Welfare Moms - Should we be supporting moms so they can stay at home with their children? - Page 36

[captain optimism]

Originally Posted by sarafi 

Again, not faulting the Mama we are talking about as I completely understand being pregnant and stressed -but there are laws in place for these things and the fallout shouldn't just default to welfare. Should not her case worker pushed to punish the company she had to quit before clearing her for benefits? Someone was at fault, and this lady wasn't ably to stand up for herself. Clearly in this case, it bothered the Mama and she was legally entitled to a safe workplace.

The other example given was for a Mama with an autistic child who felt she needed assistance to stay home as the school couldn't help her child. We already pay for special educators, and she should have been given one, it's an actual law. There are any number of lawyers who would work on contingency to sue a school district violating a federal law, with no repercussions for future employment for the Mama. These things should not be shoved off into the same category of need, IMO. And yet they are still a need, and that's why we have laws regarding them.

Yes, that's what I'm saying. I think we put a lot of people into situations where they don't have good choices, and we shouldn't complain that they make bad choices under those circumstances. A lot of those situations involve family members with disabilities, racial or gender discrimination in hiring or in the workplace, sexual harassment in the workplace, unplanned pregnancy and domestic violence and abuse. We also have a whole lot of people who don't finish school, I think in part because we don't accomodate learning disabilities very well. 

If I had to throw money at any one problem, it would be education. I think that would make the biggest difference. 

We DO have laws and policies in place to help people in these situations, but they are ineffective because they are underfunded, and because we are so freaking obsessed with personal responsibility that case workers regard every person's real life story as "a sob story" for which they have no human sympathy.  

[queenjane]

Originally Posted by serenbat 

I think it should serve as a reminder that others did have to overcome major obstacles in the past, given far less resources, some none, yet now, so many can't seem to do this- I see so much lack of desire to attempt it.

other countries clearly do not act this way- they also have different view points we don't have here in the US-good and bad, if we can't even talk about all the issues how can they be resolved? kneed jerk jumping doesn't cut it

Times are different now. I certainly think its "doable" to pull yourself up by your bootstraps but i think that there are far more obstacles now than there used to be.

My father grew up the oldest of like ten kids in W. Virginia, his father was killed in the coal mines and his mother got a settlement from the black lung fund. My mother grew up the oldest of like ten kids in W. Virginia as well, her father was also a coal miner. She came from a "broken home" as her abusive father kicked her mother out, married again and kept the kids. My mother started working as a waitress when she was very young. Met my father when she was 16 (he was 20 and working in the coal mine at the time) , she got pg, they got married. My father dropped out of the 9th grade, my mother dropped out of the 11th grade. Neither ever went back to finish their education. At some point they moved North when everyone was doing that (since there was promise of auto jobs in detroit) and went on to have several more kids (im the youngest of 8)...my father went through MANY periods of unemployment where he stayed home with the kids and my mom waitressed many hours a week (this was the 1950s and 60s...when everyone talks about Leave it to Beaver and SAHMs my older sibs remember an absent mom who worked ALL the time)...at some point my dad got into the auto plant as a janitor and worked his way up, all the way up eventually to skilled trades and by the time he died (in his 70s) he was a pipefitter. When my mom gave birth to her sixth child in the mid 60s she was able to stay home and be a SAHM (she wasnt very good at it though) for babies 6,7,8. They bought a nice shiny new ranch house in the 50s, lived in the suburbs, and sent their kids to good schools and many of them onto college.

Is that possible today? Sure....but young teen parents, no high school diploma having a union job and buying a nice house is NOT the norm here and i dont think its always for lack of trying. Try getting a job without a high school diploma. Good luck with that! There wasnt even any "credit report" stuff when my parents were trying to make it. Now if the local auto plant hires THOUSANDS of people show up begging for an application for a few jobs. How many of them will get hired without a high school diploma?? add in complications of things like being a single parent, living far from available jobs etc...

