Compressed hours

Share your ideas about the practical side of caring.
I see my role on this forum as being that of a signposter.

Whilst I have studied Business Law, Employment Law, and run a small business for 20 years, I am on the forum primarily because I have cared for 10 different carees over 39 years.

Its really important to distinguish between a forum, and a formal advice service. I leave all the formal advice to our excellent helpline, and ACAS on Employment Matters.

However, often employers don't know anything about employees rights. If you just mention the Equality Act and the duty to make reasonable adjustments, very often just that is enough to make them kinder towards their caring employees!
In a way, what this whole issue points up is the KEY problem of care - that it is a NET COST to the national economy! Is it fair for a family carer to take a financial hit to care for someone with care needs? Is it fair to pass on that cost to an employer (ie, IF flexible working is not 'ideal' for them). Is it fair for the taxpayers as a whole to 'share the cost' - eg, if there were 'free professional care at point of need' for those who need care?

It's actually a very BIG question for society. How is the 'net cost' of caring for those who, through no fault of their own (assuming it is through no fault of their own!) require care from another human being (whoever that person is).

At the moment, the 'solution' that the UK seems to have opted for is simply to assume that the vast bulk of care needs will be met 'free' by family. Arguably, the government has 'washed its hands' of those of its citizens who may be able to vote, but also have care needs.
An addition consideration to add to Jenny's post.

The loss to the economy of skills that a carer once had , now " Lost " in a caring role.

Caring ... the responsibility of society ... or family ?

Add on the restriction imposed by the 21 Hour Rule and the £ XX BILLION loss will increase.
Yes, indeed - that's visible even on the forum, if you see what I mean (in fact, Hamster's informed, detailed post demonstrates it!)

However, that also raises a sideways issue which is the perennial 'nasty' in any discussion of How Society Should Be Run, because it sort of implies that 'clever people' shouldn't 'waste their time' being 'menial carers'....which is all very well (!), but does that mean we have to 'breed a caste of stupid people to be the carers whose time therefore wouldn't be wasted as they aren't suitable for anything else...................................!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(Obviously, this doesn't just apply to carers, but to all those whom society has 'assigned' to be, as the Victorians used to call it 'hewers of wood and drawers of water'....or maybe what Huxley called the 'deltas' of the human race.....)

Sorry, I've rather wandered off the original post, which is simply about how Kevin can get flexible working hours so as to square the circle on earning a living while looking after someone who can't earn a living......
Hmm, yes - but does that mean that 'skilled and educated folk' are 'above' caring, ie, that caring would 'waste their time' and therefore should only be done by those who dont' have the skills and education to do anything 'better'?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That said, it's noticeable that whenever a politican bleats on about how 'more care should be provided at home by the family'....you can bet your last fiver they aren't thinking 'Oh dear, that means I have to give up my fascinating and well paid job as a minister to go and wipe the bottom of my incontinent granny......'.
Best use of resources ... from a one person business to a whole society ?

In CarerLand , how many of the 6 million are " Wasted " as carers ... how many are " Natural " carers ?

As the Government consider all family carers as " Economically inactive " ... thread elsewhere on this ... the cost will be the £ BILLIONS.

That argument is separate but interlocking with the argument as to how much carers SAVE the economy ... any figure north of £ 132 BILLION.
jenny lucas wrote:
Wed Jan 17, 2018 6:41 pm
However, that also raises a sideways issue which is the perennial 'nasty' in any discussion of How Society Should Be Run, because it sort of implies that 'clever people' shouldn't 'waste their time' being 'menial carers'....which is all very well (!), but does that mean we have to 'breed a caste of stupid people to be the carers whose time therefore wouldn't be wasted as they aren't suitable for anything else...................................!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I see everyone as being capable of being a carer - if properly supported. But that's really for a political thread ;)
Oh, we're all capable of being carers - but SHOULD we be carers? As in, losing skills to the workplace, etc. As you say, a political decision and a HUGE one at that!
For those with an elderly disabled parent, there is more of a choice. If you have a child disabled at birth, there is no choice. Services don't really start to kick in until the child is almost school age.
I find that heart-breakingly cruel :cry: