National Child Care Workers Strike

tsunamisurfer on 27/03/2018 - 13:12
Last edited 28/03/2018 - 23:55 by 1 other user

Hi all,

Today many child care centres around the country have closed because of a 'day of action' by their employees over 'low pay'.

https://thewest.com.au/news/wa/wa-childcare-walkers-to-walk-…

According to the article the average pay for these workers are around $21 - $23 / hour and they have demanded a 35% increase.

I think this is pure lunacy, 35% increase when Child Care is becoming more and more unaffordable to the average family. It is becoming less viable for the second bread winner to work as child care fees are around $120 - $150 / day, many workers have to make at least $200 - $250 pre-tax just to break even with these fees, so many simply stay home.

Now they want a 35% increase, and at $21 - $23 / hour x 8 hours we are looking at an increase of $64 / day (no Child care centre will absorb those costs increases).

$22 / hour is an accurate reflection for the low skill requirements of this profession. The requirements to enter this profession are LOW, a Cert III which is about $1k with concessions. This is not a knock or an attack of the profession but I don’t think the proposed awards for Child Care workers is reflective of the skillsets required to do that work.

Also doing a strike impacting so many families is not going to endear people to their plight.

I sincerely hope all calls for an increase are thrown out.

Education & Work

Related Stores

fairwork.gov.au
fairwork.gov.au

Comments

        • infinite on 28/03/2018 - 13:09
          -1

          No it's because building structures is far more commercially valuable to society than people who wipe slobber off your 2yr ol's cheeks. Men and women earn the same in each industry.

        • tryagain on 28/03/2018 - 13:12

          I think if you compared like for like (ie full time compared to full time) there wouldn't be much difference in pay rates. Construction labourers you hear about with a big hourly rate are often sub-contractors which is in no way an accurate comparison.

        • try2bhelpful on 28/03/2018 - 13:14
          +1

          @infinite: So you think that child care workers are only wiping slobber off a 2 year olds cheeks do you? The amount of interaction a child has when it is young will significantly affect its learning ability later in life. If it is sat in the corner and not stimulated then it will have learning difficulties if it is engaged properly then it will learn better. If you think your child care worker is just wiping slobber of the kids face then you probably need to find a better centre that pays their workers more.

          If an industry is female dominated it tends to be valued less, that is a fact. I would also argue that men and women within an industry aren't paid comparable rates, which has been shown by studies as well. However, I reiterate my point female industries tend to be paid less. Show me one female dominated industry where the wages are in the top 10% of the wage scale?

        • try2bhelpful on 28/03/2018 - 13:26
          +2

          @tryagain: The average wage for a labourer is still higher than that for a child care worker and the child care worker requires a set of qualifications. Labourers for large building sites would still be paid a signficant premium of child care workers. I would argue that child care workers are dealing with a much more valuable commodity that the labourer; given they are guiding the early development of the next crop of societies workforce at all levels.

        • infinite on 28/03/2018 - 16:41
          +1

          @try2bhelpful: It's not a fact at all that females are valued or paid less based on gender, it's simply a fact that an overwhelming percentage of females chose academic and career paths that are less difficult, less valued and lower paid. That's not societies fault, that's simply a choice every individual makes.

        • try2bhelpful on 28/03/2018 - 16:53

          @infinite: I am not saying "all females" are paid less based on gender - however studies have shown that, on average, within an organisation that does not have a gazetted pay grade structures that women working the same job tend to be paid less; this is where companies get people by not advertising what people are paid so they can't do the comparisons. The female dominated employment areas are are not "less difficult" but they are less valued and lower paid. I would never have traded my job in IT with a job in child care - even if the pay was comparable. The work is harder, messier, more stressful and has less prestige than the job in IT. Some people do not get a choice, this is what they are stuck with. If you are not brought up in a family where education for women is a priority you don't go to further education; when you are the one stuck with the majority of the housework or raising the children then you don't have the opportunities. Fortunately my mother decided I was going to Uni from an early age and that I would going down the STEM pathway. I also decided that I wouldn't have kids so I didn't have the disadvantages to my career. Choices I made, and choices I'm happy to stand by. However, if every women decided to go down my path then society dies out in a generation.

        • infinite on 28/03/2018 - 16:57
          +1

          @try2bhelpful: Those studies are flawed and have proven to be inaccurate, time and time again, with the authors fishing for and then using biased data to reaffirm the end-result they always wanted. Much of their base data and information were also sourced from other authors opinions, not even facts.

        • try2bhelpful on 28/03/2018 - 16:58

          @infinite: the studies aren't flawed, it is just that people who have a certain agenda try to discredit them. Many of these studies are done by the government and the people trying to discredit them tend to be on the right wing study groups - no surprise what their agenda is.

        • infinite on 28/03/2018 - 17:00

          @try2bhelpful: No, the data and facts presented in them were definitely garbage, mostly sourced from other authors opinions to simply reaffirm their own. Politics has nothing to do with the lack of academic credibility in the studies.

        • [Deactivated] on 28/03/2018 - 17:01
          +4

          @try2bhelpful:

          1. If women find female dominated industries pay less, they are free to apply in male dominant industries. There are no laws that stipulate otherwise. Private employers are free to employ whomever they choose. Laws should not intervene with private entity choices.

          2. If women are paid less for the same performance, it would be stupid for industries not to hire all women.

          3. Female industries are less likely to come with physical risks. Labour intensive roles also have a shorter working life spans.

          4. OBGYNs are female dominated and I'm sure they are amongst the top 10% of income.

          5. Men and women in the same role being paid "unequally" is a myth. Those studies take a sample group of men and women in the same industry and compared their salaries. Most of these studies neglected to mention that the salaries are different as men worked more hours. Other studies failed to mention that men held more senior roles, but the women who held a similar title was paid the same or greater. It also failed to mention that men have higher average working experience as women took time off to be a carer or worked only part time. These gender studies are a whole lot of garbage.

          Gender studies is a whole lot of garbage.

          If I can pay women less for doing the same job as men, I'd only hire women.

        • try2bhelpful on 28/03/2018 - 17:01

          @infinite: You want to quote me some reputable sources that refute the studies done by government backed research. If you try to quote Brietbart or Newscorp or any of the other right wing media I will laugh scornfully.

        • infinite on 28/03/2018 - 17:03

          @try2bhelpful: Stop with the straw man arguments and actually produce a credible source of your own first, that backs up any of the preposterous garbage your spruking as facts in here.

        • try2bhelpful on 28/03/2018 - 17:17

          @tshow: You can put in all these points you like, but the issue of discrimination is backed by research. I would also point out that women who are in senior roles are not paid the same as their male counterparts - even if they have the same title. This is also backed by research information. Again show me your stats on this.

          Funny how you are willing to discard as "garbage" something you don't agree with. Not really surprised as you would probably assign that title to anything you don't want to believe in.

          You want to actually give me the statistics that show that OBGYNs are among the top 10% of earners, particularly if you take out the cost of malpractice insurance - which I understand is some of the highest insurance you can have.

          There is virtually no male work that involves great physical risks in Australia. Most health and safety regulations, if followed correctly, make the work environment virtually risk free. This is a specious argument at best.

          If both sexes took equal share of the child raising responsibilities then there would be more equality in pay scales, maybe it is time men stepped up to the plate and took over more of the responsibilities. They can then deal with the disadvantages of that as well. It would be very good for a child to see equal contribution of both parents in raising the child and going to work,

          If you are not finding women you can pay less to then you are not looking hard enough. Do you actually hire anyone?

          Discrimination is not based on logic so why would you think that industries would hire more women if they are being paid less - if the assumption is women are less capable then there will be a premium for hiring males. This seems to be the case in law, advertising, medicine, etc.

        • [Deactivated] on 28/03/2018 - 17:33
          +2

          @try2bhelpful:
          You make claims that these studies exist. I'm informing you that these are flaws in the studies you would have shown.

          If you cannot produce said studies then there are no studies, rendering my claim moot and your references fictitious.

          You asked for one example, "Show me one female dominated industry where the wages are in the top 10% of the wage scale?" You got your one example, now you're trying to add another qualifier. Nice try. Your point there is moot.

          There are virtually no dangerous male dominated work? 92% of work related deaths are men. This is what a credible study looks like. See link below.

          https://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/system/files/documents/…

          I don't discard as garbage what I don't agree with. I do not disagree with gender studies as there is nothing to disagree or agree with. There is nothing substantiated. I've just substantiated that by knocking on key gender study topics to justify its own existence.

          I have a eight people on my payroll in Australia alone, not including those as contractors.

          Your last point is baffling. By your logic- If women are less capable than men, they should be paid less. The fact that women are being paid less is proof that there is discrimination. Women are equally capable to men. I'm not even saying women are inferior in capability to men, I'm saying their equally capable with exception of physically labourous tasks. I'm saying their paid equally.

          Ps. I removed point based format as point form is apparently mutually independant to "research", according to research.

