(UK) Single parents should 'prepare for work' when child is a year old

[Newsjock]

Source: The Independent (UK)

Lone parents could lose some of their state benefits when their baby reaches the age of one if they refuse to prepare to get a job.

Unemployed single parents whose youngest child is aged between one and five could be caught by new sanctions aimed at persuading the workshy to take jobs rather than remain on benefits. But the move, outlined in a White Paper yesterday, ran into immediate criticism from children's charities and groups representing single mothers.

Outlining the biggest shake-up of the benefits system for 60 years, Iain Duncan Smith, the Work and Pensions Secretary, said that jobless people should begin preparing for work when their youngest child reached the age of one.

... Mr Duncan Smith stressed that any financial sanctions imposed on this group would be "very, very low". Yesterday's White Paper said they could lose 20 per cent of their benefit for failing to attend a work-focused interview and an additional 20 per cent for not turning up for subsequent appointments.

Read more: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/single-parents-should-prepare-for-work-when-child-is-a-year-old-2131808.html

[Rosa Luxemburg]

1. Tories war against single mothers

they hate single mothers

[jancantor]

13. What about single fathers?

This law may have a disparate gender impact, since if the UK is like the US, the majority of single parents are women, but let's not forget men are single parents too

[Honeycombe8]

2. Of course they should. I'm surprised they don't! If they are out of the labor

market for years, their wages will never catch up.

Everyone has to earn a living, right? Off of work a year to have a baby? We here in the U.S. should be so lucky! Many here in the US get no time off, or 3 months. That's not enough, but a year? That should be plenty. UK provides daycare, I believe. I am guessing it is free or cheap.

[EJSTES2005]

4. well said!

my thoughts exactly. Unless there are special needs for the child the Mother should be back to work. A year off is a very long time by any standard. If a year is not enough, how long should it be ? How can anyone defend this ? It seems rather straight forward being the father of two under 5 who's wife had to be back after 3 months both times. Most of that time home was unpaid to boot :(

[juajen]

10. A daughter of a friend has been on assistance since baby

was born, and also has low rent apartment. Very conservative family. "Baby" is five years old this year. She turned down two jobs because she would lose benefits. Their religion forbids birth control of any kind.

[Eryemil]

19. "Their religion forbids birth control of any kind" Should WE be punished for their stupidity?

I agree when people say that no benefits for the child based on the poor choices of the mother would be unfair but having our money used to support some brainwashed baby-machine is hardly fair either. The mother should DEFINITELY have to work but instead of taking away all benefits once she is working, they should supplement her income until her wages are enough to support her family.

[Tumbulu]

11. what planet are you from- being a mother is much harder than

any paid job that I have ever had. Way harder and to imply that raising a child is not work is inaccurate. Leaving a baby at three months is literal hell for many mom's- most have to stop breastfeeding them or never start. Society pays the price when people who want to mother their children are removed to do something that earns money. The unpaid work of mothering (or stay at home fathering) is the foundation of the civil society.

It is just a major volunteering effort on behalf of the society at large, in general.

I say three is a more reasonable age, although my daughter could not be left with anyone until she was 7 years old.

[Honeycombe8]

15. No one said raising a child is not "work." We were talking about earning a living.

Every adult has to earn a living. Everyone.

Repeat that to yourself: Every adult has to earn a living.

Once you accept that fact, which is a truism, then you realize that being out of work, for any reason whatsoever, is bad for your ability to earn a living in the future.

If you don't earn a living for three years, who do you expect to go to work every day to pay for your living expenses? Me? Someone else? You think that's fair?

What sort of example is that for the child? Seeing someone not willing to work to pay her or his own way?

Yes, having children is work. I expect you knew that before you CHOSE to have children, right? I knew that when I got dogs. It's also work to have a job full time and also vacuum and dust and wash dishes and grocery shop and cook meals, etc. It's called life. But above all else, an adult MUST EARN A LIVING TO PAY HIS OR HER LIVING EXPENSES.

[Tumbulu]

17. This attitude is industrialism at it's sickest

Listen bud -every capable working class adult does has to earn a living- unless you are a trust funder. You don't have to tell me that- I started working at 11 years old, put myself through college and build up a business and a farm. Every time I left a job it took two or three people to replace me.

But choosing to give birth to a child comes with the responsibility to nurture it. And give it unconditional love -especially for the first three years. You may be able to find someone else to do this- and if the parents are not up to this, then by all means finding a loving caretaker is best- but to imply that it is the duty of every mother (or father) to lock-step get-back-to-money-making work is destructive to the parent/child bond which then has an effect on society in general. Babies and children are not something that can be mass produced. We are mammals, our babies need their mother's milk to thrive and they need to be raised by hand. More developed countries recognize this and thus support parents by giving them the option to leave work for years if they care to and not lose their career as a result. They allow for maternity savings accounts similar to our IRA's.

To dump a child on the state to raise (child care) so that you the individual can make more money, or not loose income, costs taxpayers as well. When parents put a child into childcare it should be because the parents think that the child is better off in childcare than with them. NOT because they can make more money this way. Or that their career may take a hit. Relegating childcare to the cheapest way to tend a child so that you can make more money is very sad.

