Looking for work and having children.

stauntj

My wife got quite the grilling recently in social welfare. The lady suggested work options to her in galway city which she didnt want to do between additional hours travelling and extra childcare costs.

Unfortunately she was in tears after the interview and when I told someone in social welfare, they said hand in a complaint letter.


So we did.

Now got a letter back saying that my wife showed reluctance to work afternoons as needs to pick up kids and that she needs to go in and clarify or her payment is in jeopardy.

Great.

So my question is, where do we stand on this.

She is available for work but needs something local and thought with additional childcare costs and school runs, she has a right to say that without losing payment? Working in city will be extra two hours a day commuting and 2 hours a day of extra childcare costs.

What should we do?

.

Effects

stauntj wrote: »

She is available for work but needs something local and thought with additional childcare costs and school runs, she has a right to say that without losing payment? Working in city will be extra two hours a day commuting and 2 hours a day of extra childcare costs.

Lots of people have to deal with childcare costs making a serious dent in their wages. Why should it be any different with social welfare?

Two hours a day commuting? Welcome to the real world.

NIMAN

I feel your pain OP, but I can't see you getting much sympathy tbh.

Your partner is either looking for work or she's not. And not many workers get to dictate when they can and can't work. They just have to get on with it.

I appreciate that she is likely caught in the welfare trap, where taking on work will cost you both money, as you may lose out on certain benefits, but unfortunately the staff in the welfare offices are meant to try to get people back into work.

sallysue2

stauntj wrote: »

My wife got quite the grilling recently in social welfare. The lady suggested work options to her in galway city which she didnt want to do between additional hours travelling and extra childcare costs.

Unfortunately she was in tears after the interview and when I told someone in social welfare, they said hand in a complaint letter.


So we did.

Now got a letter back saying that my wife showed reluctance to work afternoons as needs to pick up kids and that she needs to go in and clarify or her payment is in jeopardy.

Great.

So my question is, where do we stand on this.

She is available for work but needs something local and thought with additional childcare costs and school runs, she has a right to say that without losing payment? Working in city will be extra two hours a day commuting and 2 hours a day of extra childcare costs.

What should we do?

.

I'm assuming she is on jobseekers benefit or allowance. To be on that payment you have to be available for work and looking for work. You're saying she was reluctant as she had to pick up kids. Therefore, she is not available for work for the full day. No she does not have the right to say that. Jobseekers is very clear, you must be available for full time work. Even if you are on part time hours and are claiming jobseekers for the days you don't work, you still need to be available for work on other days.

I also have kids and I commute to galway City everyday from clare. It's more than an hour each way, loads of my colleagues commute over an hour each way thanks to crappy galway traffic.

Plumbthedepths

The condition attached to getting JA/JB is being available and seeking work. From your post your wife is not as available as she should be. Why shouldn't the payment be in jeopardy? As others have said plenty of working couples out there in the same boat regarding child care.

splinter65

Hi OP
Your wife is probably going to be disqualified from jobseekers because she’s not looking for or available for full time work.
Have you looked into WFP instead?

wifey28

stauntj wrote: »

My wife got quite the grilling recently in social welfare. The lady suggested work options to her in galway city which she didnt want to do between additional hours travelling and extra childcare costs.

Unfortunately she was in tears after the interview and when I told someone in social welfare, they said hand in a complaint letter.


So we did.

Now got a letter back saying that my wife showed reluctance to work afternoons as needs to pick up kids and that she needs to go in and clarify or her payment is in jeopardy.

Great.

So my question is, where do we stand on this.

She is available for work but needs something local and thought with additional childcare costs and school runs, she has a right to say that without losing payment? Working in city will be extra two hours a day commuting and 2 hours a day of extra childcare costs.

What should we do?

.

Unfortunately she is in real danger of having her payments stopped. To qualify for jobseekers she must be available for and looking for full time work. And by her reluctance shes showed the officer that actually shes not looking for nor is she available for full time work due to childcare issues.

You cannot cite childcare as a reason for turning down or not applying for jobs. They will take this to mean that she is not looking for full time hours, she is looking for something very specific, local and within school hours, which is not full time work. And means she is not available for full time work either. Which disqualifies her from a jobseekers payment

Cork_Langer1

Scare mongering bull****e by the lot here.