I also dont think we should discount the effect things like prenatal alcohol exposure, drug addiction issues etc, learning disabilities may have on a population....these are invisible disabilities. My daughter (who is adopted) has issues that i think will keep her from really being truly independent (in terms of being able to manage life...manage time, money, steer clear of bad influences etc) and yet to look at her she looks totally normal. But i can only imagine her showing up to her first job interview and filling out the app in some kid-like scrawl, everything misspelled, or giving someone odd answers to questions and being passed over even if she was capable of doing the actual work. Had she stayed in the environment she was born into i could totally see her getting pg as a teenager, ending up on welfare, living in subsidized housing and having NO idea how to get out of that cycle. I think a huge percentage of the prison population probably has undiagnosed cognitive issues, mental health issues etc.

[kitteh]

Originally Posted by sarafi 

Wow. I've lived the life of a parent working a ton, actually 14 hours/day 6-7 days a week. I would in no way say that I ever thought that I didn't matter. My Momma taught me to be proud of my Daddy who worked had to work so very hard, because he chose manual labor rather than a college education and regular job.

It may be a matter of perspective, but none of us ever felt sorry for ourselves or not valued. And he did indeed raise me, even if it was only for a few hours each day.

From that post, I get the impression that it was just your father who had to work long hours? (correct me if I'm wrong here, but you say "a parent working a ton" and "daddy worked so very hard") I'm not saying that people shouldn't work hard, or that people who have to make that choice are bad parents. But I'm also referring to the homes in which BOTH parents work those long, long hours and the children spend almost all of their day at school or daycare. In my experience, those are the ones who break my heart and I see the pain that they feel because of it every single day. I'm not blaming anyone, just empathizing with the little ones.

[serenbat]

Quote:

Times are different now.

I am totally unaware that today's situation is more insurmountable!  

so we just keep throwing money at it or starve it off?

Quote:

 Had she stayed in the environment she was born into i could totally see her getting pg as a teenager, ending up on welfare, living in subsidized housing and having NO idea how to get out of that cycle.

Since I am accused of being for all for starvation of children and this was also eluded to, does this mean that there should be a ramped up sterilization or a mass push for adoption? I realize this is a personal prospective but what conclusion is to be drawn from mentioning this?   

[bmcneal]

Originally Posted by sarafi 

If I recall correctly, this didn't seem like a huge mega corp she was dealing with, hence the very poor HR response to a potentially violent problem this Mama got. In almost all cases with small employers the "squeaky wheel" will prevail, which is why someone was allowed to bully, and why I think if the Mama had been healthy enough to deal with it, even just the threat of a lawsuit would have fixed things for her--as she was legally in the right.

Again, not faulting the Mama we are talking about as I completely understand being pregnant and stressed -but there are laws in place for these things and the fallout shouldn't just default to welfare. Should not her case worker pushed to punish the company she had to quit before clearing her for benefits? Someone was at fault, and this lady wasn't ably to stand up for herself. Clearly in this case, it bothered the Mama and she was legally entitled to a safe workplace.

The other example given was for a Mama with an autistic child who felt she needed assistance to stay home as the school couldn't help her child. We already pay for special educators, and she should have been given one, it's an actual law. There are any number of lawyers who would work on contingency to sue a school district violating a federal law, with no repercussions for future employment for the Mama. These things should not be shoved off into the same category of need, IMO. And yet they are still a need, and that's why we have laws regarding them.

I didn't just go straight to welfare, I was/am looking for any kind of work, but it's very hard to find, especially with my getting/being so close to my due date. I've even been advised that it would be detrimental to get work now, as I would have to quit in a few weeks/months anyway, and that would look especially bad on applications/resumes when I plan to go back to work after the baby is born, but I'm still looking. (Most of the jobs I would qualify don't offer maternity leave until you work "x" amount of time, and even at the job I quit from, I wouldn't have qualified yet, and I worked there almost a year.)

Originally Posted by serenbat 

as with - you can lead a horse to water but .....

if you choose to quit a job, have a back up plan (on your own-another job, schooling, etc)

this is the situation for many and they don't rely on assistance and make it work-------planning... thinking of the future prior to acting

So you say I should have stayed where my health, safety, and the health of my unborn child and my family until I found other work? And I (think) I already said I'm planning on going back to school (well, certification for a hopefully better/better paying job), but I have to wait until classes begin again, I can't just start halfway through, and I can't just make the schools start classes because I want/need to start...

