Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Looking for work and having children.

Options
  • 22-02-2020 10:13pm
    #1
    stauntj
    Registered Users Posts: 46 ✭


    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?

    .


«134

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    Effects
    Registered Users Posts: 9,761 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #3
    NIMAN
    Registered Users Posts: 33,139 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #4
    sallysue2
    Registered Users Posts: 103 ✭✭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.


  • Options
    #5
    Plumbthedepths
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,653 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #6
    splinter65
    Registered Users Posts: 9,420 ✭✭✭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?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    wifey28
    Registered Users Posts: 327 ✭✭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


  • Options
    #8
    Cork_Langer1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 198 ✭✭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.


  • Options
    #9
    Sleeper12
    Registered Users Posts: 16,919 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #10
    Sleeper12
    Registered Users Posts: 16,919 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #11
    Cork_Langer1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 198 ✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    iwillhtfu
    Registered Users Posts: 6,368 ✭✭✭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:


  • Options
    #13
    Cork_Langer1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 198 ✭✭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.


  • Options
    #14
    Sleeper12
    Registered Users Posts: 16,919 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #15
    Sleeper12
    Registered Users Posts: 16,919 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #16
    Cork_Langer1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 198 ✭✭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.


  • Options
    #17
    Sleeper12
    Registered Users Posts: 16,919 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #18
    Cork_Langer1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 198 ✭✭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.


  • Options
    #19
    stauntj
    Registered Users Posts: 46 ✭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?


  • Options
    #20
    stauntj
    Registered Users Posts: 46 ✭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]


  • Options
    #21
    splinter65
    Registered Users Posts: 9,420 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    thenightman
    Registered Users Posts: 561 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #23
    mailburner
    Registered Users Posts: 23,841 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #24
    thenightman
    Registered Users Posts: 561 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #25
    20/20
    Registered Users Posts: 705 ✭✭✭20/20


    mailburner wrote: »
    what this lady is receiving appears to be paltry anyway.

    Where did you see what this sponger is getting ??


  • Options
    #26
    thenightman
    Registered Users Posts: 561 ✭✭✭thenightman


    20/20 wrote: »
    Where did you see what this sponger is getting ??

    Morons like you get these threads locked.


  • Options
    #27
    20/20
    Registered Users Posts: 705 ✭✭✭20/20


    thenightman wrote: »
    Morons like you get these threads locked.

    bla bla


  • Options
    #28
    Cork_Langer1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 198 ✭✭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.


  • Options
    #29
    mailburner
    Registered Users Posts: 23,841 ✭✭✭✭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!


  • Options
    #30
    thenightman
    Registered Users Posts: 561 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    20/20
    Registered Users Posts: 705 ✭✭✭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 ?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement