Partner has to go back to work after baby, but cant afford childcare

Poppops

notanewuser wrote: »

Lots of workers are excluded from the 48 hour limit. Emergency service workers, armed forces personnel etc. not only that but anyone else can be expected to work more than 48 hours in emergency situations. It's rarely as simple as saying no.

Yes, as I said, the directive covers almost all employees. Not all. However it is the importance of the word 'average' that should be considered. An emergency situation is one thing, but, you wouldn't expect people to work 60 hours per week for 17 weeks!

I haven't made the excerpt of guidelines I posted up! They are quite clear.

It's all about the average.

It is really simple in OPs case. You can't be asked to work 60 hours, week in, week out, for less than minimum wage.

Well, you can be asked, but you can't be discriminated against for refusing.

notanewuser

I love it when people use the same username on lots of forums. Especially car forums. And flying forums. Expensive hobbies those.

OP, whatever you jizzed your money up on over the past year, it's time to sell the scooby.

Going4TheDream

racon wrote: »

Hey, no it was office based. But if there were drivers short I was expected to cover those loads. As for it all being tied up in a nice bundle, there are many, my employer included where everyone knew that if you did not carry out what was asked of you - well you know where the door is.
For the sake of keeping a job, you did what you were told.

If you were driving, even periodically, you would have been covered by WTD rules.

Horseunderwater

Going4TheDream wrote: »

If you were driving, even periodically, you would have been covered by WTD rules.

It would not have applied to racon because he has been claiming DLA MRC/HRM for 20 years - act only came in 11 years ago!

OhWow

racon wrote: »

Of course 2 year olds can be a handful, but isn't that the fun of being a parent?
Missing out on years of development of the child is a good thing?

I can never understand why a stay at home parent would find their 2 year old a handful. That is the age to fuel their minds.

If their child is "a handful" then perhaps those stay at home parents should spent less time on the internet, watching tv, playing with their phone and spend more time teaching their child?

k3lvc

notanewuser wrote: »

I love it when people use the same username on lots of forums. Especially car forums. And flying forums. Expensive hobbies those.

OP, whatever you jizzed your money up on over the past year, it's time to sell the scooby.

The powers of t'interweb :rotfl: - based on what's publicly visible my advice changes slightly

Sell the car
Stop the flying
Stop the gym membership/steriods/shakes etc
Stop the holidays

stevemLS

Are you allowed to say someone has "jizzed" their money lol

racon

OhWow wrote: »

I can never understand why a stay at home parent would find their 2 year old a handful. That is the age to fuel their minds.

If their child is "a handful" then perhaps those stay at home parents should spent less time on the internet, watching tv, playing with their phone and spend more time teaching their child?

Hey, absolutely!!

dodger1

OhWow wrote: »

I can never understand why a stay at home parent would find their 2 year old a handful. That is the age to fuel their minds.

If their child is "a handful" then perhaps those stay at home parents should spent less time on the internet, watching tv, playing with their phone and spend more time teaching their child?

2 year olds were a handful long before all those devices. Having said that even the real 2 year old meltdown doesn't last too long (normally) so the handful tag is short lived.

[Deleted User]

Time to start looking for a new job I guess? Looking on the net you seem to be on the low end of the salary wedge for a transport planner.