ERSI: Cost of working 'too high'

hondasam

Pandora2 wrote: »

I once got into it with a PE Teacher, she insisted that track suit bottoms must be O'Neill's, about €60 if memory serves, and suggested we buy from the outlet supplier...turned out he gave her her own kit free for the business. I found exactly the same track bottom, without the discreet O'Neill's logo - Navy embroidery on navy material:rolleyes: in Dunnes for €12 and bought them, she sent my daughter to detention. Big mistake!! I was on the board;)

She never got her kit free again on my watch!! Didn't make me popular though;)

I think a uniform is brilliant but there is little need for a crest on them.
It's keeping other people in business of course. It's very easy to buy the crest and parents can put it on the clothes themselves.
I think parents do not object enough to some of the rules in schools regarding this type of thing.

senordingdong

later12 wrote: »

It's been mentioned a few times in the thread - if you are long term unemployed, you keep the medical card for an absolute minimum of 3 years when you go back to full time work. This applies to everyone.

Oh I know, and that's great, but....
If you are in a borderline low paying job, like I am, and you find more and more cuts and charges slowly eroding your borderline low income into a full lo income, you don't qualify.

daltonmd

Pandora2 wrote: »

I once got into it with a PE Teacher, she insisted that track suit bottoms must be O'Neill's, about €60 if memory serves, and suggested we buy from the outlet supplier...turned out he gave her her own kit free for the business. I found exactly the same track bottom, without the discreet O'Neill's logo - Navy embroidery on navy material:rolleyes: in Dunnes for €12 and bought them, she sent my daughter to detention. Big mistake!! I was on the board;)

She never got her kit free again on my watch!! Didn't make me popular though;)

Good for you Pandora. I did the same, but no detention, seriously how you can punish a child because their parents cannot afford this label crapology, it is really the lowest. I mean this from someone who probably gives out about "parents who buy labels for their spoilt offspring"...

Pandora2

daltonmd wrote: »

Good for you Pandora. I did the same, but no detention, seriously how you can punish a child because their parents cannot afford this label crapology, it is really the lowest. I mean this from someone who probably gives out about "parents who buy labels for their spoilt offspring"...

In this instance you are correct, she would have been of the ilk that sneered at the parents of the kids in her care, it was completely alien to her that some of the parents she was dealing with were better educated and more accomplished than her good self.......A wagon in fact, she just didn't bargain for meeting a bigger wagon (when the spirit moves me!!)!!

Pandora2

hondasam wrote: »

I think a uniform is brilliant but there is little need for a crest on them.
It's keeping other people in business of course. It's very easy to buy the crest and parents can put it on the clothes themselves.
I think parents do not object enough to some of the rules in schools regarding this type of thing.

I looked at that, suggested it to the Board but it was turned down flat...something about lack of continuity of styles!! I served on a Board for 3 years and always fought the good fight regarding expenses but, as the Parents Rep, it was normally me v. the rest.....I won some, I lost some...they didn't ask me to run again, think I was too lively for them!!;)

hondasam

Pandora2 wrote: »

I looked at that, suggested it to the Board but it was turned down flat...something about lack of continuity of styles!! I served on a Board for 3 years and always fought the good fight regarding expenses but, as the Parents Rep, it was normally me v. the rest.....I won some, I lost some...they didn't ask me to run again, think I was too lively for them!!;)

I honestly think it's all about keeping bookshops/schoolwear shops in business. Schools seem to have no regard for parents.
I know people on SW have it difficult with school fees but lots of working parents have it just as hard to try save for uniforms, books, bus tickets etc.

Bannasidhe

hondasam wrote: »

I honestly think it's all about keeping bookshops/schoolwear shops in business. Schools seem to have no regard for parents.
I know people on SW have it difficult with school fees but lots of working parents have it just as hard to try save for uniforms, books, bus tickets etc.

I am certainly not disputing that lots of working parents find the cost of simply sending their child to school difficult. I was one.

My point is that when some people see headlines such as accompanied this report - 44% of workers would be better off on SW - then immediately there are calls that SW is obviously far to high. It should be slashed!

The reality is the cost of living - even our so-called free education is expensive - is far too high.

There are easy steps government to take to reduce the cost of living such as tax credits for childcare, a decent transport system, After School Clubs in schools, tackle the unnecessary costs associated with sending a child to school etc.

This government has shown absolutely no political will to reduce the cost of living.

Pandora2

hondasam wrote: »

I honestly think it's all about keeping bookshops/schoolwear shops in business. Schools seem to have no regard for parents.
I know people on SW have it difficult with school fees but lots of working parents have it just as hard to try save for uniforms, books, bus tickets etc.

