Idle young should be entitled to nothing

lostinrates

SingleSue wrote: »

...
I got my first part time job at age 11, by my sons age, I had 5 part time jobs and was buying all my own clothes, school uniform, paying my part for holidays etc....it also made me more of an adult at 18 than some of my peers who had everything paid for them by their parents and had never had a part time job at all.
....

couldn't agree more. Increased legislation, aiming to help, is often hamering. Like you, I always worked, I enjoyed it, it gave me a freedom from school/home I might not have had otherwise, it meant that I learned to manage time and money, and I aprreciated the worth of it.

baileysbattlebus

SingleSue wrote: »

Gaining part time work is being absolutely frustrating for my eldest son. He has had his name down for a paper round since age 11 (the lists here are miles long, a neighbour finally got a paper round offered at age 18 and he put his name down when he was 10!), he started going into shops etc when he was 13 only to be told to come back at 14, went back at 14 and told to come back at 15, went back at 15 only to be told come back when you are 16....government rules apparently.

He is 16 in just less than a month and thought he would step it up and get applications in and now a few have started to tell him to come back at 17!

I should state here that he is still in compulsory full time education and is planning on staying into 6th form and then Uni.

What are we teaching our children if they are not able to get part time employment if the minimum age for working keeps increasing? How are they going to be able to get that working ethic if the doors are closed to them? Where is the preparation for working as adults, the learning to budget their money when the chance to learn that with little part time jobs whilst still in compulsory school has gone?

I am finding it so hard to understand why our youngsters are being treated like children for longer...even into adulthood, when are they going to be learning to be independent when they are still tied to the apron strings.

I got my first part time job at age 11, by my sons age, I had 5 part time jobs and was buying all my own clothes, school uniform, paying my part for holidays etc....it also made me more of an adult at 18 than some of my peers who had everything paid for them by their parents and had never had a part time job at all.

I'm not advocating children of any age working but for a sensible minimum age ..some of these kids won't even have had a part time job when they leave school if they don't go into 6th form which gives them little or no chance in being able to gain full time work.

Has the age for part time work for children changed from 13?

My own now grown up children all had part time jobs at 13.

My son had a newspaper round

Daughter1 worked Saturday afternoons in the local cricket & hockey club - doing the food for players after the matches.

Daughter2 worked on Saturday in a local butchers then in a food court in the nearest town.

But our local supermarket (Waitrose), would only take on 5th or 6th formers and is still the same.

I suppose it depends on where you live tbh, our local newsagents often advertise for delivery people. I guess a lot of the kids don't want or need the money - and delivering newspapers is hard work at weekends.

lostinrates

baileysbattlebus wrote: »

I suppose it depends on where you live tbh, our local newsagents often advertise for delivery people. I guess a lot of the kids don't want or need the money - and delivering newspapers is hard work at weekends.

No such thing as paper boys out here, its too far from news agents, so people drive. Funny, because my neighbours adult son was a paper boy with this route when he was a kid, more people took papers then though I suppose

SingleSue

He has tried various different shops, for example, hairdressers as a sweeper upper, the butchers as an assistant not using the sharp things, cafe's and restaurants as a dish washer even washing cars for a garage etc but nothing..all have to be 16.

He has had his name down for a paper round at 2 local shops and several non local ones too (3 mile distance from here) but as that is the only line of work available to the youngsters around here before age 16, as you can imagine, the lists are enormous.

He is not proud and will do any kind of work, even at silly o clock at weekends. In fact, he is looking forward to being 16, not because it is a good age but because finally he will be able to get a job!

Think my lectures about not being workshy and how I would not accept a child of mine being on benefits got through eh? :rotfl:

The_White_Horse

sporedude wrote: »

No I dont drink, And before you turn into a total smartass, I do have a job.

do you enjoy working whilst others take the pi55 out of you and milk your taxes for an enjoyable lifestyle at your expense. Do you enjoy the fact that whilst you are away from your family working, the scum are living it up on stella and jeremy kyle at your expense.

do you enjoy the fact that so much of your salary is taken to support spongers and unnecessary public sector jobs.

are you happy that benefits now outstrip all income tax receipts. and that will get worse and worse.

anyone happy, and anyone who suggests that the hard workers should leave the country is clearly a lefty (lefty = stupid always wrong)

For good advice, ask your inner lefty what to do, and then ignore him and do the opposite.

Pennywise

I think that the problem with employing children is that most employers know that the laws have been changing but aren't too sure exactly what the situation is, and as is usual with the government websites, they're as clear as mud and often conflicting, and you usually have to follow links to various other government websites, picking up snippets of information along the way. There are new rules about the hours of work, differing according to age of the child, so I think a 14 year old can work fewer hours than a 16 year old, and likewise there are rules about the times of working, i.e. not too early or too late, which are also different for school days and no school days. Also, for school age children, I understand you need to get some form of certificate/agreement from the school and that each local education authority has its own guidelines for headteachers as to what is acceptable and what isn't. All in all, it's a right royal pain in the neck to try to find out what can and can't be done by varying age groups and then no doubt a long drawn out paper chase to get the right paperwork from the school. I would imagine most small scale employers would have lost the will to employ a school child (probably even lost the will to live) once they spent a few hours trawling through the govt guidance!

Davesnave

SingleSue wrote: »

Gaining part time work is being absolutely frustrating for my eldest son. He has had his name down for a paper round since age 11 (the lists here are miles long, a neighbour finally got a paper round offered at age 18 and he put his name down when he was 10!),.

I think this is a local thing. As far as I recall, DD2 had a paper round from age 14 and could have had two if she'd wanted, such was the lethargy of some of her mates in our area. That was six years ago. Trouble is, in many places, sales of newspapers are well down on what they were.

Back in the 'bad old days,' I'd turn a blind eye to some of my pupils, then aged 11, delivering the morning papers before school. They were always the keen ones though, (and usually girls!) so no problems with arriving late or being unable to concentrate.

As a teenage worker in the 60s & early 70s I've a few horror stories to tell, so I can see the point of much H&S legislation, but like LIR, I feel we've gone too far now in protecting kids. My professional experience in devising/running lifeskills days is that the over-protected kids are sitting ducks in relation to the big bad world out there. It's always those children who go off into the woods with the nice young man (police officer in disguise) who's lost his puppy! :rotfl:

mbga9pgf

When are the government going to come out with the real money saver? THe one that states that people past the age of 80 arent entitled to treatment on the NHS for illness with a fatal result? Hip replacements, fair enough, but why bother with expensive cancer drugs for someone who will be dead within 10 years anyway?

Other countries do this, I dont see why we shouldnt either. If crusties want to have cutting edge treatment, I suggest they sell up to pay for it and not expect my generation to pay for it. I wont be expecting treatment past 80, I dont see why they should either. Majority of our hideous 100 billion NHS bill is caused by dying crusties, sod them.

pipkin71

CFC wrote: »

I have never met one person who wants to deprive the deserving poor of benefits and assistance. Many people would in fact like to see them increased.

On the other hand, many of us don't want assorted workshy/idle/!!!!less/irresponsible others to live life at our expense. I don't think that's unreasonable.

Agree with your post CFC.

I would say though, for those claiming disability benefits, they can be pretty generous already without the need for an increase, although an increase wouldn't be turned down

mbga9pgf

pipkin71 wrote: »

Agree with your post CFC.

I would say though, for those claiming disability benefits, they can be pretty generous already without the need for an increase, although an increase wouldn't be turned down

Food vouchers will do the trick.