Originally Posted by serenbat 

this is OT - but if one only files a complaint with their company - they have no chance of anything happening - you must in 99% of all cases file with your employer, duel file with your state and the EEOC per their guidelines-within the mandated time frames and most cases many settlements are reached that are not via a law suite and this is often private, it's it illegal for the company to promote this and make it public, give a bad reference, etc You have no chance of suing and any reputable lawyer would tell you that (and MOST do consolations for free since they work on a percentage) unless you have won (meaning the state and or federal govt agency ruled in your favor- most lawyers will not take a case unless you have won) going through the state and federal system and that is not suing, it is filing paper work, attending arbitration and have a verdict rendered, in most cases. I can tell you, YOU can quit a job over harassment, win unemployment and win a judgement via the EEOC- it does happen- I am proof of that and it's cost $150.00 only because I took a lawyer to the EEOC, I didn't need to. I did this way pre-internet and had to travel 2 hours each way just to file. I was granted unemployment after waiting two cycles due to the nature of my claim. I never have taken any assistance, employment only once, this time and I had to meet the requirements of working prior to doing so. 

how to protect yourself, know your rights and how and where to file is something as a society we don't seem to want to make public and I have found most people simply want to complain and not even look into what they need to do

I frankly feel nothing for those who can not find this info now- it is super easy compared to years ago!

Thank you for letting me know when you first knew of what I should do. I have, in fact, been trying to get somewhere with this situation. I have read all the posters that hang on the walls. I knew I could (and should) do something, but just because you read something, doesn't mean you remember it automatically when you are stressed and need the information.

I was not in a situation where I could do that while I worked there. I hate(d) that I had to quit my job. I hate that they wouldn't help me. I hate not being able to help provide for my family. I hate that they looked at me, straight in the face, and said I would "get over it." I am still *well* within the time frame of the EEOC for filing, and after reading your (readily available, readily provided) information, am actually in the process of filing the way I need to. So thank you, very much, for *assuming* that I was just sitting on my fat butt, enjoying everything that everyone else is doing to take care of me and my family, that I so *willingly* chose to put in this lovely situation that I'm in, where I'm so scared of being targeted that every night when DF goes to work, I have panic attack and am scared to even go to the restroom for fear that he is out there, watching, waiting, for to find any way to hurt us more.

Edited by bmcneal - 2/3/13 at 1:52pm

[serenbat]

if you choose to quit a job, have a back up plan (on your own-another job, schooling, etc)

Quote:

So you say I should have stayed where my health, safety, and the health of my unborn child and my family until I found other work?

I DID not say this poster should have done X,Y & Z - it was a general comment on quitting a job under those cirumstances

In general (for all), it is prudent to have a plan (as the other post also said) that doesn't mean you go to assistance when you quit a job. 

[queenjane]

Originally Posted by serenbat 

I am totally unaware that today's situation is more insurmountable!  

so we just keep throwing money at it or starve it off?

Since I am accused of being for all for starvation of children and this was also eluded to, does this mean that there should be a ramped up sterilization or a mass push for adoption? I realize this is a personal prospective but what conclusion is to be drawn from mentioning this?   

serenbat...i feel like im wasting my time on this thread. i dont think you even want to gain understanding about other people's experiences. but sigh...i'll try.

"throw money at it" and "starve it off" (whatever that means) are not the only two options. Actually states try really hard to both provide assistance to needy families AND help families move off of assistance.  To provide job training, funding options for going back to school, etc etc.

I'm sorry that you failed to understand the point about my daughter. I thought it was pretty obvious but maybe not. You keep going on and on and ON about "generations of those who wont work...its a lifestyle choice!" and my point about my daughter is that sometimes its not so much a choice that keeps you in that cycle but actual real disabilities or challenges that might not be so obvious. Because she is no longer living in a dysfunctional family that has these deficits present, and is instead living with me she has a chance to actually get help for some of her issues and perhaps will learn the tools necessary to live with, if not overcome, those challenges. I am going to focus on real-life skills training and job training for her because i want her to be able to live independently as an adult. The solution isnt "ramped up sterilization or mass push for adoption" (wtf?? ) but #1) recognizing that there are "invisible" issues that may greatly contribute to an individual's inability to pull themselves up by their bootstraps (that is, they may not just be "lazy" or "lack motivation" or "not want to work") and #2) finding a way to identify these kids early on so they can learn the skills necessary to hopefully help them be more independent...that last one is easier said than done...my daughter goes to a really nice, suburban, wellfunded school and its been difficult to get teachers to REALLY see the extent of her learning issues despite her being in spec ed part time and having an IEP.