Been on both sides of that.....truthfully, both were equally hard with the added guilt of leaving my children for very little return when I went back to work at first...but, over time that eased, the kids got older and the wages increased steadily courtesy of the Celtic Pussy....at the height of it I was taking home €780 per week!!! But, as a graduate of the College of Hard Knocks, I knew it wouldn't last!! Thank God I was never seduced by the easy credit and keeping up with the Jones....smiled inwardly when I was told rent was dead money and in truth we're doing OK despite my family losing circa 50K per annum in one foul swoop...:cool:

daltonmd

Pandora2 wrote: »

In this instance you are correct, she would have been of the ilk that sneered at the parents of the kids in her care, it was completely alien to her that some of the parents she was dealing with were better educated and more accomplished than her good self.......A wagon in fact, she just didn't bargain for meeting a bigger wagon (when the spirit moves me!!)!!

Well I have a name for her and her ilk ... Cannot Understand Normal Thinking.....

Pandora2

daltonmd wrote: »

Well I have a name for her and her ilk ... Cannot Understand Normal Thinking.....

You might say that, I couldn't possibly comment

daltonmd

Pandora2 wrote: »

You might say that, I couldn't possibly comment

lol, wouldn't expect you too!! But that's my own little name for these people!

I stood up to our school, along with other parents, we basically abolished this labelling crap and set up a book rental scheme. It costs is 85 Euro per year for the books, we source them, cover them, label them, add copies which are boxed and ready for the kids at the start of the year.

If they lose them they (we) are fined, if they destroy them they (we) are fined - it works out pretty well from all angles.

charlemont

Nothingbetter2d wrote: »

part of the problem with costs of work too high is down to poor planning by the government

putting most of the jobs in dublin created the long commutes that we now have.

they should have been spreading jobs around the country thus making shorter commutes for workers. petrol is just too damn expensive now.

Well Dublin is where a lot of people live, Why would a multi national want to locate in say Thurles for example where they wouldn't have the numbers living nearby that have the sufficient educational qualifications.

Cookie_Monster

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I am certainly not disputing that lots of working parents find the cost of simply sending their child to school difficult. I was one.

My point is that when some people see headlines such as accompanied this report - 44% of workers would be better off on SW - then immediately there are calls that SW is obviously far to high. It should be slashed!

The reality is the cost of living - even our so-called free education is expensive - is far too high.

minimum wage is one of the main drivers of the cost of living and it must be maintained at a level above welfare to make working attractive. So if you cut welfare you can can minimum wage (and all other relatively) and begin to reduce the costs of good and services and lower the cost of living. Obviously there are plenty of other factors but wages are a major one for high costs in the first place. As long as welfare remain so high the cost of living will not fall.

Bannasidhe

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

minimum wage is one of the main drivers of the cost of living and it must be maintained at a level above welfare to make working attractive. So if you cut welfare you can can minimum wage (and all other relatively) and begin to reduce the costs of good and services and lower the cost of living. Obviously there are plenty of other factors but wages are a major one for high costs in the first place. As long as welfare remain so high the cost of living will not fall.

If the government tackled the insane cost of childcare - via rebates for example - it would enable unemployed people to take minimum wage jobs and not end up with less then the dole as the bulk of their salary is going to pay a childminder or is could also lessen the number of working families forced to claim FIS which is still SW after all. The rebate would only apply to those using registered childminders (there are already 30 odd childcare companies - NGOs tasked with overseeing and implementing childcare policies who could handle that task) who must also be registered for tax - cuts out the black market aspect.

Cutting the number of people on SW is the key.

It would also lessen the burden on working parents, help them pay their mortgages thereby easing the looming mortgage debt crises and might even give them a bit of disposable income which they could spend and help revive the struggling retail sector.

Cookie_Monster

Bannasidhe wrote: »

If the government tackled the insane cost of childcare - via rebates for example

just throw money at it, hardly a solution. how about looking at why it's so high...
is it cos companies are exploiting people?
cos wages are too high in the sector?, cos insurance is high? etc etc etc and go from there rather than simply throwing more money at people for no real reason.

Bannasidhe

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

just throw money at it, hardly a solution. how about looking at why it's so high...
is it cos companies are exploiting people?
cos wages are too high in the sector?, cos insurance is high? etc etc etc and go from there rather than simply throwing more money at people for no real reason.

Childcare costs people on average 800 per child a month. That is more then the basic SW payment per adult per month. That is insane.

Cookie_Monster

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Childcare costs people on average 800 per child a month. That is more then the basic SW payment per adult per month. That is insane.