[Nikia]

20. If one is a low wage earner, it almost doesn't make sense to work

A parent with limited job oppurtunites goes back to work so she give that money to daycare and have almost nothing left over. Alternatively, the state will pay someone else to look after her children so she can work instead of giving her that money so she watch her own child. Why is it working only if you are watching someone else's child?
For someone with a "career" your thinking might make sense but generally parents who need government assistance will probably be earning within a couple dollars of minimum wage at most whether they go back to work now or later.

[PSPS]

5. Yes, let's race to the bottom.

Since "many here in the US get no time off or 3 months," I guess everyone worldwide shouldn't expect anything better. Right? Of course, if the UK decides to go one better and "allow" only 2 months, I guess we'll just have to outdo them and go to one month. After all, we don't want to be "uncompetitive" in the eyes of our corporate overlords.

[Honeycombe8]

16. You know your argument is wrong when you have to resort to lying to make your "point."

I stated in my post that 3 months isn't long enough. Right? Of course I did.

BTW, it's in a person's own interest to get back to work as soon as reasonably possible. The longer a person is out of the work force, the longer it takes to catch up in amount of wages...if they ever are able to catch up.

If you take off a year, and I don't, I will probably be making more than you for years to come.

Besides, when you take off, for whatever reason, your living expenses continue, right? Well, someone has to work to pay for your living expenses. Right? Who do you think should pay your way? You want part of my wages? How about my neighbor's? That's okay for a while, maybe a year, but several years? You really think it's right that you take part of my wages for three years to pay for your living expenses because of your life choices?

A year is plenty long enough. Grow up. Adults have to earn a living. Show your child the meaning of responsibility. Get a job.

[eilen]

18. You know you are on Democratic Underground right?

Most here hold progressive social values and value investing in a child's future with, .... gasp! taxes. Perhaps some workplaces can be more flexible and offer work at home options that will allow the single parent to work a few hours while the child is asleep after the initial 3-4 months. Many cannot afford to pay childcare (which as it get cheaper decreases in quality) and still pay their bills.

[madrchsod]

3. going back to charles dicken`s england ?

[crim son]

7. Not unless the one-year-old

is donning an apron and moving to the scullery.

[crim son]

6. Interesting discussion.

I'm Canadian but have lived in the states for twenty years. A couple years ago I was visiting friends in Munich and, over wine, we had a rousing discussion of the differences between the German social support system and its American counterpart. I found myself really surprised to discover that I have adopted some very American perspectives, ones that would not be favorably reviewed in this thread. It's striking how our perceptions are deeply affected by our environment, for better or worse.

[daleo]

8. Conservatives are forever fretting about low birth rates

Yet their social policies are pretty much designed to discourage parenthood (low wages, poor benefits, and overall insecurity). They seem intellectually incapable of making the connection.

[Quantess]

28. No, they want cannon fodder.

[defendandprotect]

9. Because child care is unimportant ....

I imagine there are single parents who do return to work even before

the child is 1 year old -- but also that some may prefer to raise the

child themselves rather than having others care for the child while

they work. Basically, what's the difference? Either there are costs

for the child in day care, or the parent cares for the child?




And just look at the general insanity we've had here in America with throwing

Mothers on welfare out to earn Minimum Wage or less -- and then still had

to pay for child care costs if they could even find affordable child care!!

[tomg]

12. Actually, this does not seem

unreasonable on first glance,and,in fact, they are not talking about single parents taking jobs immediately or losing all their benefits, but rather staying in touch with the job market so when the child is 5 and in school, they will be able to go back to work, or losing up to 20% of their benefits.

"People who are looking after children that are over one year old and under five will be expected to be keeping in touch with the jobs market; they will be expected therefore to stay in touch with Jobcentres, to come in now and then to discuss with them what will happen once their child goes to school and how they can make that happen," he < Iain Duncan Smith, the Work and Pensions Secretary>said.

With that said, I no more trust the Conservative and the Lib Dem coalition than I trust the DLC.

[bemildred]

14. Won 't that make the unemployment rate higher? nt

[lynne]

21. Having a baby every 10-12 months will solve that problem -

- and turn childbirth into a cottage industry.

[sally cat]

22. That industry has been up and running quite successfully.

[ncdemclt]

23. Let’s be reasonable………..

The Company that I work for provides three months leave (full pay for that time) for mothers who have a child. Fathers are offered the same when a baby is born, but most return after two to three weeks for a number of reasons. While I fully admit that I do not have a child, to be out of work for a year seems a bit excessive. My parents didn’t have money when I grew up, so they had to go back to work to ensure that we had food, shelter, etc.

[MikeW]

24. LOL reasonable is not a DU trait

[daleo]

26. Wait until you become a parent

Then you will learn the reality of what a 3 month old baby is like to take care of. Paid employment is much easier than looking after an infant.

It's a miracle anyone has kids in hard-line capitalist countries. Of course, birth rates are beneath replacement levels in most advanced capitalist states, whether developed or undeveloped. In my opinion it is capitalism's greatest flaw as a long-term sustainable way of life for humanity. Pollution and depletion of resources are a couple of other difficult flaws, long term.

[mainer]

25. Wow, I wish I'd had a year. That's almost forever!

I had to be back at work two weeks after my kids were born.

I can't believe anyone is complaining about a year.

[daleo]

27. Lots of countries don't have social security or pensions

So, if those are taken from Americans, should everyone just shrug and say it's no worse than India? Everyone loses in a race to the bottom.