I'm really not sure what else i can say. I guess i'm just one of those people that does not see the world in black and white but rather many many shades of gray and i've always seemed to understand that one's personal experiences inform ones opinions and choices in life...and i try to see that just because something is true for me, it doesnt mean its true for someone else. Just cuz someone else's grandma worked ten jobs while raising 20 kids walking uphill five miles each way to milk  the cow or whatever....doesnt mean everyone else will thrive with those conditions. Just sayin'.

[serenbat]

So you are or aren't saying adoption? I seem to read adopt out from your posts, that's not correct?

[bmcneal]

Originally Posted by serenbat 

if you choose to quit a job, have a back up plan (on your own-another job, schooling, etc)

I DID not say this poster should have done X,Y & Z - it was a general comment on quitting a job under those cirumstances

In general (for all), it is prudent to have a plan (as the other post also said) that doesn't mean you go to assistance when you quit a job. 

Under which circumstances? Because the circumstances I was under. Please clarify, I may have been wrong.

And like I already said, it wasn't automatically "Okay, I quit, now we can/should go to assistance." It was, "Okay, I've quit my job. I'm trying to find another job. But now what? Two months after I stopped working, we've gone through the savings we had *for when there was an emergency.* Okay, we'll be okay. *I'm still looking for work, but not finding*. Now, we have not enough food, and our kids are going hungry. Well, let's cut what we (adults) eat. Let's plan better. But still... they're hungry. *Still looking for work.* Damn it, we can't keep above water. I guess we'll have to suck it up, and *until I can find any kind of work,* we'll see what, if any, help we can get, so our kids can have 3 meals a day." So it wasn't the "plan" to go to food stamps. It was a last ditch, our kids are going to end up going hungry if something doesn't change. Judge me if you want. I'm doing the best I can. I know there's people out there that work the system (Living in low-income housing, didn't have a job, dealing drugs and stealing from anyone and everyone they could, including us when we allowed them to work with us to make some extra money [before we knew what they were up to], and giving them 50% of our income, because we knew they lived in low-income housing and thought they honestly needed help.), and I know there are people (not saying anyone here on MDC), that lie to get help. But I'm not one of them. We are in a *temporary* situation where we need a little help. I don't plan on being on food stamps or getting help forever. I would love to be completely self-sufficient, all the time. But shit happens. Things go wrong. People need help sometimes, to get back to routine (There's a different word I want to use, because "routine" isn't quite what I was looking for, but I can't think of it right now.) But (if I'm understanding what you're saying, and please, correct me if I'm wrong.), that is what welfare is for. To help *temporarily*. And that is how I have, am, and will use it, if I need to.

[queenjane]

Originally Posted by serenbat 

So you are or aren't saying adoption? I seem to read adopt out from your posts, that's not correct?

what are you talking about???

[captain optimism]

Originally Posted by serenbat 

 I can tell you, YOU can quit a job over harassment, win unemployment and win a judgement via the EEOC- it does happen- I am proof of that and it's cost $150.00 only because I took a lawyer to the EEOC, I didn't need to. I did this way pre-internet and had to travel 2 hours each way just to file. I was granted unemployment after waiting two cycles due to the nature of my claim. I never have taken any assistance, employment only once, this time and I had to meet the requirements of working prior to doing so. 

So, let me get this straight, again. I already noticed that you said this. 

You quit a job without another job to go to because YOU were being harassed. Then YOU collected unemployment, because of your fabulousness in figuring out a way to pursue redress. 

Leaving aside the number of times in this thread that you, personally, have seemed to be criticizing others for taking unemployment--again, not totally sure that you're saying what you mean all the time because of the way you write--

How is your decision to leave a job where you were being harassed when you didn't have another lined up different from someone else's identical choice?

Is it different because you know that you were really being harassed, but you assume that anyone who wound up having to go on welfare was just being lazy?

[captain optimism]

Originally Posted by bmcneal 
 I'm so scared of being targeted that every night when DF goes to work, I have panic attack and am scared to even go to the restroom for fear that he is out there, watching, waiting, for to find any way to hurt us more.