        • c0balt on 28/03/2018 - 17:36

          @try2bhelpful:

          I remember you! We had this big discussion on the pay gap myth where your only research was from the government body that was formed specifically to find differences between the pay gap between women and men over their lifetime (regardless of their field) and not between equal work between men and women.

          https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/365380

          I did provide counter research in that thread, but you discredited the sources not because of the counter facts they had to the research from the government body you quoted, but because you had an issue with any Murdoch published article.

          You only ever presented straw-man arguments like women in health care get paid less than men in health care - but you never disputed that women in health care gravitate towards nursing/rehabilitation whereas there's many more male neurosurgeons than female ones.

          Find some sources that show that female neurosurgeons gets paid less for the same work as a male neurosurgeons given they have the same experience - then you may have a logical point rather than trying to justify pearl clutching that women just get paid less than men.

        • try2bhelpful on 28/03/2018 - 18:02

          @infinite:

          https://www.wgea.gov.au/addressing-pay-equity/what-gender-pa…

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_gap_in_the_United_S…

          https://www.ft.com/content/d9053876-31bb-11e8-b5bf-23cb17fd1…

          https://www.qilt.edu.au/docs/default-source/gos-reports/2017…

          https://www.wgea.gov.au/media-releases/report-shows-100k-gen…

          http://www.news.com.au/finance/work/at-work/gender-pay-gap-9…

          This is from News.com - not known for their left leaning ideas.

          I could keep going if you like.

          Would you like to show me your research.

          However, I do agree with you that women will only be paid what they are worth if they give up on the idea that they should be doing the majority of unpaid or undervalued work. This means they need to demand that their partners do an equal share of unpaid work, that the childcare responsibilities need to be equally split, that the idea of nurturing and caring need to be thrown out the window (as the pay is appalling in those areas) and that you need to be a bigger bastard than the person next to you. I'm sure you will have no problems when your workplace is dominated by a bunch of women who have those characteristics - particularly in the senior management areas.

        • [Deactivated] on 28/03/2018 - 18:19
          +1

          @try2bhelpful:

          1. Is not a study. It is an organization and it is an organization that has an agenda. You're quoting an agenda.

          2. Wikipedia isn't a source on its own. Also you're referring to the USA.

          3. Financial Times is a news outlet, not a study. Also, it is pay walled.

          4. This one states in the discussion that the wage gap is the lowest it has ever been at 1.9% There are still flaws in the conclussion but I'll take it seriously as it is the first and only actual study quoted.

          5. See 1.

          6. This is a news outlet, not a study. Also the studies cherry picked in this "news" doesn't disclose parameters outside of gender. No mention of equivalent years of full time experience, no mention of continuous number of years in same company, no mention of number of hours worked… Exactly what I mentioned before to a tee.

        • LUTSlit on 28/03/2018 - 18:26

          That is like soo sexist.

        • infinite on 28/03/2018 - 18:37

          @try2bhelpful: All of these are opinion pieces, none are proper studies or pieces of academic quality at all. You just completely backed up what I said about your bogus claims.

        • try2bhelpful on 28/03/2018 - 18:37
          +1

          @c0balt: Please see my inclusion of a news.com source below. Governments setup investigations into areas all the time to address specific issues. Just because they may setup a department to investigate poverty, and they find it, does not mean it doesn't exist.

          OMG - "pearl clutching". Yup, the denigration of women by stereotyping continues. Next you will be telling me that women can't be paid the same as women because they menstruate 12 times a year. Particularly in butcher shops where they will taint the meat. When you can't counter the argument then attack the person.

          You have not provided any proof that women "gravitate" to anywhere. How do you know that the reason there are more male neurosurgens is because female neurosurgeons aren't being discriminated against. Are you saying the huge inequality in numbers is based, purely, on the basis women don't "want" the jobs or is it more likely that they are not given the opportunities that their male counterparts are.

          https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5461563/

          there is a section there that mentions that the few women that are in chair of department status of cardiothoracic surgery are more likely to be underpaid.

          reports on sexual harassment of female surgeons.
          https://www.smh.com.au/national/bullying-endemic-among-surge…

          Maybe, just maybe, the problem is that women are not being given a fair go and that as society changes then the balance will also change.

          When my mother got married she had to give up her job in the GPO because women weren't allowed to keep working if they were married; this meant she didn't build up any sort of superannuation of her own. Australia finally fully outlawed rape in marriage in 1994 - so it will probably take a bit longer for equality to catch on as an idea.

