Creche bailout

Wanderer78

Alice?Who dafuk is Alice? wrote:

Maybe women here might start actually parenting their children again instead of leaving them all day to Olga and Adeola on minimum wage. Shocking idea I know .

Maybe something needs to be done about the rapid rise in the cost of living, particularly in relation to housing and accommodation in general first!

One eyed Jack

lawred2 wrote: »

Wouldn't engage with auld Jack. He's not a fan of women in the workplace.

He's a 1950's man.

You alright there horse? I couldn’t care less whether women are in employment or aren’t. It’s none of my concern, all the one to me, I treat a woman the same regardless of her employment status.

eviltwin

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You alright there horse? I couldn’t care less whether women are in employment or aren’t. It’s none of my concern, all the one to me, I treat a woman the same regardless of her employment status.

Yeah but you took a thread that only really applied to working parents and used it as an arse licking exercise for the stay at home mother. Stay at home dad's not worthy of your praise? You do seem to have a bit of a new in your bonnet over mothers working, get over it.

eviltwin

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Maybe something needs to be done about the rapid rise in the cost of living, particularly in relation to housing and accommodation in general first!

And maybe some people need to get with the notion that it's nothing to do with money, many of us enjoy our jobs and want to work.

whisky_galore

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Maybe something needs to be done about the rapid rise in the cost of living, particularly in relation to housing and accommodation in general first!

A side effect of two wages coming into households where once upon a time there was mostly just the one.

One eyed Jack

eviltwin wrote: »

Yeah but you took a thread that only really applied to working parents and used it as an arse licking exercise for the stay at home mother. Stay at home dad's not worthy of your praise? You do seem to have a bit of a new in your bonnet over mothers working, get over it.

This thread was never about working parents, it was about the rising cost of insurance for businesses. It’s just not profitable for insurance companies to offer insurance to businesses incurring losses because they aren’t prepared to spend what it takes to meet health and safety regulations, and now they’re crying foul because the cost of insurance premiums are eating into the costs of running their businesses so they want the State to bail them out.

Fcukall to do with working parents and it wasn’t me who brought them up. I was simply responding to Harry’s earlier point about the value of women in employment to the economy as though that’s the only factor should be considered by the State in providing for the family and children’s welfare. There’s nothing for me to get over because I’ve already stated I couldn’t care less whether a woman is in employment or not, all the same to me. I didn’t mention fathers working in the home because Harry didn’t, so your beef about me not mentioning fathers is with Harry, not me either.

ReginaldSmythV

ReginaldSmythV wrote: »

I wouldn’t be letting crèches have flat rate insurance until
they are charging flat rate for their services too.

Many just operate the ECCE scheme though and they have a pricing scheme that is not only set by the state, it also hasn’t changed for years. Any additional insurance premiums, rent increases or additional training requirements has to come out of the pockets of those who run them. Many of whom would be far better off working in Lidl.

For these pre schools, this hike in insurance could well be the tipping point.

joseywhales

They need to sort out the courts. You should not be receiving compensation beyond the cost of medical care for any accident where you are capable of sitting at a desk the next day.

Kids almost die everyday, it's just life, we have banged our heads off the ground and fallen out of trees, eaten something bad and been sick, I feel like insurance claims should be very rare but they are obviously not.

crisco10

Alice?Who dafuk is Alice? wrote: »

I don't know many stay at home fathers. Its not the done thing in this country. And by that I mean men who chose to be stay at home fathers. Not talking about unemployed, career breaks or who are sick. Its not common.

OT but that's largely down to the setup we have for maternity/paternity leave. The opportunity for women to take a "career break" is there with up to 9 months or so off maternity leave. Dad gets 4 weeks. It sets the balance from the off.

Wanderer78

whisky_galore wrote:

A side effect of two wages coming into households where once upon a time there was mostly just the one.

A lot more complicated than just a 'side effect', deregulation of the financial sector, and allowing it to flood the planet with cheap credit, which has helped greatly in causing the rapid rise in housing, has failed, instead of working less hours than what was envisaged, has had the opposite effect, we re swimming in debt

Maewyn Succat

Alice?Who dafuk is Alice? wrote: »

Maybe women here might start actually parenting their children again instead of leaving them all day to Olga and Adeola on minimum wage. Shocking idea I know .