I know this is off topic. 

What are the statutes about stalking in your state? Can you get a restraining order on this person? You don't work with him anymore, you have no personal relationship, there's no conceivable reason why he should ever visit your house. I'm so sorry you're living with this kind of thing. 

[serenbat]

Quote:

To provide job training, funding options for going back to school, etc etc.

Quote:

Actually states try really hard to both provide assistance to needy families AND help families move off of assistance.  To provide job training, funding options for going back to school, etc etc.

We have been doing this as a nation - job training program go back to the 1960's, GED programs go back to the 40's, this form of funding has been the approach for multiple generations, that is what is meant by keep throwing money at a issue/problem.

Quote:

 My daughter (who is adopted) has issues that i think will keep her from really being truly independent (in terms of being able to manage life...manage time, money, steer clear of bad influences etc) and yet to look at her she looks totally normal. But i can only imagine her showing up to her first job interview and filling out the app in some kid-like scrawl, everything misspelled, or giving someone odd answers to questions and being passed over even if she was capable of doing the actual work. Had she stayed in the environment she was born into i could totally see her getting pg as a teenager, ending up on welfare, living in subsidized housing and having NO idea how to get out of that cycle.

This sounds like adoption as a way out of the problem situation, where am I wrong here in what I am reading?

So you are or aren't saying adoption? I seem to read adopt out from your posts, that's not correct?

what I don't get is adoption in your case did this and that is OK because it's not being done in other communities??

Quote:

recognizing that there are "invisible" issues that may greatly contribute to an individual's inability to pull themselves up by their bootstraps (that is, they may not just be "lazy" or "lack motivation" or "not want to work") and #2) finding a way to identify these kids early on so they can learn the skills necessary to hopefully help them be more independent...that last one is easier said than done...my daughter goes to a really nice, suburban, wellfunded school and its been difficult to get teachers to REALLY see the extent of her learning issues despite her being in spec ed part time and having an IEP.

again, we are doing this already -children receiving medical assistance, WIC,etc are already being seeing by professionals from birth or a very early age, IEP can be done within the community (as was pointed out when it was mentioned about the autism comment) without removing the child for adoption, and frankly even via adoption you can still end up in a bad school

Quote:

The other example given was for a Mama with an autistic child who felt she needed assistance to stay home as the school couldn't help her child. We already pay for special educators, and she should have been given one, it's an actual law. There are any number of lawyers who would work on contingency to sue a school district violating a federal law, with no repercussions for future employment for the Mama. These things should not be shoved off into the same category of need, IMO. And yet they are still a need, and that's why we have laws regarding them.

Are you only saying adopt these children out to better off parents in better school districts?    this is how it is coming off - your child was removed for a better life so that seems like this is an option?

Quote:

Under which circumstances?

under all circumstance should there be a plan that does not include going from quitting a job to assistance (this is a general comment) as I said prior a plan (in ANY case of harassment or similar - you have "a plan" - and I put more at the bottom here- you plan what to do)

Unemployment insurance is insurance in a very real sense, each state being unique, but you have to meet a criteria that always includes working prior and the reason for your leaving has to be legal.

If you quit a job and do not take another, go to a class, enter the army, leave to have a baby, etc - you have a gap- employers want to know why.

Your chances of getting a job greatly increase if you do not have gaps or a way of explaining for the gaps.

It is also not advisable to fabricate your reason(s) for leaving if that does not match with what they are going to say when a potential employer calls for a reference.

Your chances of getting a job are usually far better if you have a job- any job and take another, even if you don't plan on staying long at it. 

Quote:

How is your decision to leave a job where you were being harassed when you didn't have another lined up different from someone else's identical choice?

I left and got lawful unemployment (you do know you pay into so that you can collect it back?) and took classes. I also made sure I secured a letter of reference for my resume as part of my settlement. I did not leave without a plan and I did not leave a gap to call into question. I did not go from a job to assistance because of my choice.

OT-I will say that unless your state has some really odd laws, you are required to file while still on the job over harassment with your employer (and some states if you don't dot your "i" right they throw it all out) or have proof via a police report, you will have little to no chance of pursuing it once you have left the job. It is not like the LL fair pay act. Without legal proof it's after the fact hearsay and it can cost you should the turn the table and sue you for deformation. (this is a general comment)

when you know you need to leave a job you should make a plan - if that means you have to contact who ever or do what ever prior you should do so, that's prudent - you plan what your next step is (to avoid a gap) you make a plan, I do not know that it is ever advised that one goes from quitting to public assistance as a plan-I have never heard of any career adviser that would say it 

Edited by serenbat - 2/3/13 at 5:33pm

[queenjane]

Are you only saying adopt these children out to better off parents in better school districts?    this is how it is coming off - your child was removed for a better life so that seems like this is an option?

This is insane. I'm not even sure how you are getting this. I am not sure why i bother but let me try to go slower and spell it out.

You have stated (i think it was you...this thread is really long) that the only legitimate reason someone should be getting welfare is if they are elderly, disabled, taking care of a disabled child. I was trying to show you that people can have REAL "legitimate" challenges in life without being obviously disabled. I used, as an example, my daughter. My daughter happens to have been adopted (at age 8) from foster care. My daughter has real challenges that will likely impact her ability to hold down a full time job, pay rent, keep it together in life as an adult. (Hopefully she WILL be able to do these things...but it will be more difficult for her than the average person i think.) But to look at her, you wouldnt think "disabled child"...not at ALL. And even though she does receive special ed services at school, even her teachers dont see what i see on a daily basis. I tried to explain to you how someone might have trouble holding down a job, even filling out an application, navigating getting TO a job, etc etc...without just being "lazy" "lacking motivation" etc...certainly this doesnt account for EVERYONE on long term welfare but i bet its a significant number.

My daughter likely will be able to stay out of the "welfare system" because she has a healthy family to fall back on....had she stayed in her birthfamily however, she would not have us as a safety net. The safety net would be govt programs. I DID NOT TELL YOU THIS SO THAT YOU COULD EXTRAPOLATE THAT CHILDREN SHOULD THEN BE GIVEN TO OTHER PEOPLE TO AVOID THE GOVT SAFETY NET. Sheesh! i told you this so that you could perhaps have UNDERSTANDING and EMPATHY for why someone might NEED THE SAFETY NET for reasons other than being lazy, selfish, entitled, etc. I pointed out my daughter's access to IEP services, a good school district, a healthy functional parent etc not to say "LETS MOVE ALL THE POOR CHILDREN TO MY HOUSE!!!" but rather to point out that even WITH all of these positive things...my daughter likely will STILL have many struggles in life so i can only IMAGINE how hard the struggle is for a child growing up in more dire circumstances.

Within some families caught up in "generational welfare" there really may be more going on than just "learned helplessness" or lack of motivation to work or entitlement.

[bmcneal]

Originally Posted by serenbat 

If you quit a job and do not take another, go to a class, enter the army, leave to have a baby, etc - you have a gap- employers want to know why.

Your chances of getting a job greatly increase if you do not have gaps or a way of explaining for the gaps.

I am pregnant, and *will* have a baby, which is (second to the harassment) another reason I left. I could *not* have stayed at that job any longer than I did without serious risks to myself and my baby. So when they ask, that's what I'll tell them, because that is the truth. And honestly, I have *never* had a problem with saying "I was a stay at home mom, I took care of my kids." Because I guess what they say is true, "Honesty is the best policy." I have stayed at home more than I have worked since I became an adult, and have never had an issue with the gaps in my history, and those were for longer periods of time than this will be.

I have not, am not, and will not fabricate why I have gaps. I also am fairly confident that when I return to work, I will have no more issues with finding a job than I did previously. I have high recommendations from *all* of the employers I have had in the past, to the point of some prospective employers making a point to say they have not (often, if ever) had such recommendations from previous employers. So while I may end up in a lower-paying job than most with more physically demanding expectations, I'm confident I will have little to no issue getting a job, when the time comes. (In fact, I much prefer the manual labor/physical demands of warehouse/factory work to some of the higher education requiring jobs. I know I'm working for my money, and I will *not* be getting assistance once I start working. I will be "pulling my weight" so to speak.

OT-I will say that unless your state has some really odd laws, you are required to file while still on the job over harassment with your employer (and some states if you don't dot your "i" right they throw it all out) or have proof via a police report, you will have little to no chance of pursuing it once you have left the job. It is not like the LL fair pay act. Without legal proof it's after the fact hearsay and it can cost you should the turn the table and sue you for deformation. (this is a general comment)

when you know you need to leave a job you should make a plan - if that means you have to contact who ever or do what ever prior you should do so, that's prudent - you plan what your next step is (to avoid a gap) you make a plan, I do not know that it is ever advised that one goes from quitting to public assistance as a plan-I have never heard of any career adviser that would say it.

According to the EEOC, the time limit is 180 or 300 days from the time of the incident of harassment, so I am still *well* within that window. Again, the plan was never to quit my job and get on assistance, in fact, quite the contrary, as I stated in my previous post. I agree, there probably isn't a career advisor that would say that, but... that's moot, IMO, because *again* that was not the plan. The plan, in fact, was to *continue* with my job until the time came for me to have my baby. It became impossible for me to continue with the *plan* when I realized that there would be/were severe negative consequences with my continuing with said *plan*, like losing my child, or becoming incapacitated myself. Sometimes, the best laid *plans* can still come apart. Just because you can't follow through with a plan doesn't mean you didn't have one, and if you can't follow the plan, it doesn't negate the fact that you made one. When I learned I needed to leave the job was the day they told me I would "get over it." That doesn't leave much time to change plans.

Edited by bmcneal - 2/3/13 at 6:22pm

[littlest birds]

Originally Posted by sarafi 

The other example given was for a Mama with an autistic child who felt she needed assistance to stay home as the school couldn't help her child. We already pay for special educators, and she should have been given one, it's an actual law. There are any number of lawyers who would work on contingency to sue a school district violating a federal law, with no repercussions for future employment for the Mama. These things should not be shoved off into the same category of need, IMO. And yet they are still a need, and that's why we have laws regarding them.

Actually the mama with the autistic child is me.  I do not only homeschool because he is autistic, but it is one of our more important reasons.  I am not satisfied with the school's programing that did not meet his needs, he was complaining of bullying and they said nothing was happening, etc.  HOWEVER!!!  I have said repeatedly that I receive NO assistance.  I am just working poor.  As in mega-overtime working poor.  I have worked while homeschooling for years.  I run a small business with my husband and although I have multiple income streams I also have multiple financial commitments in my business that keep my income below poverty level.  

I am almost shocked to be judged for homeschooling, told that it's those special educators' job, etc.  So even the working poor shouldn't have a choice to homeschool?  My choice to homeschool is none of your business, and even if you thought it would be if I received assistance--I don't. 

I was criticized repeatedly ONLY because I do not have insurance.  (I have actually qualified for some food stamp assistance at least for most of the past ten years and have not sought any during any of that time. If my kids were in school they would get free lunch.  We qualify for some state medical assistance but instead of applying we have paid out of pocket.)  During that time I have also rescued a local business with free sweat and careful strategy--one that happens to be very important to our community. 

I was really surprised that I was criticized here.  No one who knows me in real life would think I was "dependent" or anything like that, I have others who depend on me including a retirement income I pay via the business, and for now we just keep scraping by.  I know a lot of people who have been there by my side through the years witnessing our work and appreciating it first hand.  Judgment on the internet is a strange creature, and fortunately it isn't all that hurtful to me personally.

Sadly, for many mamas here who might be reading and not even commenting, these criticisms could be quite hurtful.  Even though I chose to forgo food stamps, I don't resent someone else making a different choice.  I choose to work really long hours (flexible, but long), homeschool, and barely survive but I made those choices and have to live with them.  I try not to resent those who make a decent income and have a real weekend as well.  But if those folks with their different lives, their reliable cars and their weekends, are now pointing their fingers at me, it's not fair at all.

[crunchy_mommy]

As much as the judgmental comments may be hurtful, just try to remember that it are really only one or two people judging here. Most of the other posters have been nothing but understanding & compassionate and are completely baffled by the negative comments. to you & bmcneal.

[serenbat]

 

 

had she stayed in her birthfamily however, she would not have us as a safety net

I don't understand this rational - you say she is better off with you, she would not have a "safety net" (yet it's repeated over and over here that welfare is suppose to be a "safety net") and this whole thread is about welfare mothers staying with their children, and your is better off removed? That is the complete opposite. 

I have not, am not, and will not fabricate why I have gaps.

again, It is always advisable to have the reason you left match what was told to the previous employer- if you left due to being pregnant but put down a different reason on a resume that can be problematic, even if you left because of pregnancy and do not state why you were not offered another job or the reason you do not plan to go back after the baby - prospective employers will question this 

 

According to the EEOC, the time limit is 180 or 300 days from the time of the incident of harassment, so I am still *well* within that window.

this really is OT- please contact a lawyer (most will do consultation for free) most states require dual filing to protect your rights- that is a much different time frame, unless you have contacted a lawyer just looking at the EEOC web site is not enough accurate information for your area-state laws can be very specific 

 

[bmcneal]

Originally Posted by serenbat 

again, It is always advisable to have the reason you left match what was told to the previous employer- if you left due to being pregnant but put down a different reason on a resume that can be problematic, even if you left because of pregnancy and do not state why you were not offered another job or the reason you do not plan to go back after the baby - prospective employers will question this.

What I put in my resignation will not contradict what I have, am, and will put on applications and in my resume. I have done this before. 

[sarafi]

Originally Posted by littlest birds 

Actually the mama with the autistic child is me.  I do not only homeschool because he is autistic, but it is one of our more important reasons.  I am not satisfied with the school's programing that did not meet his needs, he was complaining of bullying and they said nothing was happening, etc.  HOWEVER!!!  I have said repeatedly that I receive NO assistance.  I am just working poor.  As in mega-overtime working poor.  I have worked while homeschooling for years.  I run a small business with my husband and although I have multiple income streams I also have multiple financial commitments in my business that keep my income below poverty level.  

I am almost shocked to be judged for homeschooling, told that it's those special educators' job, etc.  So even the working poor shouldn't have a choice to homeschool?  My choice to homeschool is none of your business, and even if you thought it would be if I received assistance--I don't. 

I was criticized repeatedly ONLY because I do not have insurance.  (I have actually qualified for some food stamp assistance at least for most of the past ten years and have not sought any during any of that time. If my kids were in school they would get free lunch.  We qualify for some state medical assistance but instead of applying we have paid out of pocket.)  During that time I have also rescued a local business with free sweat and careful strategy--one that happens to be very important to our community. 

I was really surprised that I was criticized here.  No one who knows me in real life would think I was "dependent" or anything like that, I have others who depend on me including a retirement income I pay via the business, and for now we just keep scraping by.  I know a lot of people who have been there by my side through the years witnessing our work and appreciating it first hand.  Judgment on the internet is a strange creature, and fortunately it isn't all that hurtful to me personally.

Sadly, for many mamas here who might be reading and not even commenting, these criticisms could be quite hurtful.  Even though I chose to forgo food stamps, I don't resent someone else making a different choice.  I choose to work really long hours (flexible, but long), homeschool, and barely survive but I made those choices and have to live with them.  I try not to resent those who make a decent income and have a real weekend as well.  But if those folks with their different lives, their reliable cars and their weekends, are now pointing their fingers at me, it's not fair at all.

 I apologize, and was in no way trying to criticize you or belittle home schooling. This is a super-long thread I was responding to this from page 34:

Originally Posted by captain optimism 

Really? I haven't seen that here at all. One woman said she wasn't insured because she has a child on the autism spectrum who wasn't getting adequate education in the public school. ...

It struck me that we have laws to protect the parents of children with disabilities from having to quit their jobs to educate their children--or worse, having to watch their children go uneducated--but in order to get those laws enforced, a family has to have money. 

--------

I *think* your story was being used as an example of how hard it is for poor people to access the same rights as people with more money?

I would just like to formally dispute the idea that you would have to have tons of cash to force a school to provide an appropriate education plan. Federal laws exist, and all our kids have the right to be education in a "fair and appropriate manner".  We should no longer have to sue any schools, this has been done years ago, by other parents.

You have the right to educate your own child. I am not judging you. I am also not assuming that if you are poor you are unable to understand how laws work, or work within said laws to get your needs met.

Going without insurance is no happy lark (as I am sure you know), I can't imagine the stress when you have children or how you would get a surgery scheduled should you need one.  It's not fair or fun, but it's also a little off topic--I am sorry you got drug into this again!