          I don't expect to change many of your ideas but society itself is slowly changing. More women are graduating from university than men, companies are realising that a better gendered mix at all levels is preferable for the bottom line. Enlightened men are beginning to want to be involved in the upbringing of their children and realise that well paid spouses are a definite bonus in a partnership. My partner and I are sliding towards a comfortable retirement because I decided to do a male dominated career rather than a female dominated one.

        • try2bhelpful on 28/03/2018 - 18:39
          +1

          @infinite: They are based on scientific studies and you have provided me with not one counter study with any validity. Just because you disagree with the findings does not mean the studies aren't valid.

        • try2bhelpful on 28/03/2018 - 18:40
          -2

          @LUTSlit: Yes, the studies do show that sexism against women is rife. A more even society would be better for everyone.

        • tryagain on 28/03/2018 - 21:09

          @try2bhelpful:

          The average wage for a labourer is still higher than that for a child care worker and the child care worker requires a set of qualifications. Labourers for large building sites would still be paid a significant premium of child care workers. I would argue that child care workers are dealing with a much more valuable commodity that the labourer; given they are guiding the early development of the next crop of societies workforce at all levels.

          I don't disagree with you that female-dominated industries get on average paid less, but if you think that is predominantly because they are female then we disagree if you think that only a very small, if any of that is attributable to gender, then we are in full agreeance.

          I don't, however, think a labourer doing what is quite often very physically demanding work in adverse weather conditions with often little ongoing job security is a good comparison with childcare without those impositions.

        • infinite on 28/03/2018 - 22:08

          @try2bhelpful: An opinion based on someone else's study, is not a scientific study at all. You appear to just keep digging yourself deeper and deeper.

        • infinite on 29/03/2018 - 08:42

          @try2bhelpful: None of them were scientifically valid studies at all. Not even close.

  • djmm on 28/03/2018 - 07:56

    Anyone installing baby seat inside their AMG top of the line?

    • OzzyOzbourne on 28/03/2018 - 12:09

      Only a mercedes branded seat

  • [Deactivated] on 28/03/2018 - 08:21
    +3

    'low skill requirement' dude they are looking after your kids. It's women's work. Women who stay at home to look after kids don't get paid, so when you actually have to pay someone to look after your kids you don't like it.

    People want to make enough to live on, just like you do, and that really shouldn't take into account your perception of their skill level

    • Jdog88 on 28/03/2018 - 08:48
      +1

      You dont need a cert 3 to have a baby.

    • [Deactivated] on 28/03/2018 - 17:08
      +4

      Policemen are looking after everyone, kids included.

      Firemen are looking after everyone, kids included.

      Doctors, nurses and carers are looking after everyone, kids included.

      Road workers ensure roads are safe for driving and everyone needs roads.

      Food workers ensure food is safe for everyone, kids included.

      Accountants ensure taxes get paid so services, kids services included, get paid.

      Let's give everyone more money

      • [Deactivated] on 04/04/2018 - 08:15
        -1

        Yes! We should give everyone enough money to live on.

  • tryagain on 28/03/2018 - 09:42
    +5

    Childcare isn't a right, centres can charge what they want and you can choose whether you want to pay it or not. Yes it might be expensive but no one is forcing you to use it. If they all put their prices up by say 15% to cover a 35% pay rise (I think 35% is too high but I don't think something is out of order) then it would be your choice as to whether you keep using the service or not.
    At the end of the day it is supply and demand on both sides, but I think we are approaching a disconnect where the quality of staff parents want for their children won't be attracted by the wages being offered.

  • shaybisc on 28/03/2018 - 10:15
    +4

    My childcare was courtesy of my mother and she didn't have a degree, not even a certificate. It's a miracle I can talk let alone read and write.

    • c0balt on 28/03/2018 - 12:45
      +2

      One of the goals of the government is to be your parents, rather than your own parents.

      Especially in this country.

  • [Deactivated] on 28/03/2018 - 11:43

    As far as I know you're not typically required to have a cert III, though you do get a slight payrise if you have it. Unsure if the $22-23/hr rate is before or after that payrise.

    Edit:
    Looked it up, according to children services award:
    With Cert III: $21.29 - $23.97

    • hoxygt on 29/03/2018 - 13:03

      In W.A its a Cert3 min, with a Dip in each room and the gov is pushing for all Dip qualified staff.

  • OzzyOzbourne on 28/03/2018 - 12:07

    The Only people to suffer from the strike are working parents.

    The only people to suffer from a care worker pay rise are working parents

  • KG1985 on 28/03/2018 - 12:19

    No offence OP , skilled Job is always paid the way it is paid here. But you dont have to ask people not to support childcare workers pay rise because you are impacted by it (affordability). A cleaner in the malls are sometime paid 40$ PH , Plumber charge you 100 to 200$ for small fix , to cut and place a single led downlight 50$ and many more…i feel childcare workers does lot of physical work and even work with cleaning diapers and vomits etc..they deserve bit more than they are getting.

    • Mike88 on 28/03/2018 - 12:41
      +1

      Probably shouldn’t employ a plumber to install your down lights

    • cashews on 28/03/2018 - 19:29
      +1

      There is a difference between how much a tradie charges per hour and how much they get paid.

  • FW190 on 28/03/2018 - 15:44
    +2

    it's all about ME ME ME!

    considering these child care workers gets paid $21-23/hour, and last I heard, on average they are supposed to look after like 5 or 6
    (or 8 according to some news article I have read) children each, so their wage would be a tiny fraction of your daily child care cost, the rest most likely goes to the center owner's Mercedes fund, but it is always easy to target the "unskilled", isn't it?

    seriously, you could easily get $21-23/hour working in a cafe, but I guess for some people, their coffee is more important than their kids?

    • [Deactivated] on 28/03/2018 - 23:29
      -1

      It's not easy to target the "unskilled".

      It is easy to target the unskilled.

      If people are actually unskilled, we can omit the quotation marks.

      If people are actually irreplaceable, they can just walk out, in fact, resign.

      But no. They exercise this ridiculous right to hold an employer ransom - intentionally disrupting business for personal gain. What a bunch of selfish people who only think about ME ME ME.

      • FW190 on 29/03/2018 - 11:43

        they are probably more skilled and educated then the typical internet troll.

        and yeah, they are walking off their job alright, if they are so "unskilled" and replaceable, surely the child care centers can find someone else to do it at the drop of a hat without causing any disruption to their customers, right?

        • [Deactivated] on 29/03/2018 - 11:59

          Childcare Centres could replace the workers but they cannot terminate the employment of the current workers on strike.

          https://www.fairwork.gov.au/employee-entitlements/industrial…

          This puts the employer at an impasse not due to insufficient supply of labour but due to government imposed restrictions (effectively prohibition) to replace the workers.

        • FW190 on 29/03/2018 - 12:15

          I had a quick look through that link, but can't seem to find any mention of forbidding employers from temporarily replacing the staff to minimise disruption to customers/continuation of business, can you perhaps point me to that section? (not trying to be sarcastic, genuine question)

          anyway, hasn't it been done in the past where employers would (permanently) replace the striking workers with other sources of labor? ("affectionately" known as scabs by the unionist), so was that outlawed recently?

          your link brings out heaps of question, so is this strike protected? or unprotected?

        • [Deactivated] on 29/03/2018 - 17:45

          @FW190:
          Why would employers have to temporarily replace staff? If my employee walked out as leverage on my business, I would fire them. Permanent.

          Now, under the article above and under the Protected Industrial Actions act, you can strike about Permitted Matters which is essentially anything, especially pay, and be protected from dismissal.

          "When an employee takes part in protected industrial action, an employer must not threaten to dismiss or discriminate against the employee."

  • follow on 28/03/2018 - 15:52
    +1

    They should've just waited for the tax cuts. We'll all be getting wage increases

    • OzzyOzbourne on 29/03/2018 - 12:35

      I won't be holding my breath for that to happen

  • FW190 on 28/03/2018 - 16:02

    kinda off topic for this thread, but for parents who has 2+ children that needs child care, wouldn't it be cheaper for them to hire a child care worker directly and look after their kids at home?

    • follow on 28/03/2018 - 16:05

      Not many self employed?

    • infinite on 28/03/2018 - 16:44

      I wouldn't think so. In-demand actually qualified and experienced Nannies (often out-of-work school teachers and other educators) charge well upwards of $35-$40 an hour. Even expensive child care is a bargain compared to that.

      • c0balt on 28/03/2018 - 17:15

        Sounds like there is a big market for groups of parents that can hire a single qualified nanny to take care of their kids. The parents save money, the childcare worker gets paid more than if they worked for a center, they work with fewer children and fewer taxpayer dollars spent.

        Sounds like these qualified childcare workers with a bit of initiative could stand to reshape the industry and make a lot more money doing so.

        I should start Uber-nannies.

        • infinite on 28/03/2018 - 17:22

          Nope, won't happen. The government has regulated the industry and other forms of child caring almost out of existence already. By using Nannies, people also aren't entitled to the tax benefits, rebates and centrelink allowances that many use to make child care affordable, either.

        • FW190 on 28/03/2018 - 18:13

          @infinite:

          sounds like another ploy for the government to prop up private businesses? what's the bet that some MPs/political donors owns a few child care center?

      • FW190 on 28/03/2018 - 18:15

        I am talking about the same people who works in child care centers.

        If they are qualified to work with your child in a center, I don't see how they couldn't do it at your home too?

        otherwise, do babysitters still exist? (don't have kids so NFI)

        • BartholemewH on 28/03/2018 - 21:21

          Babysitters exist, and in a good neighbourhood with good references earn significantly more than $23 an hour, in cash.

  • ninetyNineCents on 28/03/2018 - 16:37
    +1

    The real problem is parents shouldnt be dumping their kids in child care, they should stay at home with their kids. Before people jump on me, im not saying its a womans job, im saying both the father and mother should make the hard decisions and one should stay home.

    All this sending both parents to work hasnt helped anyone, for example with more two income families th eprice of housing has jumped up to match them, so the end result is said families are actually worse off than before. It wasnt that long ago ordinary families could buy a house one one full time parent's wage, now they require two.

    • Rutger on 28/03/2018 - 18:47

      I used to believe that until my nephews went to childcare (I'm a secondary carer) and I saw it in practice nope, it's not dumping rather it's so good for them that it should be compulsory. It's not just playing with their friends all day it's also some education and preparation for schooling.

      • ninetyNineCents on 28/03/2018 - 20:06

        It's not just playing with their friends all day it's also some education and preparation for schooling.

        You can replace wuithin my statement the word "dumping" with "daycare" that doesnt change the remainder of my statement from being basically true.

        The main idea is correct.

    • cashews on 28/03/2018 - 19:32

      People sending their children to daycare are not responsible for real estate price rises.

      • ninetyNineCents on 28/03/2018 - 20:04
        +1

        @cash

        Sorry they are a major factor that resulted in the big price increase. Everybody including sellers knows or assumes that everyone has two incomes so they charge accordingly. Notice i used the word assume everyone has two incomes, so that means single parent families are now at a disadvantage because they have one income while sellers assume two.

        I know there are many other factors and nothing is ever that simple, but two income families are a significant reason house prices jumped. Its evident if we track the increase in double income families the price rise for homes also started a big change as well.

        Before that things were simple and steady.

        Try a bit harder and prove me wrong.

      • ninetyNineCents on 28/03/2018 - 20:08
        +1

        Just look at daycare costs, the more the gov "helps" by its contributions and tax breaks etc, the more the centers adjust their pricing. THe gov help basically is free money for these companies, its not helping anything.

        The best thing would be for the gov to contribute nothing directly or indirectly. Parents wouldnt be able to pay the current fees, which would mean the greedy centers would then dramatically drop their fees to "old prices". If you compared the prices from the old days, im pretty sure you wuld find parents would actually be out of pocket significantly less than today AFTER gov help.

  • ghostdom on 28/03/2018 - 16:58
    +5

    If you think salary is too low, go find something else, if the rate was too low, no one would take the job, then the rate would go higher. But this is simply not the case. Suck it up or walk away. Simple as that. Price should be determined by market not worker their own or the government.

    • infinite on 28/03/2018 - 17:05
      -2

      But muh commie and socialist agenda's…………….

    • nickg on 28/03/2018 - 17:26

      Economics 101, too bad you didn't go any further

  • nickg on 28/03/2018 - 17:25

    I think the OP and many others on this forum are paid way too much, probably in some sort of rent seeking industry. Can we strike to have them paid less? Then we might be able to afford to pay childcare workers more.

    • [Deactivated] on 28/03/2018 - 18:38

      You don't even know the industry you seek to strike against?

      I guess that's a minor detail for a Social Justice Warrior.

      • nickg on 29/03/2018 - 08:59
        -1

        Must be hard for you going through life taking everything you read literally. Seems like you have a bit of a ‘chip on your shoulder’.

        • [Deactivated] on 29/03/2018 - 09:06
          +1

          I got heaps of chips but mostly on my plate.

          Life is okay. I've never had to join a union.

        • nickg on 29/03/2018 - 10:18
          -1

          @tshow: Yeah no need to join a union if you don't have a job.

        • [Deactivated] on 29/03/2018 - 11:21
          +1

          @nickg:
          No need for a union because I am actually good at what I do so I run my own company instead of squeel about my alleged entitlements.

        • nickg on 29/03/2018 - 12:47

          @tshow: On the contrary, you seem to feel entitled to squeal about your simplistic Econ 101 ideas on the internet. If you don't like unions go out and do something to stop them.

