only getting DLA - no other benefits

FBaby

I'm very surprised at the responses of this thread. I've read OP's previous posts and all I am reading is a couple who both have worked for years, and a man who through a disability he was born with is now struggling with the pain of the condition and walking and has given up, temporarily or not, the prospect of working.

However, OP is working and unless things have changed as done so full-time. She could have done what many jump at the second they can and give up her job and claim CA and IS instead but she hasn't.

She has given no indication in her post that she intends on giving up her job after the baby is born just would like the luxury of taking longer maternity leave.

I've read much more shocking posts from people shying away from working to support their family so am not sure why this one has drawn attention.

Poppie68

Celifein wrote: »

She said:



Unless you're one of those posters who flits between forums "poking fun and making silly comments", then the comment about having a sad life wasn't directed at you. I believe it was directed at those who get their jollies by trolling the forum/being awful to everyone. Unfortunately, there's quite a few people who do this and they often end up on the Benefits board at some point.

She quoted my post which makes me believe I was included. There was absolutely no need for the personal attack on anyone as nobody has been harsh or rude to the op. People post differently and have different thoughts on matters so everyone should be able (whithin reason) to give advice In their own way.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with people posting their own experiences, and should be able to do it without being put down for it.

Poppie68

:A

FBaby wrote: »

I'm very surprised at the responses of this thread. I've read OP's previous posts and all I am reading is a couple who both have worked for years, and a man who through a disability he was born with is now struggling with the pain of the condition and walking and has given up, temporarily or not, the prospect of working.

However, OP is working and unless things have changed as done so full-time. She could have done what many jump at the second they can and give up her job and claim CA and IS instead but she hasn't.

She has given no indication in her post that she intends on giving up her job after the baby is born just would like the luxury of taking longer maternity leave.

I've read much more shocking posts from people shying away from working to support their family so am not sure why this one has drawn attention.

It's gone boobs up because someone decided to start dictating what others can post.

Poppie68

I'm not telling anyone what they can do but this thread sadly has turned into a disaster so maybe we can all make a fresh start and concentrate on the ops problems?

NeilCr

Poppie68 wrote: »

I'm not telling anyone what they can do but this thread sadly has turned into a disaster so maybe we can all make a fresh start and concentrate on the ops problems?

Indeed

I'd say the OP should go to the local CAB (I understand from this thread that they visited a few years back) so they can discuss this face to face.

Bogof_Babe

I don't see anywhere that the OP has said she intends to take longer than normal maternity leave. Unless it's on another thread?

Darksparkle

Bogof_Babe wrote: »

I don't see anywhere that the OP has said she intends to take longer than normal maternity leave. Unless it's on another thread?

I think the point was why was she taking "normal" maternity leave where as she could choose to return to work after 2 weeks as OH doesn't work.


Personally I couldn't have imagined returning to work after just two weeks. I couldn't imagine returning now and my child is now 19 weeks.

Lanzarote1938

Darksparkle wrote: »

I think the point was why was she taking "normal" maternity leave where as she could choose to return to work after 2 weeks as OH doesn't work.


Personally I couldn't have imagined returning to work after just two weeks. I couldn't imagine returning now and my child is now 19 weeks.

It rather depends on how long one can afford to stay away from work. Needs must and all that.

Back in the 60's before benefits I knew a woman working an evening shift in a factory on the production line when she went into labour. She finished her shift, thankfully only another hour. She returned to work one week later. She and her family simply couldn't manage without the money she earned.

Thankfully things have changed, but 9+ months time off after having a baby is a privilege not an absolute right.

sangie595

Lanzarote1938 wrote: »

It rather depends on how long one can afford to stay away from work. Needs must and all that.

Back in the 60's before benefits I knew a woman working an evening shift in a factory on the production line when she went into labour. She finished her shift, thankfully only another hour. She returned to work one week later. She and her family simply couldn't manage without the money she earned.

Thankfully things have changed, but 9+ months time off after having a baby is a privilege not an absolute right.

I don't disagree with the sentiment necessarily, but I feel I should point out that the compulsory element of maternity leave was first introduced by the Victorians, and latterly incorporated into the 1996 Act. So any employer who allowed someone to return after only a week was breaking the law - even in the 1960's. Employers breaking the law hasn't changed!

And you are wrong - having 9+ months maternity leave is an absolute right, not a privilege. It is a right enshrined in law. But it is, for the mother, a choice. She doesn't have to take it, but she cannot suffer detriment from her employer by making that choice.

That said, I do not disagree with the sentiment - people have to cut their cloth... I can appreciate that this baby is much wanted, but that means that some hard decisions need to be made. It isn't as "easy" any more. Two adults can live with what they must, but with a child there are always other considerations. Working provides a role model and incentives that are not available when dependant on benefits. Statistics show that benefit claimants are likely to suffer more ill health and higher premature mortality rates, not only for themselves, but also for their children. And, of course, if you cannot afford to have a longer maternity leave, then needs must.

Perhaps the OP needs to have a look at some of the money management parts of this site - people may be able to advise on savings that could be made. And without wishing to restart the tangent, I do think that Poppie68 (I think - I have forgotten who made the original point, but I agreed with it) was right - people do work with far worse disabilities and medications, so I think dad needs to have a good long look at his responsibilities. From a previous thread it seems he worked in a school - perhaps a teacher? In which case he must have transferable skills? What he couldn't face doing before may change - and perhaps must change - now that he is responsible for a life. There are disability advisors in the Job Centres, and many of the major charities have employment advice wings for specific disabilities.

And to be honest, I am also one of those people with significant disabilities and levels of medication who works - and I think that getting back into the world, and staying there, can help your health. It doesn't fix you, but it can focus you on different things. Nothing is worse than sitting at home... This may be a benefits board, but the reality is that it seems that the OP doesn't have recourse to benefits so alternative advice is quite legitimate. And even if they did have recourse to benefits, that isn't going to be the best option for lots of reasons. So I see no reason why advising an option that isn't benefits is so wrong. Having to give up a job because of disability doesn't mean someone is a scrounger, but equally, it also doesn't mean that you can never work, or cannot find alternative work.

Lanzarote1938

sangie595 wrote: »

So any employer who allowed someone to return after only a week was breaking the law - even in the 1960's. Employers breaking the law hasn't changed!

And you are wrong - having 9+ months maternity leave is an absolute right, not a privilege. It is a right enshrined in law. But it is, for the mother, a choice. She doesn't have to take it, but she cannot suffer detriment from her employer by making that choice.

I don't think the employer even knew the woman who went back to work a week after giving birth was pregnant!

As for the other bit, sorry I phrased it completely wrongly. Yes I do know that all women have the right to 9 months maternity leave. Whether they can afford to take it is, as we agree, a different matter altogether.