Kicking me off

Mara69

sophiaw wrote: »

Mara69 do you have a job?

Yes, I do. And, hold the front page, it is full time.

sophiaw wrote: »

Have you looked for work in the past 2 years theres hardly anything going.

I haven't but both my husband and son have. Both have managed to secure full time employment.

sophiaw wrote: »

I think I will look for another job at 24 hours or above and leave this job that a I love

Needs must.

sophiaw wrote: »

..leave this job that a I love and go into one I wont like hay and it might push me back on benefits.

There aren't many that are lucky enough to love their jobs. I tolerate mine. I fail to see how getting a job you don't love will 'push you back on benefits'.

sophiaw wrote: »

This country is a utter joke and tax credits isnt half a scam.

Oh yes, it most certainly is and they most certainly are. Reform is long overdue. Anything that stops people like you working the bare minimum in order to claim benefits is a good thing.

sophiaw wrote: »

...in the next tax year they want you to work more.It dont make sense to me that.

Working to earn your living doesn't make sense to you? Says it all really.

lovinituk

sophiaw wrote: »

and my partner will carry on looking too, but the goverment is making cuts to benefits when in my opnion if a skilled metal engineer can't find work then who can!:mad:

He could probably get a cleaning job for 7 hours a week and still have plenty of time to look for the 'right' job. This would at least ensure that you are still eligible for tax credits. I suspect the problem is that he is waiting out for the right full time job in his sector and is not willing to consider a 'lower' alternative even if it is only temporary!

Dognobs

I do think it is a disgrace that new mothers now expect a year off when having a baby and a very high percent never go back my sister and her friend for one! But they loved fleeceing the company for a year. I think one month payed is fine (more if CC) but after this should be holiday pay or unpaid. Most have chosen to have a baby and had 9 months to sort child care, save ect.

Why should a small company be crippled by someone wanting to have a baby.

Flora_Poste

I think many employers would consider a woman more carefully for a job whether you like it or not. It must be a consideration particularly for small businesses were there are fewer people to cover for the mat leave and the costs will be a bigger percentage of turnover for them. You may not agree with it but it is an issue if an employee that youve spent months training up is going to go missing for a year and then may want term time or part time when they get back so you have all the recruitment costs again for the other half of the job.

Mind you I definitely wouldn't employ a smoker either if there was a suitable non smoker candidate. I worked out we were half a day a week short on every smoker by the time theyd got their coat on, got the lift down, had a ciggie and a chat, waited for the lift and finally sat back downat their desk, two or three times a day.

Dognobs

Flora_Poste wrote: »

Mind you I definitely wouldn't employ a smoker either if there was a suitable non smoker candidate. I worked out we were half a day a week short on every smoker by the time theyd got their coat on, got the lift down, had a ciggie and a chat, waited for the lift and finally sat back downat their desk, two or three times a day.

I am a ex-smoker but I would ban all smoking on-site and make leaving site when not on break would be a disaplintery.

rotoguys

Dognobs wrote: »

I do think it is a disgrace that new mothers now expect a year off when having a baby and a very high percent never go back my sister and her friend for one! But they loved fleeceing the company for a year. I think one month payed is fine (more if CC) but after this should be holiday pay or unpaid. Most have chosen to have a baby and had 9 months to sort child care, save ect.

Why should a small company be crippled by someone wanting to have a baby.

Totally agree with you.
And that will be the next thing to get changed because of public opinion? Not likely, there are too many women that see it as a good thing - almost as good as working min hours to maximise benefit entitlement!!

tori.k

But then again business must be made to be more socially responsible Its becoming more often the norn to place people on low contract hours, even zero hours in cases to skip out on the holiday pay of a full-time worker. im only on a 15 contract yet I normally work 40+ a week the exception being January work is slow so i will struggle to make my contract hours this month. The whole system and the one which will follow is grossly out-dated by modern business practic

Vejovis

sophiaw wrote: »

Mara69 do you have a job? Have you looked for work in the past 2 years theres hardly anything going.Yeh my employers said they dont have the hours right now.All there staff are contracted to 16 hours a week, now and again they may give us a few more hours but they can't guarante it every week.So I cant tell tax credits some weeks I will get it and some I wont can I.You have to do 24 hours every week to get it.They are uping child tax but it wont cover how much I get now for working tax. I will be honest even finding a seperate job of 7 hours will be hard.So I think I will look for another job at 24 hours or above and leave this job that a I love and go into one I wont like hay and it might push me back on benefits.This country is a utter joke and tax credits isnt half a scam.You can't work over a certain amount as they will over pay you but now in the next tax year they want you to work more.It dont make sense to me that.

if the tax credits are that bad, then stop claiming them. stand on your own two feet.

there are plenty of grunt jobs if you look for them, but people in this country think they're too good for them.

SuziQ

I don't know about self employment rules etc but could you sell betterware, avon or something like that to make your working hours up? Those 'in the know' here will know whether that is feasible, but I always see adverts for those jobs, and for delivering papers and baby sitting, shopping and light housework,dog walking etc.

dark_lady

DaisyFlower wrote: »

I think employers had to have a lot of 16 hour contracts as the min for part time roles as most people simply wouldnt do less as they knew tax credits wouldnt be paid.

The new changes are a good start but need to go a lot further. So many people worked the bare min hours and let other tax payers make up the difference and will now be moaning that they have to work more.

If the job you love doesnt pay enough to support your family then thats life, if everybody could work their ideal job and hours with the state paying them as well we would have no country. Whilst the economy is bad at the moment there are jobs out there for those that are not picky.

Quote "if everybody could work their job and hours with the state paying them as well we would have no country" unquote.
Daisy this is already happening on those "work for your benefit" schemes!
Hope you havent written any posts in support of "work for your JSA schemes" because you have just contradicted yourself big style if you have!