        • [Deactivated] on 29/03/2018 - 13:00
          +1

          @nickg:
          Unions are not the default arrangement. It is an artificial construct.

          All I have to do is reject the premise of their existence and they hold no power.

          You seem to like alluding to Econs 101. Seems like you didn't even understand it but doesn't matter, the union will figure it out.

  • Cheapsize on 28/03/2018 - 18:56
    +2

    People that work in Childcare are expected to be educators develop a curriculum on the fly provide monthly progress reports on individual children in addition to caring for 30 plus kids at times feeding and entertaining and cleaning poop vomit blood and dealing with abusive parents and 7.30 am starts and 7pm finishes and work after hours when parents are late for basically minimum wage with little to no chance of a raise. Its expensive but while people work you have no Idea how much effort goes on. so they definitely deserve it.

    • Cartman2530 on 29/03/2018 - 09:40
      +1

      I agree, looking after my 4 kids alone is tough work and the're MY kids, and pretty well behaved. Can't imagine looking after another 30 of other peoples children, it would be chaos!

      Give them some more cash!

  • smartazz104 on 28/03/2018 - 19:03

    It is becoming less viable for the second bread winner to work as child care fees are around $120 - $150 / day, many workers have to make at least $200 - $250 pre-tax just to break even with these fees, so many simply stay home.

    I guess having 2 breadwinners wasn't such a good idea.

    • tsunamisurfer on 28/03/2018 - 19:21

      Having 2 breadwinners is one of the few ways a regular mum and dad can 'get ahead' or even just to 'keep up' in these times.

    • Cartman2530 on 29/03/2018 - 09:44
      +2

      My wife stayed at home to look after our 4 children, while tough financially, it was the best decision we made. I knew that they would be in the best of care and that is worth more to me than anything.

      Plus you learn to live within your means, otherwise you don't survive.

  • kylarstern on 28/03/2018 - 20:48
    -1

    I agree 110%. These people went to TAFE to do a Cert III course for a few months for a job where all you do is supervise very young children and they expect to be paid on par with University graduates who work their butts off for years. Its a joke.
    Lets say if these child care workers actually went to uni and studied a uni course for 3 years and did placements/internships, and finally when they got employed, they got paid $21. Fine. That's unacceptable. But in this instance when they're qualified for a low-risk job (unlike tradies or health workers) to look after infants/young children (and no, dont compare it to teachers because they actually do a lot more work than child care workers), its going a bit far. And the fact that it's going to make child care less affordable for families just rubs salt in the wound.

    • UNO on 29/03/2018 - 07:43

      There are a number of ECT teachers who do go to university for 3 years, have multiple placement etc that get paid peanuts.

      If you want high quality teachers you have to pay for it. In NZ they have a much higher proportion of teachers with EC degrees, but the daily cost is much lower.

      The high prices are a result of the fees set by the owners.

  • JIMB0 on 28/03/2018 - 21:10
    -1

    This wouldn't be an issue if women stayed home to look after the children. Whilst home they could keep the house clean and have dinner ready for when their husband gets home from work.

    • [Deactivated] on 28/03/2018 - 21:22
      +1

      Downvoting you not because you are wrong or that I'm against the traditional family model (or the same with gender roles reversed), but only because the traditional family model where is outdated and not reflective of today's reality for most families trying to survive, which in today's economy needs two income earners to avoid falling behind, and there are a lot of single parent families these days.

      If we were still in the 50s where it was the norm to have single income earners per family, sure that would work.

      • Trying2SaveABuck on 28/03/2018 - 21:29

        i've evened out that with an up-vote because traditional family model was a much better system.

        I agree it might not be viable but i support it over leaving you kids with strangers for 8 hours everyday

        • [Deactivated] on 28/03/2018 - 21:38

          the system works only if everyone else follows it and you insert a whole bunch of social taboos to prevent the system from being broken.

    • Cartman2530 on 29/03/2018 - 09:48
      +2

      It's not really possible these days for some people as they have to both work to keep paying their massive mortgages and car loans.

      • sweetnipples on 29/03/2018 - 12:51

        So what you're saying is, people are living OUTSIDE their means and they rest of us have to prop that up!
        Because they want it all… NOW

        City housing you say, try buying a $3million dollar farm to start your family life
        No child care out here… You just do it yourself.

        • Cartman2530 on 29/03/2018 - 13:36

          I don't know if your comment was directed at me specifically, but I was speaking generally that I would say that a lot of people are living outside of their means.

          If a rate rise comes in the near future it'll mean a good percentage of people with larger mortgages will be under severe financial stress. Most people just don't look too far into the future these days. I see a lot of people redrawing on their equity in their properties to buy a new car or holiday or (insert luxury item here). Just to keep up appearances to their mates, when their older car would still do fine or their 50" TV still works. So they appear as wealthy as their home(s) on paper would suggest.

          If and when a rate rise happens, most people will not be able to keep this lifestyle up.

          I do hope that the childcare workers get a pay increase regardless, as I said in another comment I look after my 4 kids and they are well behaved and its tough sometimes, looking after 30-50 of other peoples kids would be a real headache!

  • Trying2SaveABuck on 28/03/2018 - 21:27
    +2

    Sorry but $22 an hour is f*** all considering the level of responsibility put on them i agree 35% is over the top but they should be on about $22 to start with levelling up to $31 (with +5 years of experience)

    At the same time if they dont like the salary you get just can leave the industry or strike (which they are doing). Personally they should take some of the money those over paid fire fighters are getting an spread it to them.

  • StarryStarry on 28/03/2018 - 23:07

    Having children is one of the most destructive things you can to do the environment, One fewer child per family can save 'average of 58.6 tonnes of CO2-equivalent emissions per year'

    • follow on 29/03/2018 - 07:22

      I like using saying that to vegan (for the environment) relatives. Don't have kids and don't drive. You'll reduce your footprint so much!

  • Geryatric on 29/03/2018 - 01:55
    +1

    Absolutely deserve the increase. It’s a national disgrace what they are currently paid (around 48k pa). There is massive disconnect between the cost of operations and the rates being charged - the high rates are pure greedy operators maximising profit and taking advantage of government assistance packages. This is not the child care workers doing - they are seriously on struggle street and doing a VERY hard job with limited resources.

    P.s I can’t afford a second kid due to the crazy high child care fees in Sydney

    • Punknerd on 29/03/2018 - 08:19

      Let's say the government agrees to the pay rise. There's no way that supplementary cash gonna increase the effective income of the workers.
      Option A: giving centre more money —> centre decreases their feea bit to stay competitive as their bottom line (and everyone else's) just got a big boost. The workers are still as replaceable as prior to the cash injection.

      Option B: government bonus for every registered childcare workers (big cost to run a registry as well). Centre operators see their workers got a big boost in income, low ball their wage to exact legal minimum wage. There's still a good supply of workers who realise that they can survive with minimum wage + government bonus. So the existing workers don't really get a net increase in wage.

      As others have said, market determines how much a private employee get paid. A good option is to have government-run centres, whose workers get paid in accordance with the EBA. That competition for workers will probably result in substantial increase in childcare workers wage.

      • [Deactivated] on 29/03/2018 - 09:49
        +1

        Governments, our government especially, are inept at running anything but the ATO.

        The postal system is a joke

        Our internet and telcos are examplary.

        They contract out our highways at a guaranteed profit.

        Our education system continues to loose international standing

        Our police either fight beauracracy or issue speeding tickets.

        Our healthcare system is great because doctors run the show in hospitals but beyond the walls of clinical work, Medicare takes over and it falls apart.

        Please don't let our government take out tax dollars to go play businessman.

        • c0balt on 29/03/2018 - 10:25

          Our education system slipped so much that it's loose, quick.. someone tighten it up!

        • [Deactivated] on 29/03/2018 - 11:24

          @c0balt:
          It's made me lose grip on the language. Loosely interpreted.

  • wtfnodeal on 29/03/2018 - 02:13
    +1

    One day the entire Australia should go strike, get starved and shut down the whole country for a week to get a 35% decrease in living costs? If the pay and job isn't right for you just move on. Don't like the country just migrate to another country. At least you are freely to make most of the choices in your life unlike people in some countries lives aren't even in their controls.

    • h4zey on 29/03/2018 - 09:28
      +1

      basically you got a C but the are others who get an F so why bother studying right?

      • wtfnodeal on 29/03/2018 - 10:49

        Nah. My comment is not biased to whether there should be a strike or not but if this attention seeking to the relevant parties isn't going to work you should just look for something and somewhere better than what and where you do for living. If your skills and commitment to work isn't appreciated here then find other places or people that appreciate it better because you are free to do so at least in Australia. It is the government job to find a balance between the "workers" and "bosses" and in history if this "slavery" trend moves way out of balance then shutting down the whole country such as civil war could happen.

  • Black Brown Blue on 29/03/2018 - 05:19
    +1

    The rent of my house that I left last week went up by $30 per week but my pay has not gone up at all. Every other expense also goes up in price every year. I can understand both perspectives here, the parents and workers. Unfortunately it’s not a win win for either of them.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join