Just say now that your wife is now available for full time work, and apply for any job, provide that proof of job applying to the intro office, if a job doesn't financially benefit your family don't accept it.

Sleeper12

She's not available for work & I'd imagine she'll be cut off.

Would she sign off social welfare and start minding kids in her own home? Believe it or not she can earn up to 15k totally tax free doing this and you get to keep her tax free allowance.

Sleeper12

Cork_Langer1 wrote:

Just say now that your wife is now available for full time work, and apply for any job, provide that proof of job applying to the intro office, if a job doesn't financially benefit your family don't accept it.

Perfect username.

You do realise that we all pay if this lady defrauds the state as you have suggested.

Cork_Langer1

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Perfect username.

You do realise that we all pay if this lady defrauds the state as you have suggested.

Thanks.

This lady isn't defrauding the state, their family/financial well-being comes before a crap job or commute, of little benefit to their well-being, the country is at full employment sure.

iwillhtfu

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Perfect username.

You do realise that we all pay if this lady defrauds the state as you have suggested.

I'd guess we're already paying for him aswell :rolleyes:

Cork_Langer1

iwillhtfu wrote: »

I'd guess we're already paying for him aswell :rolleyes:

Clap clap, you don't pay for me or anybody for that matter.

The advice I gave is legitimate but doesn't suit the scaremongering that goes on in this section of boards.

Sleeper12

Cork_Langer1 wrote:

This lady isn't defrauding the state, their family/financial well-being comes before a crap job or commute, of little benefit to their well-being, the country is at full employment sure.

You need to look up some words in the dictionary. Defraud should be the first one you look up. You honestly think we should have to support her because she doesn't want to travel?

There are ways that she can stay home, earn money legally and not claim the dole but your suggestion is to defraud the state!

She can also avail of the rent a room scheme & earn another 14k a year tax free. That's 29k per year totally tax free and its perfectly legal.

Sleeper12

Cork_Langer1 wrote:

The advice I gave is legitimate but doesn't suit the scaremongering that goes on in this section of boards.

I wonder how long you can keep this account. You just advised her to lie to social welfare so she can continue to claim money she's not entitled to & you don't realise that this is fraud?

Jasus they raise some beauts in the rebble county that's for sure

Cork_Langer1

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I wonder how long you can keep this account. You just advised her to lie to social welfare so she can continue to claim money she's not entitled to & you don't realise that this is fraud?

Jasus they raise some beauts in the rebble county that's for sure

I've gave no advise for anyone to lie, I legitimately advised to apply for any job and provide proof of applying for jobs to intro, I stated if a any job doesn't benefit their families well-being or finances, they shouldn't take the job for which they've appiled.

I'm not a real langer fyi.

Sleeper12

Cork_Langer1 wrote:

I've gave no advise for anyone to lie, I legitimately advised to apply for any job and provide proof of applying for jobs to intro, I stated if a any job doesn't benefit their families well-being or finances, they shouldn't take the job for which they've appiled.

OP isn't available for work. This has been extended in the OP. This is why she is now in trouble

Cork_Langer1

Sleeper12 wrote: »

OP isn't available for work. This has been extended in the OP. This is why she is now in trouble

wrote:

She is available for work but needs something local and thought with additional childcare costs and school runs, she has a right to say that without losing payment? Working in city will be extra two hours a day commuting and 2 hours a day of extra childcare costs.

It's says it in the above they're available for work, a job should be beneficial for their families well-being and finances.

stauntj

My wife is ready and willing for work full time hours in a town with a population of 5000 and a multitude of businesses. She is willing to do any job locally even though she has specialised training.

Not a whole lot of empathy on this thread. I'm working and she currently receives a part payment.

She doesnt want to lose an additional 2 hours a day by commuting, coupled with 2 hours a day of EXTRA childcare costs.

I thought this was reasonable and fulfills the requirements for jobseekers, no?

stauntj

Might have to thanks. quote="splinter65;112617941"]Hi OP
Your wife is probably going to be disqualified from jobseekers because she’s not looking for or available for full time work.
Have you looked into WFP instead?[/quote]

splinter65

Cork_Langer1 wrote: »

It's says it in the above they're available for work, a job should be beneficial for their families well-being and finances.

