as black and white as that.
We all know there’s people out there who sponge off our benefits system, but this is not a scheme intended to weed out the spongers, its nothing more than an opportunity to pick on one section of our society, funnily enough the weakest, next they’ll be saying we should never retire and work till we die so they can cut the benefits bill more.
Whether you agree or not kent the fact is that if most of these single mums did get a job they would be entitled to more benefits than they get now as help with child minders and working tax credits would double or triple the benefit they receive at present.
So the question is, do we want to cut our annual spending bill, or do we want to cut unemployment figures because we cant have both and unfortunately cutting the unemployment figures costs us more.

In a quick answer to your post, I would suggest you pop along to any post office on a Monday morning, and see how many Mothers are there.
Of course there are loads of others that take the piss out of the system but....in this instance the artical was about single Mothers.
Why can't any member of society be it male or female, who can work be made to do something? IF they are able too.
In this scenario the Government have singled out single Mothers and for me rightly so. And before anyone slates my views MY own Daughter would fall into this too. She is a single Mother who could do something, but why should she if she is not forced
Sorry but the time has come for a massive shake up of the whole welfare system. Give to the REAL people who need it and let the able bodied do something, anything for their money.
I do not want to hear about people being allowed to stay in million pound houses that their councils are paying massive ammounts for. The trouble is so many have no incentive to work, no ambitions at all. That is the sad culture that is now out there.
Force them to work for their money, because I have to work for mine. No work no benefits....a simple logic that in the long run will only have massive benefits itself for us all.
Excuse me but i visit the post office every monday morning, the only benifit we recieve is child benefit which unless i'm mistaken everyone with children is entitled to, so to assume that everyone who visits a post office on a monday morning or any other day for that matter is claiming benefits is just outrageous, talk about tarring everyone with the same brush? suppose you've never recieved child benefit or family allowance as it used to be known.
In answer to that one....yes we did.
So you are saying that all the young Mothers there on a Monday morning at 9am, are not all collecting their benefits? Only their child benefit? I am not taring ALL with the same brush, just most of them.
With some people attitudes no wonder we find ourselves in a benefit culture. God knows what the next generation will be like. Work will be used in the same term as fuckoff, and to tell somebody to work in twenty years time, will get ya a smack in the gob. :shock:
Most of the young girls outside my post office on a Monday morning, would not know the word work, if it slipped out of their ears. Work it out....9am outside post office, with two kids, or more. If there was not a problem then the single mother stats showing how many single Mothers are claiming, would be very low, but they are the opposite of low.
The highest in Western Europe, along with the highest number of single Mums in Western Europe too.

15 Dec 2008

Quote by Dave__Notts
They can win by educating their children in such a way that they would not run riots on the streets when their parents are out working, which is what any sensible parent would do would they not??

Most of the "nice" kids who end up in trouble have sensible parents. They teach and educate them but they do not always do as the parent wishes............then the papers and others then berate the parents for not keeping an eye on them and where were they.
Dave_Notts
Then the same could be said for any parent, this doesn't just fall into the "workshy single mother" category

15 Dec 2008

Quote by Miss_B_Having
They can win by educating their children in such a way that they would not run riots on the streets when their parents are out working, which is what any sensible parent would do would they not??

On the other side, it's illegal to leave a minor unattended/unsupervised.
My 11 year old gets home at , there are no after school clubs to go too, I changed my hours to accommodate this, but a friend of mine was told if she reduced her hours she may as well find another job!
Whilst I appreciate what you are saying, peer influence s greater than parental influence, particularly when the parent isn't there. Drugs, alcohol, crime are much more apparent in families where parental guidance or control is missing.
If single mothers, the only good (in most cases) influence in many of these childrens lives are out working where do you expect the guidance and education to come from?

15 Dec 2008

Quote by Calista
They can win by educating their children in such a way that they would not run riots on the streets when their parents are out working, which is what any sensible parent would do would they not??

