Creche bailout

salmocab

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yes but that figure is across all staff in the sector. Clearly all staff in the sector aren’t on the same pay scale as managers, room leaders etc will be earning more per hour than ordinary childcare workers. There are far more ordinary childcare workers than there are managers and room leaders and so on, on higher earnings per hour. There will be far more workers on €9 per hour than there are on €15 per hour for example.

I’m not suggesting for a minute btw that by far and away the vast, vast majority of people working in childcare aren’t incredibly dedicated to the children’s welfare (they’d have to be really on those wages), but the issues as far as I can see are mainly caused by poor management, which often happens to be the owners of these businesses - they simply don’t know, or don’t care, about how to run a crèche properly.

I’m sorry Jack your just making stuff up, there is no suggestion apart from yours that people are paid less than minimum wage let alone the vast majority as you claimed.

Eric Cartman

This is a direct result of claim culture and parents expecting their children to be wrapped in bubble wrap all the time.

For a 'right wing' party, FG sure do love just throwing money at problems.

One eyed Jack

salmocab wrote: »

I’m sorry Jack your just making stuff up, there is no suggestion apart from yours that people are paid less than minimum wage let alone the vast majority as you claimed.

Making a determination from the evidence presented that the average wage across the sector is €11.23 per hour means that some people are above this figure, and more people are below it, given their various positions, is not just making stuff up.

suicide_circus

while we the irish people continue to sue the bollix out of eachother for every minor or moderate mishap and our courts continue to give utterly insane compensation awards i have little sympathy.

Are the insurance companies out of control? yes

is the legal profession out of control on this? yes

is the judiciary out of control on this? yea

is the government out of control on this? yes

its a fycking sh1tshow from beginning to end.

salmocab

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Making a determination from the evidence presented that the average wage across the sector is €11.23 per hour means that some people are above this figure, and more people are below it, given their various positions, is not just making stuff up.

Well 11.70 from what you linked and as the majority of staff aren’t senior then it stands to reason that fewer people earn the 15 euro an hour and the majority earn just below the average. You did just make it up you claimed the vast majority earn less than the minimum rate. There’s no suggestion of that either from the article you posted or mathematically.

Lillyfae

Clarence Boddiker wrote: »

The ones who really got left behind are the Women who have no choice but to work long hours for poor wages, in order to pay exorbitant rates to farm their children out to be raised by strangers, the rest goes on insane rents/mortgages/Car insurance/living costs all the while they see their children for just a few hours a day.

They're told that this is a good thing, positive and emancipating but its not really is it?

Wtf are you on about? I earn more than my bf, working 4 days for his 4.5. I absolutely have a choice. I choose to use my education and skills to do something I love which is important for my own mental balance as a mother.

Our daughter is in the crèche 2.5 days a week and with her grandmother 1 day, then she has proper quality time with us or having play dates with her little friends that she’s already had since she was 6 months old. Her social skills are extremely well developed, as is her confidence, because of all of the above. Keeping up with the Jones’s would be me packing it in to lie around the house all day experimenting with filters on Facebook. I’d be a way better Mom then I’d say...

Amirani

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Making a determination from the evidence presented that the average wage across the sector is €11.23 per hour means that some people are above this figure, and more people are below it, given their various positions, is not just making stuff up.

That is making stuff up. You can't infer that the distribution of earnings is positively skewed given the data that has been provided.

The only thing you can reasonably state statistically is that the average earnings are €11.23 per hour. Some people will be above, some people below. But you don't know how many or by how much because you don't know the variance or anything else about the distribution. You suggesting that anything else can be surmised is wrong (particularly when you're guessing that many will be below minimum wage).

jam_mac_jam

Lillyfae wrote: »

Wtf are you on about? I earn more than my bf, working 4 days for his 4.5. I absolutely have a choice. I choose to use my education and skills to do something I love which is important for my own mental balance as a mother.

Our daughter is in the cre 2.5 days a week and with her grandmother 1 day, then she has proper quality time with us or having play dates with her little friends that she’s already had since she was 6 months old. Her social skills are extremely well developed, as is her confidence, because of all of the above. Keeping up with the Jones’s would be me packing it in to lie around the house all day experimenting with filters on Facebook. I’d be a way better Mom then I’d say...

You absolute monster choosing to work and not being forced out the door.

The idea that you should have to justify this in this day and age is just amazing. Nobody ever questions men's choice to go to work instead of staying home with the kids, I am not sure why other then wooly bull**** ideas about women being better at it. I am sure many fathers would find that insulting.


Why can't everyone just mind their own business. If you want to stay at home and you can, brilliant. If you don't want to, brilliant. How is it anyone's business how anyone raises their kids. You would think the creches and childminders were neglecting them and battering them the way people go on.

One eyed Jack

salmocab wrote: »

Well 11.70 from what you linked and as the majority of staff aren’t senior then it stands to reason that fewer people earn the 15 euro an hour and the majority earn just below the average. You did just make it up you claimed the vast majority earn less than the minimum rate. There’s no suggestion of that either from the article you posted or mathematically.

That’s exactly what I’m suggesting! You’re arguing over a couple of cents in the difference when the point we’re both agreed on is that the sector is poorly paid. The question in that case then becomes - where is the money that crèche owners are earning going if it isn’t going into the business?

Issues of non-compliance found at fourth Hyde & Seek creche not featured in documentary


€2.7 million in profits over four years.

Let that sink in for a bit.

Some people appear to be of the belief that they can take people for mugs.

Lillyfae

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

You absolute monster choosing to work and not being forced out the door.

The idea that you should have to justify this in this day and age is just amazing. Nobody ever questions men's choice to go to work instead of staying home with the kids, I am not sure why other then wooly bull**** ideas about women being better at it. I am sure many fathers would find that insulting.


Why can't everyone just mind their own business. If you want to stay at home and you can, brilliant. If you don't want to, brilliant. How is it anyone's business how anyone raises their kids. You would think the creches and childminders were neglecting them and battering them the way people go on.

Exactly! I used to do 5 days and he did 3.5. How dare I? He would jump at the chance to have more time with her but this is our compromise, for us, her and all of our futures.

The crèche is fantastic for her, we’re not experts in early childhood and don’t have the will or ability to provide her with 10+ peers daily for positive interaction. Not to mention that school will be no issue for her when she starts.

salmocab

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That’s exactly what I’m suggesting! You’re arguing over a couple of cents in the difference when the point we’re both agreed on is that the sector is poorly paid. The question in that case then becomes - where is the money that crèche owners are earning going if it isn’t going into the business?

Issues of non-compliance found at fourth Hyde & Seek creche not featured in documentary


€2.7 million in profits over four years.

Let that sink in for a bit.

Some people appear to be of the belief that they can take people for mugs.

I’m not arguing over a couple of cents I pointed out that you were wrong on something and you just argued that you were right with absolutely no evidence to suggest you were.

Of course some people believe they can take people for mugs it has been forever that way.

One eyed Jack

salmocab wrote: »

I’m not arguing over a couple of cents I pointed out that you were wrong on something and you just argued that you were right with absolutely no evidence to suggest you were.

Of course some people believe they can take people for mugs it has been forever that way.

Now that’s making stuff up, because I presented the evidence in black and white. An average means that they have taken the total earnings of all staff across the sector and divided it by the number of people in the sector, and it’s reasonable to assume that the minority who would be on higher earnings would bring up the average, whereas the majority on lower earnings would bring down the average. The average is just that one figure. It would be better of course if we had the figures for earnings according to their position in the crèche in each of the different counties and so on, but from the data we have, it’s not an unreasonable assumption to suggest that there are staff who are on less than the minimum wage.

My point is simply that there are staff working in crèches who are being exploited, while there are people here arguing that being able to put their children in a crèche enables them to work, and if that’s all they care about, then they really shouldn’t be surprised that other people don’t share their concerns, but rather have a different perspective. It has nothing to do with 1950’s thinking or anything else, simply that in 2019 people are still being exploited so the middle classes can feel better about themselves.

Spleerbun

timmyntc wrote: »

No, the solution to these insurance problems are largely out of the hands of ordinary people.

As shown by the central bank report - claims culture and frivolous claims are not responsible for the large increase in insurance costs. It is down to one thing - legal fees.
Legal fees in Ireland have skyrocketed since the recession, and are now more than double those of UK for the same service.

Solicitors fees are extortionate - this country is one of the best paying for solicitors. Worse still though, is that judges consistently award legal costs against insurance companies even when they win. So even if a case were struck out as fradulent/frivolous in a court of law, the insurance company still gets stung with a massive legal bill. Is it any wonder insurers in Ireland are so quick to settle cases?

The legal sector are untouchable in this country - until theyre stopped the whole country will be brought to its knees from inflated costs in every sector - and it can all be traced back to legal fees.

Great post.

salmocab

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Now that’s making stuff up, because I presented the evidence in black and white. An average means that they have taken the total earnings of all staff across the sector and divided it by the number of people in the sector, and it’s reasonable to assume that the minority who would be on higher earnings would bring up the average, whereas the majority on lower earnings would bring down the average. The average is just that one figure. It would be better of course if we had the figures for earnings according to their position in the crèche in each of the different counties and so on, but from the data we have, it’s not an unreasonable assumption to suggest that there are staff who are on less than the minimum wage.

My point is simply that there are staff working in crèches who are being exploited, while there are people here arguing that being able to put their children in a crèche enables them to work, and if that’s all they care about, then they really shouldn’t be surprised that other people don’t share their concerns, but rather have a different perspective. It has nothing to do with 1950’s thinking or anything else, simply that in 2019 people are still being exploited so the middle classes can feel better about themselves.

No you presented no evidence at all. You just took the figure and looked at it in a way that’s suited your claim. As the majority of the staff are on the lower side of average that would mean they are not as far below the average as the fewer numbered higher earners are above it. There is nothing to suggest the vast majority of crèche workers earn less than minimum wage.

One eyed Jack

salmocab wrote: »

No you presented no evidence at all. You just took the figure and looked at it in a way that’s suited your claim. As the majority of the staff are on the lower side of average that would mean they are not as far below the average as the fewer numbered higher earners are above it. There is nothing to suggest the vast majority of crèche workers earn less than minimum wage.

I did, and yes, you’re right, that same evidence I presented I did look at the figure and interpret it in a way which suited my claim. According to you there is nothing to suggest that the vast majority of crèche workers earn less than minimum wage, but the figures clearly support the idea that the vast majority of crèche workers are earning below minimum wage, and there are a minority who are earning far above the minimum wage.


I suppose this might put to bed so to speak any argument that I didn’t present any evidence for my claims -

Ms Toomey, who manages Tir na nOg Early Child Care Centre, expressed concern that most of those in the industry earn little above the minimum wage.

The sentiment was echoed by Donna Tobin and Karen O'Connell, who have both invested in their education. Ms Tobin from Waterford and Ms O'Connell from Dublin both have a Masters Degree in Child, Family and Community Studies from DIT. Despite their qualifications both are working for less than €10 per hour.

"We want to be given the same respect as primary school teachers. We are highly qualified," said Ms O'Connell, who works with the HSE.

The Association of Childhood Professionals said there are around 25,000 people in the sector on an average pay rate of less than €11 an hour and called for a Government-backed pay scale with more investment in childhood care. Children's Minister James Reilly's office said a group was being set up to examine the issues.

Low-paid creche workers demand respect from Government

Maewyn Succat

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yes. The State is clearly not getting a good return on their investment in the childcare provision industry.

So just ignore the benefits of all of the working mothers who might otherwise consider childcare fees too prohibitive if they had to pay full fees and decide to stay at home with their children and claim welfare.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I still don’t know what you’re referring to. It makes no sense anyway as here we are in 2019 and one of us thinks institutionalising children is beneficial to society. I’ll give you a clue - it’s not me.

You seem to have the attitude that 'the woman's place is in the home'. That's what I'm referring to. I wouldn't call it institutionalising children. In my experience children develop better at a younger age when they mix with children their age rather than being stuck at home all day with just their mothers but you're entitled to your opinion.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Stop expecting that the State should have to subsidise not just your lifestyle choices, but also the lifestyle choices of people who don’t understand how to sustain a profitable business venture and are constantly with the hand out every year looking for more subsidies from the State. Anyone being dependent upon the State to fund their lifestyle choices simply cannot be said to be a good thing for the Irish economy.

So you think that people furthering their education can never be a good thing for the economy? There are plenty that would disagree with you on this...along with most other stuff you're posting by the looks of things.

salmocab

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I did, and yes, you’re right, that same evidence I presented I did look at the figure and interpret it in a way which suited my claim. According to you there is nothing to suggest that the vast majority of crèche workers earn less than minimum wage, but the figures clearly support the idea that the vast majority of crèche workers are earning below minimum wage, and there are a minority who are earning far above the minimum wage.


I suppose this might put to bed so to speak any argument that I didn’t present any evidence for my claims -

Ms Toomey, who manages Tir na nOg Early Child Care Centre, expressed concern that most of those in the industry earn little above the minimum wage.

The sentiment was echoed by Donna Tobin and Karen O'Connell, who have both invested in their education. Ms Tobin from Waterford and Ms O'Connell from Dublin both have a Masters Degree in Child, Family and Community Studies from DIT. Despite their qualifications both are working for less than €10 per hour.

"We want to be given the same respect as primary school teachers. We are highly qualified," said Ms O'Connell, who works with the HSE.

The Association of Childhood Professionals said there are around 25,000 people in the sector on an average pay rate of less than €11 an hour and called for a Government-backed pay scale with more investment in childhood care. Children's Minister James Reilly's office said a group was being set up to examine the issues.

Low-paid creche workers demand respect from Government

No the figures don’t support it at all, repeating that won’t make them so.
The links you put in actually don’t say they earn below minimum wage and one has James Reilly as minister for children so that’s at best a few years old anyway.

One eyed Jack

Maewyn Succat wrote: »

So just ignore the benefits of all of the working mothers who might otherwise consider childcare fees too prohibitive if they had to pay full fees and decide to stay at home with their children and claim welfare.

Working parents surely?

And also there’s an assumption on your part that parents would automatically qualify for welfare, whereas I never suggested any such thing. 445,000 women and 9,000 men aren’t registered as unemployed in order to claim welfare.

Maewyn Succat wrote: »

You seem to have the attitude that 'the woman's place is in the home'. That's what I'm referring to. I wouldn't call it institutionalising children. In my experience children develop better at a younger age when they mix with children their age rather than being stuck at home all day with just their mothers but you're entitled to your opinion.

I think you’d best examine the assumptions you make in your own posts before you start attempting to read between the lines of anything I’ve posted!

So you think that people furthering their education can never be a good thing for the economy? There are plenty that would disagree with you on this...along with most other stuff you're posting by the looks of things.

You’re channeling Cathy Newman again, but no, I never suggested any such thing. In fact only the other day I made this post -

One eyed Jack wrote: »

All of that depends upon how determined a person is once they make the choice to get out of poverty. To say that anyone can’t afford to educate themselves in a country where there are plenty of opportunities and means available to them to educate themselves is just nonsense, frankly. It’s attempting to make excuses for things which are within their control to try and say those things are beyond their control and that’s why they can’t get out of poverty and so have no choice but to remain in poverty. That argument ignores the reality of people who do lift themselves out of poverty through education. Only this morning I was reading about this young woman -

Mum who got pregnant at 14 reveals ‘love and pride’ at graduating at 21

A mum, who got pregnant at 14, has revealed her delight at graduating from university this week at the age of 21.

Rachel Campey, 21, from Leeds, gave up full time education when she was just 15 having given birth to her daughter and having to endure a ‘very dark path’ of bullying over her pregnancy.

She also revealed that she had been struggling with her mental health, but the birth of her daughter Lily Rose spurred her on to get back into education at York College before advancing to Leeds Trinity University.


Or people could, as you’re choosing to do, come up with all sorts of excuses as to why they can’t see any way to change their circumstances, in spite of the fact that it simply isn’t true. They’re simply choosing to ignore the opportunities that are open to them in favour of choosing to remain in poverty.

BarryD2

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Boy awarded €25,000 after 'Prime Time' crèche exposé

That’s not the fault of litigious parents, it’s the fault of the owners of the crèche.

I presume you're being facetious Jack, because that is a prime example of litigious parents blaming anyone & everyone except themselves: €25,000 for

'Ms Leonowicz said that after Max was withdrawn from the crèche, it was found he was rejecting his mother and, following behavioural difficulties, would not take manner correction well He had attended a child specialist on several occasions for therapy. A number of other cases had been dealt with in the Circuit Civil court and 22 in all settled in High Court proceedings.'

One eyed Jack

BarryD2 wrote: »

I presume you're being facetious Jack, because that is a prime example of litigious parents blaming anyone & everyone except themselves: €25,000 for...

€25,000 for -


Barrister Siun Leonowicz, for Max's mother Jennifer Breslin, told the court that the crèche was one of three selected by RTE's 'Prime Time' for an undercover investigation into the standard of care provided by pre-school services in the State.

Ms Leonowicz said an undercover news reporter, who had got a job at the crèche, witnessed staff handling children in an extremely rough and aggressive manner and shouting at them.

As a result, the reporter had handed in her notice, complained to management about care of children in the "wobbler" room and made a report to the HSE.


And that was just one case from 2013. On foot of parents complaints which they felt weren’t being taken seriously by Tulsa, Prime Time again investigated another franchise operation and found yet again poor standards of childcare and numerous breaches of regulations.

Ironically -

The High Court has granted an injunction restraining an insurance company from cancelling policies for a Dublin creche chain at the centre of an RTÉ Investigates programme.

Hyde And Seek Childcare Ltd and Hyde and Seek Glasnevin Ltd sought to prevent Ironshore Europe DAC cancelling insurance policies for four creches.

Ironshore said its move arose from investigations by it arising from matters in the RTÉ programme and subsequent media reports.


Injunction granted over creche chain's insurance

JDD

Certainly the creche workers I've come across earn slightly more than the minimum wage. It's not really a career though, not unless being manager of a creche at €15/€16 an hour is the pinnacle of your ambition. The women (and it is nearly all women) that tend to go into it are
a) those that weren't entirely sure what career to go into after their leaving cert so did a level 5/6 childcare course and are happy to work in a creche for a couple of years before they figure out what they really want to do, or before they go travelling for a couple of years;
b) those that wanted to go into Montessori or primary school teaching but didn't get the points so are happy to work their way up to it through various lower FETAC courses, that in some cases the creche (if they are a chain) will pay for;
c) Spanish or South Americans who want to work with kids and find getting a job in a creche easier than perhaps some other industries.


I've had experience of a few creches/after school services over the years and the standard of care has varied from good to excellent. I've never seen any of the staff exploited - at least no more than in any other entry level job with a transient workforce, like in retail or hospitality. I've had a full time childminder for the last two years, and I am considering swapping back to a creche/after-school in the New Year so the littlest one can get the benefits of a creche.

The only obstacle to this is that there is hardly a creche spot available in our area. Everywhere is over-subscribed. I dread to think what it would be like if even one of the five or six creches that are within a five mile radius had to close because of insurance issues.