My wife is the sole earner in our family as I am a fulltime student. We have 2 kids in childcare. What do you suggest we do if the creche was to close and we can't find other arrangements? All of the staff in the creche we use are Irish so no Olga's or Adeola's there.
Shocking idea?....more like shocking mentality to not be able to think outside your little box.

One eyed Jack

Maewyn Succat wrote: »

My wife is the sole earner in our family as I am a fulltime student. We have 2 kids in childcare. What do you suggest we do if the creche was to close and we can't find other arrangements? All of the staff in the creche we use are Irish so no Olga's or Adeola's there.
Shocking idea?....more like shocking mentality to not be able to think outside your little box.

And not the least bit ironic of course that you would attempt to criticise someone else for what you think is not thinking outside the box, while showing no will to think outside the box yourself. If the crèche you’re using closed down due to no longer being a sustainable business capable of turning over a profit, you would have no choice but to think outside the box.

Maewyn Succat

One eyed Jack wrote: »

And not the least bit ironic of course that you would attempt to criticise someone else for what you think is not thinking outside the box, while showing no will to think outside the box yourself. If the crèche you’re using closed down due to no longer being a sustainable business capable of turning over a profit, you would have no choice but to think outside the box.

I said "if we can't find alternative arrangements ". I am more than capable of thinking outside the box. Unlike your buddy who you're defending I am not of the opinion that all mothers should "parent their children ", which I take to mean sit at home with their children and quit working. Are you also of the opinion that women shouldn't work when they have young kids? I thought that kind of thinking died out 30 years ago but obviously not.

Clarence Boddiker

One eyed Jack wrote: »

This thread was never about working parents, it was about the rising cost of insurance for businesses. It’s just not profitable for insurance companies to offer insurance to businesses incurring losses because they aren’t prepared to spend what it takes to meet health and safety regulations, and now they’re crying foul because the cost of insurance premiums are eating into the costs of running their businesses so they want the State to bail them out.

Fcukall to do with working parents and it wasn’t me who brought them up. I was simply responding to Harry’s earlier point about the value of women in employment to the economy as though that’s the only factor should be considered by the State in providing for the family and children’s welfare. There’s nothing for me to get over because I’ve already stated I couldn’t care less whether a woman is in employment or not, all the same to me. I didn’t mention fathers working in the home because Harry didn’t, so your beef about me not mentioning fathers is with Harry, not me either.

Insurance companies have made record profits in the last couple of years. They complain about the high level of claims yet almost all of them have made massive profits...somethings not adding up.

One eyed Jack

Maewyn Succat wrote: »

I said "if we can't find alternative arrangements ". I am more than capable of thinking outside the box. Unlike your buddy who you're defending I am not of the opinion that all mothers should "parent their children ", which I take to mean sit at home with their children and quit working. Are you also of the opinion that women shouldn't work when they have young kids? I thought that kind of thinking died out 30 years ago but obviously not.

Being unable to think outside your own little box will do that to you. It doesn’t matter what my personal opinion is regarding what arrangements other people make that suit their families, the facts are that 455,000 women were working in the home in 2016, and those are official figures from the CSO, quite a fair distance outside your own box.

One eyed Jack

Clarence Boddiker wrote: »

Insurance companies have made record profits in the last couple of years. They complain about the high level of claims yet almost all of them have made massive profits...somethings not adding up.

Things are adding up alright - insurance companies aren’t making the profits they were in previous years, so they’re refusing to provide their services to businesses which are proving to be more of a liability than a profit making venture. That’s the whole point of insurance.

hmmm

Clarence Boddiker wrote: »

Insurance companies have made record profits in the last couple of years. They complain about the high level of claims yet almost all of them have made massive profits...somethings not adding up.

Yes, the risks and costs are too high to quote for a relatively small market. If they were making "record profits" they wouldn't be leaving

It's time for a referendum, we need to change the culture fundamentally - we can't have people suing every time they trip over a daffodil.

jam_mac_jam

Maewyn Succat wrote: »

I said "if we can't find alternative arrangements ". I am more than capable of thinking outside the box. Unlike your buddy who you're defending I am not of the opinion that all mothers should "parent their children ", which I take to mean sit at home with their children and quit working. Are you also of the opinion that women shouldn't work when they have young kids? I thought that kind of thinking died out 30 years ago but obviously not.

It's fairly amazing that the argument that women shouldn't be working and look after the kids comes up on boards everytime creches are mentioned.

I would have thought that those ideas were gone. My dad in his seventies wouldn't think like this. Weird.

tabby aspreme

My OH is in contact with creche owners daily, of several people she spoke to today , one small community service will see there premium rise from € 390 to €1150 next year, and on the other end of the scale, a large creche, with a premium increase from €3000 to €11500, neither of these services have ever had a claim, and are lucky that the company they currently have insurance with, is the one staying in the Irish market.

Clarence Boddiker

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

It's fairly amazing that the argument that women shouldn't be working and look after the kids comes up on boards everytime creches are mentioned.

I would have thought that those ideas were gone. My dad in his seventies wouldn't think like this. Weird.

Its better for the children to have one parent at home until they go to school. My own personal opinion but I don't think its right for kids to be put in to creche before they turn one. Obviously many people cannot afford this but very young children are better off for their development in the company of their mother.

Maewyn Succat

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Being unable to think outside your own little box will do that to you. It doesn’t matter what my personal opinion is regarding what arrangements other people make that suit their families, the facts are that 455,000 women were working in the home in 2016, and those are official figures from the CSO, quite a fair distance outside your own box.

So going with your line of thinking should my wife become one of the 455,000 women working in the home? Bearing in mind her wage is our sole income.
You don't have to state your personal opinion...I can read between the lines.

Maewyn Succat

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

It's fairly amazing that the argument that women shouldn't be working and look after the kids comes up on boards everytime creches are mentioned.

I would have thought that those ideas were gone. My dad in his seventies wouldn't think like this. Weird.

Apparently those ideas are still alive and well.

jam_mac_jam

Clarence Boddiker wrote: »

Its better for the children to have one parent at home until they go to school. My own personal opinion but I don't think its right for kids to be put in to creche before they turn one. Obviously many people cannot afford this but very young children are better off for their development in the company of their mother.

Sorry we will agree to disagree. It's irrelevant what you think about how other people bring up their kids. Nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

One eyed Jack

Maewyn Succat wrote: »

So going with your line of thinking should my wife become one of the 455,000 women working in the home? Bearing in mind her wage is our sole income.
You don't have to state your personal opinion...I can read between the lines.

Ok Cathy Newman :pac:

Me: It doesn’t matter what my personal opinion is.

You: You don’t have to state your personal opinion... I can read between the lines.

Of course you can :rolleyes:

Maewyn Succat

Clarence Boddiker wrote: »

very young children are better off for their development in the company of their mother.

Do you have proof of this?

Calhoun

Millionaire only not wrote: »

What do people think of the crèche bailout on insurance ?
I just see hotels have just jumped on the bandwagon claiming same problem !
Have they opened a can of worms for themselves they will not be able to close ?

https://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/irish-news/fears-hospitality-sector-will-be-latest-to-hit-huge-trouble-as-leading-insurers-exit-market-38798859.html

Indeed they have opened a can of worms, as all it will do is see the insurance market up their premiums. They need to tax the hole off them.

Clarence Boddiker

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Sorry we will agree to disagree. It's irrelevant what you think about how other people bring up their kids. Nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

Fair enough but children being raised in their early years by their mother has a history several hundred thousand (millions?) of years longer than otherwise.

Clarence Boddiker

Maewyn Succat wrote: »

Do you have proof of this?

Yes millions of years of evolution.

Calhoun

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Creches should be subsidised and given a flat rate government bond/insurance.
Before anyone gets all 'why should I pay for someone else's kids', well pay for their children's allowance and lack of tax input so.
FYI: Mags Cash would have no excuse not to work for example.

The hotels can get f***ed. Why? They change rates based on greed. They are a business yes, but on that defense, let them ride the market so.
Working people need the service of a creche to work and pay tax. Hotels can close and get other work if it comes to that, such is business.

Agreed i think this has to be the way forward, especially with the government changes that are making the whole area much more professional. Its getting harder and harder to keep the business a private/amateur affair.

Maewyn Succat

Clarence Boddiker wrote: »

Yes millions of years of evolution.

It would appear some people got left behind....