On the other side, it's illegal to leave a minor unattended/unsupervised.
My 11 year old gets home at , there are no after school clubs to go too, I changed my hours to accommodate this, but a friend of mine was told if she reduced her hours she may as well find another job!
Whilst I appreciate what you are saying, peer influence s greater than parental influence, particularly when the parent isn't there. Drugs, alcohol, crime are much more apparent in families where parental guidance or control is missing.
If single mothers, the only good (in most cases) influence in many of these childrens lives are out working where do you expect the guidance and education to come from?
In all honesty Cali I don't have an answer for that, all I can say is that if I were having such problems with my child, and god forbid I ever do, then it would be a choice of what was more important my job or my child and I know who would win hands down.
Yes it may seem irrational to say that I would give up a job to make sure that my child was not running the streets but it's a subject that I feel very strongly about and it's a sacrifice that I would be prepared to make.

15 Dec 2008

Quote by Miss_B_Having
They can win by educating their children in such a way that they would not run riots on the streets when their parents are out working, which is what any sensible parent would do would they not??

Most of the "nice" kids who end up in trouble have sensible parents. They teach and educate them but they do not always do as the parent wishes............then the papers and others then berate the parents for not keeping an eye on them and where were they.
Dave_Notts
Then the same could be said for any parent, this doesn't just fall into the "workshy single mother" category
Sure....like the "workshy single father". But if you have two parents at home then there is a possibility of having one parent at home at all times.
Dave_Notts

15 Dec 2008

Quote by Miss_B_Having
They can win by educating their children in such a way that they would not run riots on the streets when their parents are out working, which is what any sensible parent would do would they not??

On the other side, it's illegal to leave a minor unattended/unsupervised.
My 11 year old gets home at , there are no after school clubs to go too, I changed my hours to accommodate this, but a friend of mine was told if she reduced her hours she may as well find another job!
Whilst I appreciate what you are saying, peer influence s greater than parental influence, particularly when the parent isn't there. Drugs, alcohol, crime are much more apparent in families where parental guidance or control is missing.
If single mothers, the only good (in most cases) influence in many of these childrens lives are out working where do you expect the guidance and education to come from?
In all honesty Cali I don't have an answer for that, all I can say is that if I were having such problems with my child, and god forbid I ever do, then it would be a choice of what was more important my job or my child and I know who would win hands down.
Yes it may seem irrational to say that I would give up a job to make sure that my child was not running the streets but it's a subject that I feel very strongly about and it's a sacrifce that I would be prepared to make.
But under this new scheme, if you did that you'd be entitled to no government support!
How do you expect to live?

15 Dec 2008

Quote by Calista
They can win by educating their children in such a way that they would not run riots on the streets when their parents are out working, which is what any sensible parent would do would they not??

On the other side, it's illegal to leave a minor unattended/unsupervised.
My 11 year old gets home at , there are no after school clubs to go too, I changed my hours to accommodate this, but a friend of mine was told if she reduced her hours she may as well find another job!
Whilst I appreciate what you are saying, peer influence s greater than parental influence, particularly when the parent isn't there. Drugs, alcohol, crime are much more apparent in families where parental guidance or control is missing.
If single mothers, the only good (in most cases) influence in many of these childrens lives are out working where do you expect the guidance and education to come from?
In all honesty Cali I don't have an answer for that, all I can say is that if I were having such problems with my child, and god forbid I ever do, then it would be a choice of what was more important my job or my child and I know who would win hands down.
Yes it may seem irrational to say that I would give up a job to make sure that my child was not running the streets but it's a subject that I feel very strongly about and it's a sacrifce that I would be prepared to make.
But under this new scheme, if you did that you'd be entitled to no government support!
How do you expect to live?
I would do what plenty of others already do, find a job that would fit in with my home life or change my hours.
I'm pretty lucky to be employed by a company that allow working parents to reduce their hours and work between school hours to fit in with their child.
Needs must.

15 Dec 2008

Money is the answer. If you have it then they can reduce the hours and spend time at home with little uns. They may even down size their home or car to save money.
But if they haven't got the home, car or job that earns enough for you to reduce the hours or downsize then they are already at the bottom of their limit. Needs must? Perhaps some are doing all they can, but need a little extra help instead of being blamed for sucking the benefits from us.
Dave_Notts

15 Dec 2008

I only posted to give my opinion as have many others, I'm not here to get into a slanging match about that opinion as we're all entitled to one - enough from me for one night!

