Skivers made to work

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6187169.stm

So what was going on before this? There has been the provision to sanction skivers for years. Why should we believe thhis initiative wil be any different?

Also, who will want to employ these long-term unemployed people with no motivation, no skills and no experience? The government will have to combine this with some kind of scheme to work for your benefits rather than expcect peole to get mainstream jobs.

I like the system in France very much indeed as you won't get benefits unless you have earned them in some way. Yes, there are charity associations that deal with those people who genuinely are incapable of work or do not fit the government criteria, but in general people here are trained from an early age into a profession. One thing I noticed here about employment is that it really does not matter what work you do. The fact that you work is respected, and people are proud of their work, even from being a shop assistant, because they see having a job as a better alternative to not having one. I feel the government made it too easy for people to opt out and not work and need to redress the balance, but how do you make a society of people who are happy to be on the take change their attitude ?

Too many lazy sods around and still too many doing cash jobs.

I bet the liberal do gooders stick for them on this one !!

I know of a girl who has only done a few weeks work since she left school 4 years ago, and has no intention of bothering either. Her parent's don't take any keep and often bail her out - something I feel is completely wrong as it teaches them all the wrong values..

One of my best friends is like this and REALLY pees me off. She will not get a job because she has two young kids but she has a lot of help with them and people offering to look after them while she works. It is excuse after excuse and she said even if she does get a job then it will be like 8 hours a week so she can still claim social- what is the point?

I do agree though with Fizzy, this should have been going on for a long time so I have no faith that this will change anything. There are so many ways around the benefit system.

Well, I'm a skiver!!! Of sorts anyway. But I wish we could change things.

We have two disabled children so are both classed as Carers and therefore recieve benefit. Between them they are very hard work, they both need constant attention and despite their ages need supervision or assistance with washing, dressing etc. When they are at home, we never get a moment to relax. But........

During term time, for a few hours a day, they are at school. This is when people say we are skiving. And to be honest, it is during this time we would both like to be doing a bit of work.

Problem is, if either of us earn more than £20 in any week we will be penalised and have money removed from our benefit and unfortunately it would be much more than earnt.

So there is no incentive to work for us....we struggle to make ends meet as it is, so a cut would hardly be the option.

This is where things need to be changed to get people moving and working. If people are able to work, let them work, and let them work the hours they can without having an all or nothing situation.

Yes I do agree. When there is a situation like looking after a child who needs your care there needs to be something put into place.

If you go back to work, part time, you are told that you can do 15 hours and 59 minutes without your JSA being taken away, however what they do not tell you is that they take away what you earn from your JSA so there is no point. It would be better just to get a job with as many hours as you can get.

We can do as many hours as we like....as long as we don't earn over £20...Lol

We would then lose our £45 Carers' Allowance and a lot more on Council tax and Housing Benefit. Even if it was only 5p over, so just no point.

I don't mind losing some but when it is more than earnt......

My partner is a Lone Parent Advisor with Jobcentre Plus and he says that many parents take advantage of the fact that they don't HAVE to work until the children are sixteen. However, at this point they then find some reason to go onto Incapacity Benefit. There are too many doctors willing to sign people off too, which doesn't help.

It annoys me that people say they won't work because they'll only be a few quid better off because you don't get experience and references by sitting at home. Surely getting back to work and keeping up with things in the workplace is more important.

I have to say i think if you have kids then it is your responsibility to bring them up and therfore you stay at home rather than go out to work. But Once they are at school there is no reason why you can't get a Part time job.

Though I could not work for money I used to help out at the local school most days. Eventually they offered me a job for the few hours I could work which was great.

Now we have moved I just help out as a parent again, but as you say the experience will be great later when I do go back to work.

Going back to the lone parents though, Personally I do think the job situation should be determined on why they are bringing up kids alone. Was it because of a death of a parent? The split of a married couple where one of the parents still contributes financially (even if not adequately) or do they have kids due to just having unprotected sex without thinking of the consequences or whether they are in suitable circumstances to bring up a child....

Ok, rant over!

It is regrettable that any relationship should fail or that one parent be suddenly left to care for the children, but if that happened to me i would make every effort to get out to work and bring in the money to look after my own children. I just don't think you should sit back and let other people keep you and your children.

it would be nice if all parents who wanted to could stay at home and bring up their children but even in families where there are two parents around, it is often the case that both have to work. Why should lone parents be different?

Anyway, my point is more about those who are capable of working but have managed to avoid it for years.
This is a government which has made a point of trying to eradicate child poverty - unfortunately there are some horrible people out there who take advantage of this and misuse the money meant for their children. These die-hards aren't worried about this news.

fizzywizzy wrote:

I just don't think you should sit back and let other people keep you and your children.

it would be nice if all parents who wanted to could stay at home and bring up their children but even in families where there are two parents around, it is often the case that both have to work. Why should lone parents be different?

I'm not sure these ones are just sitting back. bringing up kids is hard work. And if these ones do work, then they could be accused of sitting back and letting someone lese bring up their children.