“Beneficial for families well being and finances” has nothing to do with eligibility for Jobseekers.

thenightman

stauntj wrote: »

My wife is ready and willing for work full time hours in a town with a population of 5000 and a multitude of businesses. She is willing to do any job locally even though she has specialised training.

Not a whole lot of empathy on this thread. I'm working and she currently receives a part payment.

She doesnt want to lose an additional 2 hours a day by commuting, coupled with 2 hours a day of EXTRA childcare costs.

I thought this was reasonable and fulfills the requirements for jobseekers, no?

The conditions of JSA is that you are available for full time work. Not local work or work that suits whatever specific circumstances you deem acceptable. I understand your frustration, and you have my sympathy, but those are the terms she signed up for.

You won't get much sympathy here either but I wouldn't take it personally, boards loves a good welfare recipient bashing!

I work with people who commute from Dundalk, Wexford and Tullamore to Dublin daily who have kids and pay childcare + cost of commute. Just the way the world has gone, unfortunately.

If your wife wants to continue receiving a payment she'll have to satisfy DSP that she is looking for full time work, and not just work in your immediate locality on her own terms.

mailburner

It's all good and well expecting someone to commute, pay childcare costs and all that but if she's going to be no better off financially and the kids worse off if they are used to having their mum at home then I don't see the problem.


If she could be earning a decent wage then maybe she should be pushed harder but if you're only earning an extra 100-150 pw it's hard to blame anyone for not being motivated or just wanting to raise your own kids, though if you're single and child free then that's a different story.
I'm assuming in this instance that she simply want to be there for her kids and I don't blame here, raising kids is harder than most jobs.

I've worked opposite shifts to my partner in the past in order to be able to
spent as much time with our child as possible, it's no fun not seeing each other from monday to friday, hell most will know it's exhausting but we lived in the country so two cars meant two jobs etc etc but If we could have made it work where one could stay at home with a young child then absolutely we would have gone down that route for the child first and foremost and ourselves.

It's hugely beneficial to all involved if it can be made work and what this lady is receiving appears to be paltry anyway.
It's the couples who wander around town every day and who will be doing exactly that 5 years from now are the people they should be targetting.

The kids come first and having a parent there most of the time can only
be beneficial in most circumstances in my opinion.

thenightman

mailburner wrote: »

It's all good and well expecting someone to commute, pay childcare costs and all that but if she's going to be no better off financially and the kids worse off if they are used to having their mum at home then I don't see the problem.


If she could be earning a decent wage then maybe she should be pushed harder but if you're only earning an extra 100-150 pw it's hard to blame anyone for not being motivated or just wanting to raise your own kids, though if you're single and child free then that's a different story.
I'm assuming in this instance that she simply want to be there for her kids and I don't blame here, raising kids is harder than most jobs.

I've worked opposite shifts to my partner in the past in order to be able to
spent as much time with our child as possible, it's no fun not seeing each other from monday to friday, hell most will know it's exhausting but we lived in the country so two cars meant two jobs etc etc but If we could have made it work where one could stay at home with a young child then absolutely we would have gone down that route for the child first and foremost and ourselves.

It's hugely beneficial to all involved if it can be made work and what this lady is receiving appears to be paltry anyway.
It's the couples who wander around town every day and who will be doing exactly that 5 years from now are the people they should be targetting.

The kids come first and having a parent there most of the time can only
be beneficial in most circumstances in my opinion.

Everyone on JSA is treated equally. It would be unfair for DSP to be hounding single people night and day to find work but ignoring others just because they are parents. They chose to become parents at the end of the day, and already receive non means tested taxpayer money in the form of children's allowance.

20/20

mailburner wrote: »

what this lady is receiving appears to be paltry anyway.

Where did you see what this sponger is getting ??

thenightman

20/20 wrote: »

Where did you see what this sponger is getting ??

Morons like you get these threads locked.

20/20

thenightman wrote: »

Morons like you get these threads locked.

bla bla

Cork_Langer1

splinter65 wrote: »

“Beneficial for families well being and finances” has nothing to do with eligibility for Jobseekers.

Yes it does, some crank in the intro office can't make a person take a job that doesn't benefit their well-being or finances.

As I said apply for any job and provide proof of the applying for said jobs will keep them happy.

And this thread shows always say yes sir three bags full sir to anyone in intro, anything you say can and will be used against you.

mailburner

stauntj wrote: »

Not a whole lot of empathy on this thread. I'm working and she currently receives a part payment.

It's hardly 200 pw, probably less than half that if you read it

20/20 wrote: »

Where did you see what this sponger is getting ??

Classy stuff there!

thenightman

Cork_Langer1 wrote: »

Yes it does, some crank in the intro office can't make a person take a job that doesn't benefit their well-being or finances.

As I said apply for any job and provide proof of the applying for said jobs will keep them happy.

And this thread shows always say yes sir three bags full sir to anyone in intro, anything you say can and will be used against you.

I was unemployed around 2012 and used to bring in A4 envelopes full of emails and rejection letters I'd received, most of the time the staff wouldn't bother even looking at them, which I found maddening!

You just have to be seen to be jumping through their hoops. Never give them any more info then they ask for and never offer up an opinion on anything would be my advice for dealing with any arm of the state.

20/20

mailburner wrote: »

It's hardly 200 pw, probably less than half that if you read it

Read where I see no mention of money ?

stauntj

I understand a lot of people are hurting on here with long commutes and exorbitant childcare costs and it sucks when someone sitting on their arse claiming the dole reducing your paycheck.

If you can step back from that for a minute and logically look at the actual conditions listed for JA eligibility...my wife meets them all(as listed below)

So where does it say she has to jump into full time employment with a long commute even if it strangles our family? Let's help each other out not kick each other down I say. Some helpful suggestions on here also, tx.

To get Jobseeker's Allowance you must be aged over 18 and under 66. You must also:

Be unemployed (you must be fully unemployed or unemployed for at least 4 days out of 7)
Be capable of work
Be available for full-time work and genuinely seeking work
Satisfy the means test
Meet the habitual residence condition

Markcheese

Effects wrote: »

Lots of people have to deal with childcare costs making a serious dent in their wages. Why should it be any different with social welfare?

Two hours a day commuting? Welcome to the real world.

There a bit of reality in there too though, if you have to drop the kids off at 9 and pick them up between 2 and 3 , knock off 2 hours commuting time (and it's cost ), and a potentially minimum wage job , you could we'll end up in minus territory , which may not be affordable ... I've made a good few assumptions in that ...

stauntj

thenightman wrote: »

Everyone on JSA is treated equally. It would be unfair for DSP to be hounding single people night and day to find work but ignoring others just because they are parents. They chose to become parents at the end of the day, and already receive non means tested taxpayer money in the form of children's allowance.

You understand that my kids will pay for your pension and later years and without this cycle of life, economy would go down the toilet. So a little flexibility to parents should be on offer in the larger consideration of things.

stauntj

Markcheese wrote: »

There a bit of reality in there too though, if you have to drop the kids off at 9 and pick them up between 2 and 3 , knock off 2 hours commuting time (and it's cost ), and a potentially minimum wage job , you could we'll end up in minus territory , which may not be affordable ... I've made a good few assumptions in that ...

Your assumptions are all right.

mailburner

Markcheese wrote: »

There a bit of reality in there too though, if you have to drop the kids off at 9 and pick them up between 2 and 3 , knock off 2 hours commuting time (and it's cost ), and a potentially minimum wage job , you could we'll end up in minus territory , which may not be affordable ... I've made a good few assumptions in that ...

This is the real world for many sadly.
I sympathise with anyone in this position yet would be fully behind
them if they dropped out of employment for their kids betterment and their own.

Salary Negotiator

stauntj wrote: »

You understand that my kids will pay for your pension and later years and without this cycle of life, economy would go down the toilet. So a little flexibility to parents should be on offer in the larger consideration of things.

Assuming your kids actually go out and work.

Only a 50/50 chance based on their parents.

Sleeper12

stauntj wrote:

My wife is ready and willing for work full time hours in a town with a population of 5000 and a multitude of businesses. She is willing to do any job locally even though she has specialised training.