15 Dec 2008

I still think that the people at the bottom end of the social spectrum are just taking the flak to occupY the minds of the generality. Clever people those in power. Job done! Social manipulation at its best
SUCKERS!

15 Dec 2008

Quote by Miss_B_Having
I only posted to give my opinion as have many others, I'm not here to get into a slanging match about that opinion as we're all entitled to one - enough from me for one night!

I gave my opinion then you queried it and I was explaining my opinion. I wasn't getting into a slanging match at all. Take care kiss

Dave_Notts

15 Dec 2008

Quote by Calista
They can win by educating their children in such a way that they would not run riots on the streets when their parents are out working, which is what any sensible parent would do would they not??

On the other side, it's illegal to leave a minor unattended/unsupervised.
My 11 year old gets home at , there are no after school clubs to go too, I changed my hours to accommodate this, but a friend of mine was told if she reduced her hours she may as well find another job!
Whilst I appreciate what you are saying, peer influence s greater than parental influence, particularly when the parent isn't there. Drugs, alcohol, crime are much more apparent in families where parental guidance or control is missing.
If single mothers, the only good (in most cases) influence in many of these childrens lives are out working where do you expect the guidance and education to come from?
That is not quite correct.
In England the laws are very grey.

There is no law to say you cannot leave your child...strange but true.

15 Dec 2008

Quote by kentswingers777
They can win by educating their children in such a way that they would not run riots on the streets when their parents are out working, which is what any sensible parent would do would they not??

On the other side, it's illegal to leave a minor unattended/unsupervised.
My 11 year old gets home at , there are no after school clubs to go too, I changed my hours to accommodate this, but a friend of mine was told if she reduced her hours she may as well find another job!
Whilst I appreciate what you are saying, peer influence s greater than parental influence, particularly when the parent isn't there. Drugs, alcohol, crime are much more apparent in families where parental guidance or control is missing.
If single mothers, the only good (in most cases) influence in many of these childrens lives are out working where do you expect the guidance and education to come from?
That is not quite correct.
In England the laws are very grey.

There is no law to say you cannot leave your child...strange but true.
There is no law for a lot of things..........but if something goes wrong then the individual may be found to be accountable if a child or other vulnerable person is injured. It is the duty of care thingie me jiggy
Dave_Notts

15 Dec 2008

as a single parent DIVORCED not my fault 2 kids SAME FATHER i am really angry at some replies on this thread, i no longer work thank god i was working 70 hours per week minimum EVERY week i had to rely on childcare and on a saturday i had to add 3 hours onto my day just to travel to a childminder i juggled my kids between 4 childminders and one is very lucky she didnt end up 6 ft under! this state registered childminder used to lock my children in a cold conservitory from the minute i dropped them off to 5 mins before i collected them and charge me £80 a day for it! she left them there with dolls to play with i have 2 boys and used to take the packed lunch i had made off them and give it to her kids! or sit on her fat arse swigging the pop i had provided out of the bottle, i am so angry still and after my kids went through this i wont trust ANYBODY to look after my kids. my kids did not tell me what was going on as they knew the hours i worked i was so stressed anyway. as for having a council house that is a joke i live in private rented housing and have to pay £200 per month out of my benefits to live here yes i could go back to work but i WONT be working until my children are old enough to look after themselves and if this makes me WORKSHY then so be it! my family live 200 miles away so cant exactly have the kids before and after work. IF WE WERENT HANDING OUT BENEFITS TO ASYLUM SEEKERS THEN THE COUNTRY WOULDNT BE IN SUCH A MESS DONT BOTHER TELLING ME WE DONT GIVE THEM A PENNY THEY ARE BETTER OFF THAN MOST OF US I KNOW I USED TO HAVE THEM COME INTO THE SHOP I WORKED FOR THEY ARE THE ONES WITH THE £50 NOTES!

15 Dec 2008

Fair shout :thumbup: