MSE News: Benefits changes may push workers onto the dole

seven-day-weekend

My son has a 24-hour contract at a major supermarket. Has a partner who works thirty hours elsewhere. No kids. No tax credits. Won't make any difference to them, afaik.

Exactly who will it affect? Is it just those with children?

Froggitt

m.nolano wrote: »

painting, litter picking and labour work are proper jobs for proper people looking for and doing work.
we don't need dodgy companies taking advantage of this free labour and putting honest people out of work

Nope, no dodgy companies or putting proper people out of work, its all stuff that isnt getting done these days, rather than replacing one set of unemployed with another set of unemployed.

Zero cost as benefit payments would cover the cost.

Froggitt

What about all the jobs being done by eastern europeans and indians eg working in hotels, restaurants etc.

dark_lady

Kezzerio wrote: »

I am an unemployed mum,who would love to be able to go out and get a job.But i am unable to as childcare costs far to much. My partner (childs dad) works full time, as i would like to,but it is just not possible i will be paying out more in childcare each week then i would earn. And my partner only brings home £190 a week, and we have to pay full rent and council tax.
They should make it more worthwhile to work, or at least create better paid jobs somehow.

What do you mean YOU will be paying out more in childcare than you will earn. I keep seeing posts like this from women. It is also the responsibility of your partner to contribute towards the cost of childcare with his wages. The burden of paying for childcare should not just fall to you. You didnt conceive these children on your own. Therefore he has to contribute towards the cost of childcare.

enabledebra

dark_lady wrote: »

What do you mean YOU will be paying out more in childcare than you will earn. I keep seeing posts like this from women. It is also the responsibility of your partner to contribute towards the cost of childcare with his wages. The burden of paying for childcare should not just fall to you. You didnt conceive these children on your own. Therefore he has to contribute towards the cost of childcare.

I agree but hope it is shorthand/interchanged for 'we'. Maybe I'm naive though...

zagfles

dark_lady wrote: »

What do you mean YOU will be paying out more in childcare than you will earn. I keep seeing posts like this from women. It is also the responsibility of your partner to contribute towards the cost of childcare with his wages. The burden of paying for childcare should not just fall to you. You didnt conceive these children on your own. Therefore he has to contribute towards the cost of childcare.

Yes, and the PP is equally responsible for paying the rent, council tax, gas bill etc as her partner, which she presumably isn't doing now since she's not earning. So what's your point?

Perhaps she should have written "If I got a job and paid my share of the rent, council tax, food, gas bill and childcare, and my partner paid his share of all these, we would together be worse off with me in work".

Says the same thing in a far more complicated way, but should keep the loony PC feminist types happy:rotfl:

princessdon

It's always the childcarers wage (M or F)

This is because you logically weigh up the finanaical gain/loss against that wage.

Same dual pot of money at the end of the day, but it would be insane to use the other persons salary as the "childcare pot" if they are not reducing hours.

Eg if the childcare was my OH it wouldn't dent it - against mine I work for pennies - same money each month - but the childcare decider is against my individual salary (as the main childcare giver)

PhiltheBear

Froggitt wrote: »

Nope, no dodgy companies or putting proper people out of work, its all stuff that isnt getting done these days, rather than replacing one set of unemployed with another set of unemployed.

Zero cost as benefit payments would cover the cost.

Flaws in this -

Firstly, there ARE companies who are perfectly able to pay people who are picking up benefit claimants for nothing. Like - Tesco, for example. Poundland, for another. So, in reality, the Ian Duncan Smith scheme is to provide slave labour at about £1 per hour to these enormously wealthy companies.

Secondly, how does doing the litter picking and simialr manual work help senior trained and qualified people back into work? It doesn't. It simply takes them away from looking fo a job they could do that would add value to both them and the company that employed them.

It really is time that people woke up to the fact that there are millions on the dole, the majority of whom aren't benefit scroungers but simply can't find a job. I went to a meeting with one of the private sector companies that are supposed to get people into work to learn about local opportunities. All they had was a story about a new development that was going to provide (supposedly) 5-600 jobs - in five years time. Not a great deal of help there. They admitted they had nothing they could put me forward for. Which is why I spend 8-10 hours a day myself trying to find work. I'm qualified and I've got a good work record. But I cannot get a job because, mostly, I'm told I'm over-qualified. Catch 22.

Froggitt

PhiltheBear wrote: »

Secondly, how does doing the litter picking and simialr manual work help senior trained and qualified people back into work? It doesn't. It simply takes them away from looking fo a job they could do that would add value to both them and the company that employed them.

I didnt say it would. However many people without jobs see benefits as a lifestyle choice......why bother working when they can get paid for doing !!!!!! all. There are estates all over the country where the benefit dodges are taught to kids by parents alongside their ABC....or in some cases instead of ABC.

At least litter picking and painting fences benefits the community, and you know what, it might encourage them into proper work if it no they have to work anyway.