She is 100 percent entitled to pick & choose any job she wants. She can decide she only wants to work locally. However social welfare are perfectly correct in saying that she isn't really available for work if she's being so picky. I live in a city of a million yet people have to travel several hours every day to get to & from work. Social welfare is there to bridge a gap between jobs. It's not your buffer until you find your dream job.

With 5000 living so close by your wife can mind children in your own & earn up to 15k tax free.

GarIT

stauntj wrote: »

You understand that my kids will pay for your pension and later years and without this cycle of life, economy would go down the toilet. So a little flexibility to parents should be on offer in the larger consideration of things.

Most people barely pay for themseves. You must be paying €14,000 tax per year of your working life to break even any less and someone richer than you is subsidising you. JSA/JSB is a drain on the economy so it's not like this is an investment gaining the state loads later like you have tried to make out.


The "available for full time employment" rule is interpreted to mean available for any work at all regardless of any circumstances. I do beleive there should possibly be better spports for working families but at the moment there isn't, the rules are the rules unfortunately.


I currently earn €4 per hour and commute up to an hour and a half each way. The €4 figure is reached by using net salary (salary after tax) minus what I would get on the dole and minus commuting costs. It doesn't include what I could potentially get on HAP or losing the medical card. I could possibly be worse off working than not. I don't like the long commute or working for €4 an hour or not getting to spend as much time with my family but I don't like someone else paying for me and I hope in the long term I can increase my salary to make it more worthwhile.

Sleeper12

thenightman wrote:

Morons like you get these threads locked.

Calling posters morons tends to get them locked too
Just saying

Sleeper12

stauntj wrote:

So where does it say she has to jump into full time employment with a long commute even if it strangles our family? Let's help each other out not kick each other down I say. Some helpful suggestions on here also, tx.

Can you post the guidelines that states that she doesn't have to make long commutes?

It's not uncommon in Dublin for a family to leave at 7am, children dropped to creche and not picked up again till 6pm. Sometimes grand parents have to pick them up at 6pm because mammy & daddy have another hours drive.

thenightman

stauntj wrote: »

You understand that my kids will pay for your pension and later years and without this cycle of life, economy would go down the toilet. So a little flexibility to parents should be on offer in the larger consideration of things.

Likely won't be a state pension when I'm due to retire in 30 odd years time and it won't be comfortable to live on if it somehow does still exist. It's why I've been saving 30 a week in the credit union the last 3 years and plan on investing it when I've 10k saved, rinse and repeat.



Also, unless your children become very high earners they won't cover their own state pension through taxation, never mind mine. Plus factor in the children's allowance they receive for 18 years, free GP care etc. Your offspring aren't the economic heroes you think they are!

Sleeper12

Salary Negotiator wrote:

Assuming your kids actually go out and work.

Not likely with the example being set.

sallysue2

stauntj wrote: »

I understand a lot of people are hurting on here with long commutes and exorbitant childcare costs and it sucks when someone sitting on their arse claiming the dole reducing your paycheck.

If you can step back from that for a minute and logically look at the actual conditions listed for JA eligibility...my wife meets them all(as listed below)

So where does it say she has to jump into full time employment with a long commute even if it strangles our family? Let's help each other out not kick each other down I say. Some helpful suggestions on here also, tx.

To get Jobseeker's Allowance you must be aged over 18 and under 66. You must also:

Be unemployed (you must be fully unemployed or unemployed for at least 4 days out of 7)
Be capable of work
Be available for full-time work and genuinely seeking work
Satisfy the means test
Meet the habitual residence condition

I will answer your question. Your wife does not meet all conditions. As per your original post, she is reluctant to apply for jobs as she does school run. She also won't apply for jobs an hour away (which is NOT excessive). Therefor she is not available for full time work and genuinely seeking work. She does not satisfy all conditions for jobseekers. There is no leeway on this, she can't pick and choose, you have to be in a position to take any jobs within a reasonable distance (1 hour away is reasonable).

She wants to stay at home and pick up kids from school? Great, of course she can choose to do that, but she can't claim jobseekers. That's the choice ye have. Someone else here suggested minding children, might be worth exploring.

GarIT

There's also the option of dropping the kids off at a creche, child minder or school +afteschool in the city which I know a lot of people doing.

splinter65

Cork_Langer1 wrote: »

Yes it does, some crank in the intro office can't make a person take a job that doesn't benefit their well-being or finances.