I'm not sure I agree that two parents need to work though. It really depends on what sort of lifestyle you want.
We have a very low income, but we manage. We can't afford holidays or days out and the kids don't have all the latest gadgets, but we are happy.

I have a budget of £60 a week for shopping. It's tough but we survive. We don't have sky, we don't have a plasma, or even widescreen for that matter. we haven't got an X Box and the kids share a bike. But as far as I am concerned we have all we need to survive. It's knowing the difference between needing and wanting i believe that determines how much time is spent with the kids, and how much grafting to buy luxuries.

Then again, many women want to work. It isn't always enough to stay at home with the kids, especially if you have a career you don't want to suffer because of a prolonged absence.

One thing that annoys me is the tax credits system. I don't have kids, I don't want them, I never will; but i resent the fact that other people do nicely out of my taxes. If I want something I can't afford I have to save or do without. The tax credit system doesn't seem to do much to make people try harder for themselves and their families.

My dad used to do loads of overtime and my mother went to uni as a mature student to be able to get a better job to provide more for our family. No tax credits then...(of course we had a Tory government nearly all my childhood...)

I'm still digressing though....
As I've already reiterated my point was about people claiming dole for years when they could be working

your'e right, many women do want to work...but many would rather spend quality time with their kids. It's just a maternal thing, which you either have or don't.

Personally I really can't understand someone slogging their guts out in a career. Even if the family benefits financially, they don't usually get any time to spend together to enjoy it. But that's just my opinion. we are all different.

As for the digressing, think that is my fault...sorry! I do agree that people who have been claiming dole for years should be encouraged to go out and do something. There are plenty of jobs out there, many we would all hate to do, but it's a job at the end of the day.

Why do people assume that women who don't want childen don't have the "maternal thing"? Why can't it be a choice?

Of my closest friends none have children. I just prefer to spend my money on me and like doing things I couldn't do if I had children - for financial and practical reasons. Another friend recently studied for a second degree then a Masters so she has decided that she'll not waste all that and won't have childen so she can have a new career. Two others know that should they have children they wont be able to keep up in their careers.

As for people not spending any time together because you have a career, that's crazy and certainly not the norm. I don't see your point there.

fizzywizzy wrote:

Why do people assume that women who don't want childen don't have the "maternal thing"? Why can't it be a choice?

As for people not spending any time together because you have a career, that's crazy and certainly not the norm. I don't see your point there.

I wasn't saying you aren't maternal. Having never net you I have no idea, but I meant in general. people either go broody over babies or they don't. It's usually the latter that prefer to carry on with their careers if they have children.

And the second point. I'm talking from things I have seen. I have relatives who both work full time, in order to get further in their career and earn as much as possible. Trouble is, the child comes home to an empty house and does not see the parents till 8pm. At Weekends they go to Grandparents and School holidays either with friends, relatives or at a club.

This is the same for others I know. The kids are often with others because the parents are working. Or when at a young age go into nursery. For some this may be ideal, but for me, i would rather spend the time with my kids and watch them grow up than be able to buy them the latest of everything.

Quite so SLB!

fizzywizzy wrote:

Why do people assume that women who don't want childen don't have the "maternal thing"? Why can't it be a choice?

Of my closest friends none have children. I just prefer to spend my money on me and like doing things I couldn't do if I had children - for financial and practical reasons. Another friend recently studied for a second degree then a Masters so she has decided that she'll not waste all that and won't have childen so she can have a new career. Two others know that should they have children they wont be able to keep up in their careers.

As for people not spending any time together because you have a career, that's crazy and certainly not the norm. I don't see your point there.

I agree. Alot of my friends have decided just to work hard at their jobs and do well financialy, but that doesn't in any way mean they are not maternal.

I love kids and can't wait for this baby but to be honest at the end of my maternity leave I will be wanting to go back to work and I will be going back full-time.

I used to work 60 hours a week before I got pregnant and I always made time for my family life and will continue to do so when I have my child. As a parent I would always put my child first but I still have my own life to lead and still have ambitions at work and a child will in no way stop me.

My mum was a lone parent since I was 1 month old and always worked full time and yet always made time for me. I just think it is excuses that parents give the social.

egh sorry my comp broke and lost half my messgae !!

Lol, as i pointed out though, i didn't mean that you are not maternal if you decide to work. I just mean some women are, some aren't.

But often those who decide to go back to work change their minds once the baby comes along. i think hormones kick in....well something weird happens anyway!

My OH tells me that when he suggests part-time course to prepare these people, who are soon to be ineligible for benefits, for going back into work, they nearly pass out.

Anyway,it's not primarily lone parents. This is people who have found that its pretty easy to live on benefits and still get whatever you want. Satellite TV, holidays abroad (in a professional capacity, I know a family where NO adults work and they went to Florida earlier this year - and took a stretch limo to the airport!) designer clothes....

Wow, obviously not on the benefits I am....

but then again we can't get Social Housing so have to pay a fortune on Private renting.

If we didn't we would be a hell of a lot better off.