Kicking me off

aircraftblonde

sarahg1969 wrote: »

You have 3 months to find an extra 7 hours a week, and if you only work 17 hours a week between you, that leaves you with plenty of spare time to look.

My son has been applying for jobs recently, and was offered four positions. All just admin jobs, so nothing special or requiring any particular skills. And where I work, we are crying out for people, and there just aren't the applicants out there to fill the roles. I'm not talking specialised jobs; just bog-standard admin work. It's definitely out there if you try hard enough.

Don't feel downhearted. If you both work hard, you'll find jobs over the next few months. You just need to put a lot of effort into it.

As for finding a job you don't like, well, hey, lots of people do jobs they don't like. That's life.

Sarah I am wondering where you live with all these admin jobs available - there is hardly any work available where I live. Where I work we advertised a basic admin job and had 350 applicants!

Oldernotwiser

SuziQ wrote: »

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.

I agree, except that it could be the OP's partner doing them instead.

embob74

rotoguys wrote: »

No they couldn't. They would have to find another employer that was willing to risk his business by taking on employees that could decide to have children AND expect the employer to cover the losses and expenses that it entails.

:eek: How enlightened you are. I'm sure you would love your mother, sister, wife or daughter having to choose between a job and children.
Perhaps we should make all fathers HAVE to support the women until such time a they can return to work. In fact let's sterilise all females at birth so employers like you are happy
Oh there's the downfall.....women have to have children if the human race is to continue....duh!

embob74

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.

I'm one of those "disgraceful" new mothers. I worked my butt off at work and carried out duties most men would have shyed away from let alone a pregnant employee. I found out all the info for my small business to claim the costs of SMP back - so they weren't crippled by the costs of my choice to have a baby.
My employer thought just like you and punished me for taking maternity leave by making me redundant, something which I hope they regret.
I would have been the most loyal and hard-working employee on returning to work but was never given the chance.
Just to point out that a lot of women CANNOT AFFORD to return to work due to the cots of childcare. I know my wages would have been severely depleted by that cost - perhaps we should provide affordable childcare and tell women they have a choice. They can work and earn a wage or not work and receive nothing.
IMO the ideal option would be to get rid of all discriminatory men and see just how well business is run then

rotoguys

embob74 wrote: »

:eek: How enlightened you are. I'm sure you would love your mother, sister, wife or daughter having to choose between a job and children.
Perhaps we should make all fathers HAVE to support the women until such time a they can return to work. In fact let's sterilise all females at birth so employers like you are happy
Oh there's the downfall.....women have to have children if the human race is to continue....duh!

Yes I agree entirely. I strongly believe that the man's responsibility IS to support his wife and family. Women have a different role in life to play. My wife worked very little in her life, and certainly not since she had our children 41 years ago!

As for my daughter, she left university with a degree in Law (LLB), married, and had two children and has never worked!

I was pointing out that when employing someone, the business needs come first and last.
I would have taken on the best candidate that would work hard for me and be responsible.

I would not take the risk of employing anybody that may not want to give me 100% for years to come. If that includes women so be it.
Women tend to get pregnant, take on caring roles at home and would expect time off to look after their offspring.

Why should I be left holding the cost of all of that?

rotoguys

embob74 wrote: »

I'm one of those "disgraceful" new mothers. I worked my butt off at work and carried out duties most men would have shyed away from let alone a pregnant employee. I found out all the info for my small business to claim the costs of SMP back - so they weren't crippled by the costs of my choice to have a baby.
My employer thought just like you and punished me for taking maternity leave by making me redundant, something which I hope they regret.
I would have been the most loyal and hard-working employee on returning to work but was never given the chance.
Just to point out that a lot of women CANNOT AFFORD to return to work due to the cots of childcare. I know my wages would have been severely depleted by that cost - perhaps we should provide affordable childcare and tell women they have a choice. They can work and earn a wage or not work and receive nothing.
IMO the ideal option would be to get rid of all discriminatory men and see just how well business is run then

Who would you expect to fund and provide affordable childcare and tell women they have a choice.?

I hope that it isn't the taxpayers!
or on the other hand maybe you think the employer should provide child care for his workers at his/her cost!!

Buisnesses would do fine in any event.

The vast majority of small business owners that I know think like I do.

They are already snowed under by HMRC with the work expected of them, then we have the H&S Exec, the LA etc. The last thing an employer needs is an employee that decides to have a life changing experience by having a family. If you honestly think that the employer does not suffer financially with that decision then you are not from this world!

Why don't we go down the route of the woman compensating the employer for the extra costs incurred and loss of productive time? Such a simple answer - save up before deciding to have children and use that money to bring them up instead of expecting the taxpayers, businesses and government to fund the choice. No money/savings = no children!

blueberrypie

rotoguys wrote: »

As for my daughter, she left university with a degree in Law (LLB), married, and had two children and has never worked!

If the Admissions Officers at the university had shared your views and policies, she would never have been given a university place. More likely to get pregnant and drop out, you see. And more likely to "waste" her education by staying at home with her children. Much better to only allow men to go to university...or to be educated at all. No point in giving women ideas, eh?

Thank goodness most of us have moved on from the Dark Ages!

tomjonesrules

rotoguys wrote: »

Yes I agree entirely. I strongly believe that the man's responsibility IS to support his wife and family. Women have a different role in life to play. My wife worked very little in her life, and certainly not since she had our children 41 years ago!

As for my daughter, she left university with a degree in Law (LLB), married, and had two children and has never worked!

I was pointing out that when employing someone, the business needs come first and last.
I would have taken on the best candidate that would work hard for me and be responsible.

I would not take the risk of employing anybody that may not want to give me 100% for years to come. If that includes women so be it.
Women tend to get pregnant, take on caring roles at home and would expect time off to look after their offspring.

Why should I be left holding the cost of all of that?

I see andyandflo is back again ...

sophiaw

Yes its in my contract that I can't work for another firm so how can I get another job!

rotoguys

blueberrypie wrote: »

And more likely to "waste" her education by staying at home with her children. QUOTE]

I have always had the belief that women are generally more inclined to do that! It is a proven fact that children fare much better in society if mum stays at home looking after them.

How has she wasted it? It can't be taken off her.