200 a week or a fiver an hour to get someone to look after you kid from 9-5, doesn't sound so insane then does it... 5 an hour actually sounds really cheap considering.

daltonmd

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

minimum wage is one of the main drivers of the cost of living and it must be maintained at a level above welfare to make working attractive. So if you cut welfare you can can minimum wage (and all other relatively) and begin to reduce the costs of good and services and lower the cost of living. Obviously there are plenty of other factors but wages are a major one for high costs in the first place. As long as welfare remain so high the cost of living will not fall.

I agree with that. We're looking at the wrong angle, We (collectively) say that have to pay ourselves higher wages and SW because the cost of living is so high - but it's so high because we pay higher wages and SW.

CruelCoin

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Childcare costs people on average 800 per child a month. That is more then the basic SW payment per adult per month. That is insane.

You can blame the nanny state for that.

Child protection laws ahve gotten so strict it is prohibitely expensive to adhere to them.

Example: My ex used to work in childcare. When she was with the under 1's she was limited to looking after 2 kids. A days wages split among 2 kids?
With the under 3's it was 4 kids and with the under 5's it was 6 kids.

These are ridiculously small figures. Added to this the obsessive cleanliness that is required and the 4 hours per day each child minder spent cleaning.


Long story short, childcare is so expensive because the nanny staters and the "precious little cargo" brigades have made it so.

Bannasidhe

CruelCoin wrote: »

You can blame the nanny state for that.

Child protection laws ahve gotten so strict it is prohibitely expensive to adhere to them.

Example: My ex used to work in childcare. When she was with the under 1's she was limited to looking after 2 kids. A days wages split among 2 kids?
With the under 3's it was 4 kids and with the under 5's it was 6 kids.

These are ridiculously small figures. Added to this the obsessive cleanliness that is required and the 4 hours per day each child minder spent cleaning.


Long story short, childcare is so expensive because the nanny staters and the "precious little cargo" brigades have made it so.

Rubbish.
As I said I worked in a community centre in London in the 80s. Even though I was not directly working with the children in the pre-school I still had to have a police check done and under go an extensive health test as I would on occasion be in contact with the children. Quite rightly, someone who works with children should be vetted and given a clean bill of health -remember the TB scares in a Cork creche and a primary school?

We also had statutory ratio of adult to child rules which were the same as currently used here. We had to meet the same hygiene and safety standards as now applicable here - dishwashers, lots of security doors and a secure garden.

I also had to do mandatory first aid courses and fire safety courses.

This was in Thatcher's England - hardly an example of a Nanny State. Yet, we could do all of this and not have to charge people insane prices. How? Even Thatcher recognised that for people to go to work, they needed access to affordable childcare so we were subsidised via the Local Authority.

It was possible to get an allowance from Social Services to help pay a 'private' childminder but that childminder had to be registered, tax compliant and vetted - Social Services did this. Allowance payments were made on a sliding scale depending on the income of the parent. This allowed my best mate to get a job. It was only a low pay clerical job with the Dept. of Health at first. Now, all these years later she is one of the top people in their drugs licensing section.
She could not have done that without subsidised childcare.

That was during a recession. That was when unemployment was high in the UK. In fact, it was just a few years after they had the IMF in . AND it was all done under Thatcher.

Childcare is so expensive because it is an essential service and the user has no choice but to pay a market dictated rate or they can't go to work, pay tax and PRSI, have a disposable income to spend in our shops, pay for their housing, the so-called free education system etc etc.

christmas2012

CruelCoin wrote: »

And why should i have to feed their kids?

The market goes through crests and troughs, and you have to sit down and think hard about what you can offer the market at any point in time.

If you have a builder who is unwilling to look for any type of work bar building (which isn't coming back anytime soon) does that mean i have to feed his kids for the next 10 years?
A little bit of personal responsibility please. I went to college, i planned ahead, i chose a career path that had a healthy future ahead of it and that was adaptable. And now you suggest i pay for those who didn't?

I expect no-one to pay for me, and i don't ask for it. I pay into my own pension fund, as should all others. People have lived for far too long on the edge of affordability during good times and now act all surprised when it dips a bit.

I appreciate what you are saying,you are fortunate enough to work,well not everybody is as lucky as you to keep your job when you had it,there are plenty out there who have no savings,no access to other funds,its all very well throwing out words like 'personal responsiblity',what are you suggesting they get no dole and starve and get evicted,possibly made homeless?
If you were in that situation im sure you wouldnt be as agreeable,but then again if you were never on the dole ,you cannot appreciate where im coming from..