As for the assertion that stay-at-home parents are better for the economy, I can't quite see the rationale for that. I'm a middle income earner. If I stayed at home the economy would be without the taxes I pay, and indeed the taxes paid by the creche worker/childminder that I pay out of my after tax income. Of course you could say that someone else would take my job, but the labour market would be vastly restricted if one parent was constantly taken out of the equation, forcing up labour costs and prices. No thanks.

Now, you could argue that parents provide better childcare, and children would grow up more balanced and less likely to commit crime (costing the economy) and healthier (saving the economy money). But I've yet to read anything definitive on that. And in my case, I'm not sure the kids would be better with either myself or my husband staying at home full time. I don't want to blow our own trumpets, we're bloody good parents, but that's half because we have the patience and enthusiasm when we are at home to fully engage with them.

The creche sector is vital to the economy. No-one else will be getting a bailout. I don't doubt that there is underlying insurance issues that need to be sorted permanently. And I would be in favour of a better system for early childhood care than the private sector relying on 20-25 year olds to do the heavy lifting. But those are longer term issues, and no good to a parent whose creche might close in two weeks.

end of the road

JDD wrote: »

The creche sector is vital to the economy.

while yes, it does benefit the economy in terms of it employing staff who pay taxes, and it allows some more people to go out to work, what it does isn't really any different on a basic level to any other business which caters to providing services dedicated to serving people such as hotels and the leasure sector which all create jobs, for which people are employed to do and then pay taxes, and allow others to spend money on those services. it is therefore not so vital to the economy compared to other businesses.
if the sector wasn't to exist, the economy may not suffer as much as one may think, as now there wouldn't be a need for childcare subsidies, and even subsidies going into the sector if there are any.
there certainly wouldn't have been a tax payer bailout, for which other businesses which are effected by the same issues won't have access to, dispite also causing some loss to the economy if they were to go to the wall.

Maewyn Succat

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Working parents surely?

And also there’s an assumption on your part that parents would automatically qualify for welfare, whereas I never suggested any such thing. 445,000 women and 9,000 men aren’t registered as unemployed in order to claim welfare.





I think you’d best examine the assumptions you make in your own posts before you start attempting to read between the lines of anything I’ve posted!





You’re channeling Cathy Newman again, but no, I never suggested any such thing. In fact only the other day I made this post -

Most would qualify for some kind of welfare unless their partner was on a reasonably high income I would assume.

I have no idea who Cathy Newman is or why I would be channeling her but I'll look her up.

LoughNeagh2017

I don't think anything about it because life is too short to think about such boring topics. I am one of the most boring men you could meet but discussing insurance on a Friday night? That is even beyond me

BarryD2

One eyed Jack wrote: »

€25,000 for -


Barrister Siun Leonowicz, for Max's mother Jennifer Breslin, told the court that the crèche was one of three selected by RTE's 'Prime Time' for an undercover investigation into the standard of care provided by pre-school services in the State.

OK, so they got €25,000 because their child was in a creche that was featured in an RTE expose?

Come on, if RTE hadn't gone near the place, the notion would never have come into their litigious heads.

One eyed Jack

Maewyn Succat wrote: »

Most would qualify for some kind of welfare unless their partner was on a reasonably high income I would assume.

They wouldn’t qualify for any kind of unemployment benefits as they aren’t unemployed.

One eyed Jack

BarryD2 wrote: »

OK, so they got €25,000 because their child was in a creche that was featured in an RTE expose?

Come on, if RTE hadn't gone near the place, the notion would never have come into their litigious heads.

It wouldn’t have come into their heads had it not been for the programme because the behaviour of the staff in the crèche wouldn’t have come to light had it not been for the undercover reporter. It shouldn’t have taken an undercover reporter to highlight the child welfare issues, and those are only the incidents we’re aware of. Parents are paying eye-watering amounts of money for their children to be properly cared for by people on low wages, it’s a recipe for disaster.