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

    • c0balt on 29/03/2018 - 10:26
      +1

      Did you negotiate for an increase in pay and were denied? Or just hoping that your pay will go up without you asking?

      • Black Brown Blue on 31/03/2018 - 08:27

        I haven’t negotiated an increase at all. The company generally gives a raise every two years. It’s a private medium sized company and I think they can’t afford to give pay rises every year.

        • infinite on 31/03/2018 - 11:18

          Then your situation is either that your living beyond your means and have an overinflated sense of self worth, or that you lack the skills to negotiate a pay increase commensurate to your actual value to the company. Good news is that you can fix both those problems.

  • dogboy on 29/03/2018 - 10:26
    -1

    If companies stopped paying their CEOs millions of dollars then everyone would be on a fair wage and could support higher pay for childcare workers. Have a look at the disparity between the lowest paid worker in a company to their CEO since the GFC in 2000. It has gone out of control. While everyone's pay has stagnated, they have moved to raking in a fortune. They tried to shame them when they were making a somewhat reasonable wage (about 100 times their lowest paid employee) by publishing their pay, but that just made all of them want to get paid what the highest paid CEO was getting. If you ever wonder why people's pay hasn't increased with the price of inflation, that is it.

    • c0balt on 29/03/2018 - 10:28

      Counter argument - The CEOs that get paid a lot of money sometimes save the company from becoming insolvent and potentially thousands of people losing work.

      Allen Joyce comes to mind. We nearly lost Qantas if not for him.

      • dogboy on 29/03/2018 - 10:40

        Very, very rarely is this the case imo. Most people have no idea what CEOs actually do. When you do find out you wonder why the hell they get paid above minimum wage. For the uneducated, quick to downvote on ignorance people, here is an article on CEO pay disclosure from the ABC - http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-28/australia-should-compa…

        • c0balt on 29/03/2018 - 11:09
          +1

          Well if it was rarely the case that CEOs help businesses thrive, then surely they would have got rid of them as no business owner wants to throw money away?

          If being a CEO was so easy, everyone would be one.

          Seems that having a long track record of helping businesses stay in business is what dictates their pay.

          If there's a magic rock that does nothing but causes businesses to not have to fold and lay off all their staff, then that rock is doing something worth a lot more than minimum wage and the market dictates how much they are worth.

        • dogboy on 29/03/2018 - 12:29
          +1

          @c0balt: Its all about image and the boys club looking after eachother. If you ever get the chance to work with CEOs as I have you will find this out. There is a core executive group that make the real decisions, the CEO is usually just a figurehead with good connections. They never put the fate of a business in the hands of just one person. That is just my experience, I am sure there are some out there that actually help drive businesses to proposer and deliver value. I should note I am referring only to large organisations (Banks, Insurance). I am sure CEOs of small business are key drivers to their success.

        • c0balt on 29/03/2018 - 13:34

          @dogboy:

          Well I would argue that having a successful business is all about managing money. It's in the interest of the core executive group to keep making their large profits, not about having a boys club.

          You might view it as such, but it doesn't detract from your point that "They never put the fate of a business in the hands of just one person", which to me would mean that no one is beyond being thrown under a bus to keep the company solvent (not exactly a boy's club), and that having a competent CEO rather than one of the boys would be a fiscally prudent decision.

  • [Deactivated] on 29/03/2018 - 10:33
    +2

    It was my understanding that child care centres are huge money makers. I know some people who own several and have become multi millionaires because of this. Child care workers are underpaid relative to a lot of jobs in Australia, but the simple fact is that most of the jobs in Australia are grossly overpaid when compared to overseas. I know my wage is double to triple what I would earn in the UK for example. 35% is too much, that would put child care workers on par with teachers who have much more highly qualified and have a much more demanding job. That being said, they should earn more than a KFC worker, so a pay rise is on the cards. It shouldn’t come from fees though, owners, who have had it too good for too long should take the hit here. Child care is already far too expensive in Australia (getting a live in Au pair is much cheaper).

    • dogboy on 29/03/2018 - 10:42
      +1

      Unfortunately while I agree with this, there is no way the business owners who have all the power in this situation would take a pay cut. Greed is the scourge of the human race.

      • infinite on 30/03/2018 - 16:42
        -2

        Greed is the fundamental core base of the human race. It's what allows us to thrive and stay on top of the food chain. We wouldn't be alive without the basic instinct.

        • dogboy on 30/03/2018 - 22:35
          -2

          I completely and 100% disagree with your statement.

        • OzzyOzbourne on 31/03/2018 - 00:10
          -2

          @dogboy:agree, greed has slowed our progress, wasted countless lives l and will likely end the human race

        • infinite on 31/03/2018 - 11:13
          -2

          @OzzyOzbourne:

          You appear to have greed confused with communism and socialism - the two largest killers in the modern history of man kind.

      • kingmw on 31/03/2018 - 20:21
        +1

        Greed is a large basis of capitalism, without it we would be living in a communist country where everything is shared and there is no incentive to work harder.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_capitalism

        Theoretically if you were the business owner, why would you take a pay cut? The only reason to increase your employee's wages is if they are valuable and their loss would impact greatly on your business significantly.

  • BEPS13 on 29/03/2018 - 10:37
    -1

    honestly, we take this all way over the top.

    all you need is a few people standing around making sure the kids eat/sleep/don't die. How hard can that be? $22 an hour to just feed and look after kids. you aren't sitting there trying to resolve a multi national restructuring for Christ sake.

  • littleDealFish on 29/03/2018 - 11:03

    My question to OP is

    Would you your self work in childcare for $21 an hour?

    If you said no,

    Would you work in childcare for an extra 30% $28 an hr

    If you still answered no then you have your answer. The job is hard.

    For example, i know plenty of people who have worked at MacDonald's for $21 an hour (some more!). Don't need any qualifications, and logically, most people move on, unless they want to be a manager/owner and put in the extra. It's not a naturally pleasing job, you can't browse your ozbargain and be an ozwhiner so the basic wage makes sense.

    In childcare you're punishing the people that want to be there and do put in the extra work.

    Pay them what you pay at McDonald's, and you'll lower the bar. People know their worth, even if it is only now they are saying it.

    We are lucky there are people that find childcare pleasing and want to do it well!

    Now with more demand, you have options, they have options. They are using one of theirs to ask for a deserved wage increase.

    Worse case scenario your option, you have to stay home and look after them yourself.

    Or wait, kill two birds with one stone - go look after them + some other kiddies and get paid $21 hr to boot!

    • c0balt on 29/03/2018 - 11:16
      +1

      "Now with more demand, you have options, they have options. They are using one of theirs to ask for a deserved wage increase."

      Actually striking is what they do when they don't have any options. If there were options or a high demand, the wage would reflect that and they could easily move to another childcare center for better pay. The sector is flush with thousands apon thousands of TAFE certificate holders every year and competition is high. Yes they might be qualified, but what makes them more qualified than any of the other fresh out of TAFE certificate holders earning an award wage around $20 an hour?

      Rather than save their money, they would rather pay the fat cat union leaders to organise action that will hurt their industry, make the workers poorer through union fees and line the pockets of the union leaders.

      I should have been a union leader getting rich of the backs of actual workers and make them think I was fighting for them when I was the one slugging them.

    • [Deactivated] on 29/03/2018 - 11:36
      +1

      "Would you your self work in childcare for $21 an hour?"

      Would I work as a nurse for $2x an hour? This requires 3 years of time investment and is a gruelling job. No.

      Would I work as an accountant for $100 an hour? No because I hate accounting.

      Would I work as a lawyer? No as I have very strong apprehension about certain details of the just I'll system.

      We could expand this argument to anyone about anything and the only conclusion you will arrive at with this logic is that everyone should be paid more.

      If we changed the argument to be less emotive - "Would anyone want to work as a Y for $X" - the answer would actually be determined by market forces. In this case, if the childcare workers sincerely think that no one will work for the current pay, just resign. No one will take up the employment after all.

      • littleDealFish on 29/03/2018 - 12:36
        -2

        "We could expand this argument to anyone about anything and the only conclusion you will arrive at with this logic is that everyone should be paid more."

        Actually i believe in Australia we get paid too much - as another poster said, our wage is very high compared to the rest of the world (I'm living and working in Canada atm).

        The issue i have is the disparity of wage = value. You value the time spent to obtain knowledge (which i agree is just as important!) but shouldn't a wage ALSO reflect the hard work, commitment and benefit to society? They can be mutually beneficial..

        I don't think anyone on this thread has said childcare is NOT important, therefore it would be hard to say that children are not somewhere near the top of that list…. So we can probably all agree someone working in childcare should be paid more than someone working in retail/hospitality - which currently is not the case.

        IF you would rather argue supply and demand, which certainly does make sense from a capitalist POV - what happens when you replace the machine with cheaper parts? It breaks down - aka strikes! whether it is of benefit to the worker or not..

        To throw in an anecdote, the people i know personally that work as teachers/tutor/childcare, the only one that has remained in their job is tutor. Higher pay = less stress.

        There will be some that will stay, but i would argue most people don't know that getting into 'caring' jobs (aged care is another one), they will eventually burn out - as some posters have already said in this thread also.

        • [Deactivated] on 29/03/2018 - 12:52
          +1

          It's good that we can establish that no one is claiming childcare workers are not valuable, overpaid, underworked nor unimportant.

          It is still pertinent to acknowledge that this is also true of almost every single vocation out there so arguing this point expands the scope without possibility of bounds.

          Replacing the parts of a machine with cheaper parts does not make a machine break down. It is only when we replace with with inferior or inappropriate parts. Do not conflate cost with quality.

          The conclusion of your anecdote is false. You claim more pay = less stress. Philosophically, I do not think there's any relation. I have studied this topic but have always failed to find any psychological studies let alone conclusive studies between the two. I welcome any primary information on the matter.

          Since both points you presented are anecdotal and unsubstantiated, the conclusion you draw from it is invalid. Regardless, burning out is irrelevant to the issue of pay. One can change professions at the end of a career much more easily and simply than having a third party regulate issues of pay.

        • c0balt on 29/03/2018 - 12:58
          +1

          "The issue i have is the disparity of wage = value."

          So a 6 month TAFE course that costs a couple of grand (tops, plus is able to be put on HECs) is something of value? Maybe, if it wasn't for the thousands of other people doing the same thing and all expecting to have secure high paying jobs after it. The bar to get into these TAFE courses isn't even graduating high school!

          The job itself is important, but not because of their qualifications. The poor kids who go through an Arts degree at a university must be kicking themselves they didn't do a 6 month childcare course!

          "So we can probably all agree someone working in childcare should be paid more than someone working in retail/hospitality - which currently is not the case."

          How insulting. I would argue that working in hospitality takes just as long if not longer to get qualifications for, is a more dangerous job with just as much liability.

        • littleDealFish on 29/03/2018 - 14:07
          -1

          @c0balt: not sure what your point is as I don't think I mentioned anything about TAFE or qualifications ? Knowledge can encompass higher learning and/or experience - and if there was one to argue could be more important I would say experience (though in a perfect world you would want a doctor to have both!). As an example, experience + in demand = tradie and they make a pretty decent wage.

          Well childcare is now in demand, and the problem is people don't think it is a job worth rewarding experience. And I don't mean the paper (certificates, diploma what have you) at it, but the down and dirty of it as other posters have said the job is hard and taxing. A certificate won't prepare you for that, just like a lot of parents are unprepared for children.

          If you want good childcare workers, that stay and get experience you need to pay them more.

          Sorry if I offended about hospitality - I've worked in the other areas (retail, fruit picking) and honestly just like childcare, seems like a lot of effort for not enough pay. Humans are a PITA to deal with!

        • [Deactivated] on 29/03/2018 - 15:13
          +1

          @caseabrook:
          Humans are actually very easy to deal with. If people think they are worth more, they are entitled to think so.

          If that thought evolves into dissent, they are free to leave.

          If they leave or strike, employers should be free to replace them.

          It's government restrictions that are a PITA.

  • mavis30551 on 29/03/2018 - 12:01
    +3

    Give them a raise.

    Maybe people will stop breeding as kids are too expensive.

    To many F***ing people around already to be honest.

    • c0balt on 29/03/2018 - 12:11
      +3

      But if we stop having kids or importing them, who will grow up to pay for the Ponzi scheme that is the pension?

      • [Deactivated] on 29/03/2018 - 12:15
        +2

        Stop pulling on the threads of socialism. There's not much to unravel.

    • Almost Banned on 29/03/2018 - 12:33
      -1

      Anyone who claims that there are too many people on this planet - but don't do the one thing in their power to change this - are hypocrites.
      What you really mean is there are too many people APART FROM ME on this planet.

      • mavis30551 on 29/03/2018 - 13:11
        +1

        I agree.

        Lets get to the heart of the problem. You start, I'll follow!

        • Almost Banned on 29/03/2018 - 13:26
          -1

          I'm not the one who thinks this planet is overpopulated so I don't need to.
          You, on the other hand…???

    • OzzyOzbourne on 31/03/2018 - 00:15
      +1

      I guess you were never a child and possibly not a person

  • [Deactivated] on 29/03/2018 - 12:24
    +1

    If what I'm paying out of pocket stays the same, I'm happy.

    The problem is that the owners, share holders or upper management of chain childcare are being paid substantially whilst the rest suffer.

    Not fair, not on us not on the workers.

    I'm currently paying $1060/fortnight for my 1 child in childcare (image). Abysmal.

  • spychiatrist on 29/03/2018 - 13:00
    +1

    The entitlement country gets another.

    • A fish on 29/03/2018 - 17:52
      +1

      The underpaid childcare workers or the parents that want to raise children without it interrupting their career and without it costing too much?

      • OzzyOzbourne on 31/03/2018 - 00:18

        You do realise that both parents have to work these days to afford a house and living expenses. That's the way the government has made it.

        • A fish on 31/03/2018 - 08:06

          Yeah iPhone + kids + holiday is probably not achievable

  • hoxygt on 29/03/2018 - 13:07
    +1

    While we all argue whether it is or isn't valid paying them more, consider what people you're getting for that $21/hr?

    Yep people can take it or leave it and in my experience you get those who love and are passionate about the job/ career and those who are there cause it pays $21/ hr.

    That ratio will vary depending on the pay rate - you pay banana's….. Which group people do you want looking after the next generation of Australian's?

  • mattrmelb on 29/03/2018 - 13:19
    +3

    OP - Google 'Ambit claim' - they have no realistic expectations of 35%

    Also, good for the childcare workers asking for a Pay Rise, the funny thing is, they would support you if you and your colleague's went on strike asking for better terms and conditions.

    It's not like they have just magically decided to walk off for the day, do some research in the process that is required with Fair Work to actually approve a strike action, it's usually the very last resort when all other avenues have been exhausted.

    • c0balt on 29/03/2018 - 13:37
      +1

      "The funny thing is, they would support you if you and your colleague's went on strike asking for better terms and conditions."

      They didn't join in other industrial actions in the past, so what makes you think they would fight for software developers asking for a payrise? You know some of the union leaders and their policies?

      • mattrmelb on 29/03/2018 - 14:54

        Didn't they? Details please

        • c0balt on 29/03/2018 - 15:23

          The onus is on you to show they have.

          Details please Mr Union man!

          I see you made an account just to comment in this thread, interesting.

  • dealbreaker on 29/03/2018 - 14:18
    +2

    So 23$/hour will change to 31$/hour.
    So they make around $230/day and look after 8 children who pay a total of 8x$120, $960

    Only $29 of your fees would go to paying the workers, $91 would go to the owner.

    I dont think 31/hour is too much to pay for them to teach and clean up after your children. You should be directing your financial frustration at the buisiness owner.

    • c0balt on 29/03/2018 - 14:25
      +2

      Maybe you should factor in all the outgoing costs for the business into that calculator of yours.

  • hoxygt on 29/03/2018 - 14:26

    Additionally government supports early education (childcare) as it increases the available workforce which in turn increases Australia's productivity = economic growth.

    I'm an amateur at this but I think it goes (extreme example), mum is better off at work being a engineer because her contribution to the economy is far greater than the subsidy the gov pays to the childcare centre/ parent. Ignoring the perhaps $30k + she pays in tax, additional consumption taxes (cause the family has got more dough).

    Whats this got to do with the demand for more pay… as a society we perhaps only accept this so long as the early education (childcare) is of a high standard i.e. battery hen conditions are not acceptable. High standards mean many things but quality of staff is one of those things. Low pay, lower quality of staff - fair? discuss….

    • [Deactivated] on 29/03/2018 - 15:21
      +1

      Interesting discussion premise.

      Insufficient pay is easy to define. We can calculate the cost of basic necessities, ie utilities, rent, food, clothes, transport, healthcare. How do we define low pay?

      We can define incompetent staff, ie. Inability to complete mutually agreed upon tasks. How do we define lower quality staff?

      What is a high standard of early education? How do we even set a metric for such a standard?

      PS. You mentioned you are an "amateur" at this. What is this? You drew a perfectly reasonable analogy and you proposed a discussion.

      • hoxygt on 29/03/2018 - 15:58

        Oh amateur at economics, I've read that the government suggests increasing workplace participation will increase productivity which in turn increases economic growth (and GDP?), which I take as true but aren't sure I've got no economic quals.

        I do know the government doesn't invest and subsidise childcare because it just wants to give mums a break, it wants a return to the economy whether financial or social.

        • [Deactivated] on 29/03/2018 - 16:30
          +1

          Increase in workplace participation doesn't necessarily increase domestic GDP, and domestic GDP isn't the only indicator for productivity but it is a good start. There's GNI, and there's trade deficits and surplus.

          For example, having dual income increases the total income, and if every house hold has an increase in income, people can afford to pay more for real estate. If real estate price increases to match the net shift in disposable income, then no one has benefitted from dual income.

          If foreign investors see the increasing trend of real estate price and start controlling large amounts of real estate, then the price increase is no longer confined domestically. Money actually goes out when investors sell for a higher price and cashed out of the country.

          Above is just a small piece of a much larger and more complex puzzle.

        • hoxygt on 29/03/2018 - 18:10

          @tshow:

          From - http://womensworkforceparticipation.pmc.gov.au/womens-workfo…

          In 2012, the Grattan Institute found that if there were an extra 6 per cent of women in the workforce, we could add up to $25 billion, or approximately 1 per cent, to Australia’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP).5 The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) also estimates that closing the gender participation gap by 75 per cent could increase growth in Australian GDP per capita from 2 per cent per annum to 2.4 per cent.6

          However staying on topic, this initiative is highly dependent on childcare

        • [Deactivated] on 29/03/2018 - 18:27
          +1

          @hoxygt:
          I am not opposed to women in the workforce, on the contrary, my employees are predominantly female.

          The link you quoted is a government opinion/position statement. The government has a vested interest in women being in the workforce. It increases the GDP, increases tax revenue and is a foothold for government to be involved in the family structure.

          Again, I'm a proponent of professional women. I just don't encourage using opinions heavily tainted with agenda.

          On topic, how does making childcare indirectly more unaffordable facilitate women going to work?

        • hoxygt on 29/03/2018 - 19:08

          @tshow:

          If we offer low wages one result might be a lower level of talent and professionalism entering the child education industry.

          If this premise is agreed then potentially woman won't go to work because childcare standards slip and families might feel childcare is less of an option in their circumstance.

          I don't think childcare should be more affordable but perhaps it needs a rethink, childcare tax deductible, reduce costs elsewhere, I'm not sure.

        • [Deactivated] on 29/03/2018 - 19:23
          +1

          @hoxygt:
          I don't believe that increase in wages guarantees an increase in talent and professionalism. I believe that an increase in talent and professionalism will increase wages.

          If you can produce a documented example where increasing wage increased talent and professionalism, it would certainly change my mind.

          We can all agree that childcare, whilst not essential, is a common commodity and would be ideal if it is kept affordable. Further regulation, especially regulated pay doesn't reduce cost. It compoundly increases the cost.

  • timcc0208 on 29/03/2018 - 16:53

    I pay $130 for a child per day. I don't think we all pay a low fee for childcare.
    This is just a bit greedy for 35% pay rise.

  • PAPower on 29/03/2018 - 16:58
    +1

    Let's strike for reduction of tradies pay!
    $90 an hour for electrical or plumbing work is just non-sense given that call-out fee is almost $100 already!

    • [Deactivated] on 29/03/2018 - 17:30
      +1

      They can charge that amount because government regulation and restrictions mean that DIY is illegal.

      Instead of the government educating it's citizens to be more efficient and skilled, they tie your hands in your own home.

      I don't advocate striking for pay reductions but I would certainly welcome removal of nannying policies.

      • PAPower on 30/03/2018 - 00:31

        I don't know if DIY is illegal or it's just voiding your insurance.
        Being unlawful for not able to pay someone else to fix the tap or a piece of wiring doesn't make sense

        • infinite on 30/03/2018 - 09:47
          +1

          It's both illegal and voiding your various insurances. In fact, on top of that, there's also possibilities to face financial sanctioning from local government, as well as serious legal issues in a civil setting if you sell a property, having knowingly done illegal DIY work.

          But that's all despite the fact that you may have done the right thing and the quality of your work was perfect. It's another case of government regulations and restrictions forcing costs on people unnecessarily.

  • ozbargain-sucks on 29/03/2018 - 17:59

    IS there a way to hide these forum posts from the home page? Really could do without this garbage emanating from the keyboards of slimy self centred classist losers.

  • jonathonsunshine on 29/03/2018 - 18:31
    +1

    Being a childcare worker sounds like a real job to me. You say they only deserve $22 an hour but if something happened to your kids you would go ballistic. The job might be "easy" (I doubt it) but if anything happens at their job, then its pretty much a catastrophe. You're trying to diminish the value of the work they do because you don't want to be out of pocket.

    Why don't YOU get a job in Childcare if its so easy? I heard they are might get a pay rise.

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

    Yeah right, cause you were SOOO supportive before that…

  • Vallani on 29/03/2018 - 21:56

    Does anyone know how the means testing works for divorced parents? Is it assessed against the income of the primary career? For shared custody, are both parents’ incomes taken into account?

  • centrelink on 30/03/2018 - 01:25

    And here I am complaining to my wife about getting a $50 a day Chinese daycare child carer

  • ozlab on 30/03/2018 - 07:26
    +1

    Bluffing only. If the increase is not approved, what would they do?
    1. get another job with higher pay but require them to be highly skilled which they won't do because that's the reason they work in child care.
    2. get another job with the same pay which is not solving their problem.
    3. start their own childcare.

    Eventually they will come back again working in child care.

  • imahapyboy on 30/03/2018 - 09:55

    no way!

  • shaybisc on 30/03/2018 - 12:25

    It's an industry where productivity has plummeted thanks to regulatory requirements- more and more workers for fewer and fewer kids.

    Looking at the required staffing ratios, they should be charging double for the under 3yos. 1:4 or 1:5 for them, 1:10 or 1:11 for over 3yos.

    https://www.acecqa.gov.au/nqf/educator-to-child-ratios

  • [Deactivated] on 30/03/2018 - 15:39

    Remove the subsidies and these childcare centres will have to plummet their ridiculous fees and improve the quality of their services to be competitive for the little money parents have available to pay for childcare. Why in the world do you need an academic to tell you how to take care of children so you can get a diploma? Should parents have a diploma in order to have children?

  • Jaff on 30/03/2018 - 16:31
    -1

    anyone knows why we have to pay for day care on a public holiday ?

    • infinite on 30/03/2018 - 16:46
      -1

      It's for the same obvious reason your car rego, personal insurance, gym membership and all other basic services/goods you pay for, for a set period of time, costs the same regardless of public holidays.

      • Jaff on 30/03/2018 - 17:14

        well i can use my car,gym and insurance during a public holiday but day care is closed, why pay?

        • roundnumbersonly on 31/03/2018 - 23:04
          +1

          It's to cover the staff wages - because the staff (not casual) get paid holiday pay (basically straight out of your pocket).

        • Jaff on 02/04/2018 - 00:54

          @roundnumbersonly:
          So all childcare staff are permanent ?
          Their employer should pay and not us right ?

        • roundnumbersonly on 02/04/2018 - 08:10

          @Jaff:

          Well it depends on the centre. Some of them hold only few permanent and make up the rest with casual/float (but I assume they'll have holiday pay added to their hourly rate).

          Ive raised this with a director before and their rebuttal has been that there are often days where 20 (out of the 100) kids are absent. She went on to say that they could drop 1 educator in those circumstances, but because they are permanent, they come to work and get paid and that's a loss to the business. So on public holidays they recover those losses. I didn't buy that argument because I pay even when my son is sick and can't attend!

          The director ended up saying "you have to withdraw your child from the centre, and re-enrol them at a later date, if you dont want to pay for public holidays because we have x kids on the wait list, you risk your child's spot, because it will go to the next kid".

          They like to scare you into thinking that you will no longer have a place at a centre and that your child's friends, routines, etc are going to be so out of whack that you'll be begging to stay.

        • Jaff on 02/04/2018 - 10:11

          @roundnumbersonly:
          Thanks, I had the same exact conversation.

  • [Deactivated] on 31/03/2018 - 10:35
    +2

    If the Bill Shorten ALP sincerely cared about battling Australians then he would propose a tax for unions if elected (even if it was at a reduced rate).

    If wealthy unions (CFMEU for example) gave a stuff about workers they would reduce union fees and stop wasting member's contributions on running fake battlers adverts.

    • follow on 01/04/2018 - 02:04

      aren't union fees tax deductible tho

      • c0balt on 02/04/2018 - 09:47
        +1

        Yeah, but you still have to pay them only to get the taxable amount back (still going to be out of pocket once you get the tax return).

        The unions don't pay any tax and they get flushed with 'donations' union fees that are tax deductible. So the union people up the top get flushed with tax payer cash and they make the people who they represent think they are fighting for them, and not their own tax payer funded fat pay cheques.

        If the unions didn't continuously make their members think they were being mistreated or underpaid, then people wouldn't have a need to pay them in the first place. It will never be in the interest of unions to reach a point where their members are not wanting more from their employers, if that ever happened then all those thousands of admin workers in the union offices would be out of a job themselves.

        The tax office literally treats unions the same as they treat religion, only I see religion putting a lot more back into the community. Tax both anyway and we will all be better off.

        As is, a union is a capitalists wet dream. A union is a business that is protected by law to pay 0 tax. All the income they receive can be spent how they see fit, and of course it's going to be spent on how to increase their profits. It's one of the biggest cons ever pulled on workers for them to think the unions they pay fees to are fighting for the workers, and not their own income through the fees.

        The CFMEU is sitting on hundreds of millions of dollars, tax free.
        https://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/industrial…

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join