As I said apply for any job and provide proof of the applying for said jobs will keep them happy.

And this thread shows always say yes sir three bags full sir to anyone in intro, anything you say can and will be used against you.

You obviously don’t know anything about SW or any of the rules or regulations outside of the usual nonsense you hear in staff canteens and standing at the bar in your local.
On Jobseekers now for any length and you’ll be referred to JobPath. Yes you might be looking for jobs and applying for jobs and just being unlucky and not getting the jobs.
That used to be fine and you could continue getting your payment but not anymore.
JobPath will bring you in and do a forensic examination of your job searching and point out where your going wrong and “help” you to broaden your horizons in your pursuit of a job.
If you mention childcare issues or commuting problems at all they will report back to SW and you will be at risk of having your payment suspended or even cancelled.

stauntj

thenightman wrote: »

Likely won't be a state pension when I'm due to retire in 30 odd years time and it won't be comfortable to live on if it somehow does still exist. It's why I've been saving 30 a week in the credit union the last 3 years and plan on investing it when I've 10k saved, rinse and repeat.



Also, unless your children become very high earners they won't cover their own state pension through taxation, never mind mine. Plus factor in the children's allowance they receive for 18 years, free GP care etc. Your offspring aren't the economic heroes you think they are!

Ok fair point. It doesnt cover everything mind like vat or spending value of an additional person. The Germans went into negative population growth and sought to rectify it through immigration. A pure calculated move from what I'd see that tallies with the logic I've used.

Cork_Langer1

splinter65 wrote: »

You obviously don’t know anything about SW or any of the rules or regulations outside of the usual nonsense you hear in staff canteens and standing at the bar in your local.
On Jobseekers now for any length and you’ll be referred to JobPath. Yes you might be looking for jobs and applying for jobs and just being unlucky and not getting the jobs.
That used to be fine and you could continue getting your payment but not anymore.
JobPath will bring you in and do a forensic examination of your job searching and point out where your going wrong and “help” you to broaden your horizons in your pursuit of a job.
If you mention childcare issues or commuting problems at all they will report back to SW and you will be at risk of having your payment suspended or even cancelled.

No you won't, you're doing your usual scaremongering, if intro stop moneies it can only be your moneies and nothing you receive for your children, also if your monies are stopped you can appeal that decision while putting a claim into a CWO for a hardship payment.

As I said already, yes sir three bags full sir, anything you say, can and will be used against you.

Isn't the country at full employment sure

Markcheese

On that ,is there a distance that's considered reasonable to ask / demand a job applicant to commute , is an hour through traffic to Galway reasonable ? How about 3 hours to Dublin ?
Or a quick flight to London ?

Sleeper12

Markcheese wrote:

On that ,is there a distance that's considered reasonable to ask / demand a job applicant to commute , is an hour through traffic to Galway reasonable ? How about 3 hours to Dublin ? Or a quick flight to London ?

Well if a 1 to 2 hour commute means that you qualify for the dole then half of Dublin & the comuter belt should sign on tomorrow.

stauntj

splinter65 wrote: »

You obviously don’t know anything about SW or any of the rules or regulations outside of the usual nonsense you hear in staff canteens and standing at the bar in your local.
On Jobseekers now for any length and you’ll be referred to JobPath. Yes you might be looking for jobs and applying for jobs and just being unlucky and not getting the jobs.
That used to be fine and you could continue getting your payment but not anymore.
JobPath will bring you in and do a forensic examination of your job searching and point out where your going wrong and “help” you to broaden your horizons in your pursuit of a job.
If you mention childcare issues or commuting problems at all they will report back to SW and you will be at risk of having your payment suspended or even cancelled.

Job path aren't worth a sh*t.. After one week unemployed I ended up on their books. I spent 4 months unemployed after upskilling,updating cvs and constantly applying on multiple job sites with individually unique cover letters.

If you know what you are at, jobpath is at best a social outlet for your frustrations, at worst just another burden to a genuine jobseeker.

Also the contract for jobpath is close to finished and may not continue to my understanding. There was no forensic examination of my job search although maybe officer could tell I was searching like a man possessed.

I just thought I'd share the up to date reality of it...assuming job path service standardised across centres.