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

Fair Work Ombusman
Fair Work Ombusman

Comments

    • cypher67 on 27/03/2018 - 13:48
      +5

      Why are people up in arms over train driver salaries? They are not that high and its a huge responsibility. If you think its an easy job and anyone can do it and they are overpaid, then go do it yourself.

      • boomramada on 27/03/2018 - 14:00
        +1

        Lol I forgot to add Tram drivers to the list;

        http://www.news.com.au/finance/work/at-work/queensland-train…
        http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/victorian-tram-dri…

        I can add few huge responsibility under pay jobs :)

        • cypher67 on 27/03/2018 - 14:24
          +10

          So you're looking at the top 5 QLD Train Drivers getting paid $120k a year …. big whoop. Thats like an average project managers wage. That entire article is blown out of proportion. You look close enough at any industry and you will find exceptions to the norm. Take scaffolding, my mate earns over $200k a year, where is the uproar for that?

        • boomramada on 27/03/2018 - 19:37

          @cypher67:
          I'm not against the train / tram drivers (who doesn't need to pay HECS ) but that the list of people who strike and got their pay rise so far. Where this going to end? How about cops, nurses, teachers list goes on. Why not we all have a pay rise and get over and done with?

          Btw, I did exclude project managers ( part of the management) who doesn't need a pay rise.

        • ilikeradiohead on 28/03/2018 - 12:17
          +1

          @cypher67: The top five train drivers were making ~$190k, not $120k. The median train driver was making $120k including OT allowances.

        • Salmando on 29/03/2018 - 01:01

          @ilikeradiohead:
          Barely enough to live on. How much do bus drivers get? I imagine driving a bus and Melbourne CBD all day is more stressful than a train

      • Scrooge McDuck on 27/03/2018 - 19:39
        +10

        Why are people up in arms over train driver salaries? They are not that high and its a huge responsibility. If you think its an easy job and anyone can do it and they are overpaid, then go do it yourself.

        All they have to do is go forwards and stop, reverse if they cock it up a bit. I do a whole dimension more than that in my car everyday, how hard can it be!?

        • boomramada on 28/03/2018 - 08:01
          -2

          According to @cypher67, train drivers got huge responsibility such as watching movies while driving ;)

          http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5525221/NSW-train-dr…

        • cypher67 on 28/03/2018 - 09:07
          -2

          So you have 1000s of peoples lives in your hands everyday & thats not a big responsibility?

          I'm not saying its rocket science but when 1 mistake can have drastic consequences, like miss one signal and it throws the entire network into delays, its not hard to see why its a thankless job. Not to mention those who have had people jump onto the tracks, which is far more common than people realise.

        • boomramada on 28/03/2018 - 10:58

          @cypher67:
          Mistakes? is that why train drivers watch porn or movies while driving?
          Its about time trains should be fully automated like HK, there will be no mistakes!

          hey, are you a train driver or related to one? :)

        • cypher67 on 28/03/2018 - 20:38

          @boomramada: No I'm not, I just don't live with my head in the sand about how difficult someones job can be. So there is a reported case or 2 of bad employee's, spare me, every industry has duds and they get weeded out.

        • ronnknee on 29/03/2018 - 11:09

          @cypher67:

          So you have 1000s of peoples lives in your hands everyday & thats not a big responsibility?

          Can probably say the same thing about driving a car.

        • mavis30551 on 29/03/2018 - 11:59

          @boomramada:

          Did you just quote a daily mail article for a different country?

          Thats like linking a FB meme….

        • boomramada on 29/03/2018 - 14:51

          @mavis30551:
          That was the only way to get in to the article without a stupid subscription.
          Google should stop indexing pages that need stupid subscription!!!

    • Scrooge McDuck on 27/03/2018 - 19:40
      +1

      Easy fix, everyone get a pay-rise except train drivers, politicians and management? Mint can print some extra notes right?

      And tax-cuts for everyone except those earning more than me!!

  • apple2016 on 27/03/2018 - 13:42
    +2

    the $120 -$150 is even charged on public holidays when the centers are closed. not sure if the staff get paid on public holidays though!…

    • cypher67 on 27/03/2018 - 13:46
      +7

      If its part time or full time staff yes, thats the law. Casual employee's no.

    • burningrage on 27/03/2018 - 14:18
      +1

      This… +1.

    • wudsapp on 27/03/2018 - 20:31
      +1

      The permanent staff gets paid for public holidays, but most of the centres only have less than 50% staff on permanent basis

    • This Guy on 28/03/2018 - 20:55
      +1

      I love how we still pay the subsidized rate on public holidays, so either they are forcing absences and charging both us and the government for them (fraud) or they are charging us the subsidised rate for an unsubsidised day (fraud).

      Ignoring that they are charging for a service not provided (fraud).

  • cypher67 on 27/03/2018 - 13:46
    +34

    Wow you're asking for a fight if you think its a low skill set. Ask any parent how hard it is to look after a child everyday, now times that by 20 kids. Not to mention the responsibility and high standards everyone holds of their work.

    I pay over $100 a day per child, do I want to pay more, absolutely not, do they deserve more pay, 100% yes. I'd like to know how profitable each child centre is & all these price hikes I've faced over the years, is it being passed onto the staff.

    Maybe the government needs to have a look at how much they have their hands out for licences and fee's, work with centres to come up with a fair way to increase pay and decrease costs.

    • Davo1111 on 27/03/2018 - 14:25
      +17

      Wow you're asking for a fight if you think its a low skill set.

      Well, qualification wise, it's a <1 year course for a cert III. Physically though, I agree it is a tiresome job.

      AFAIK it's an "emotional" job, and i'd guess has an excess of low skilled employees, lowering the pay (or increasing the work requirements).

        • buckster on 27/03/2018 - 21:15
          +8

          And dealing with parents is even worse

        • jaten on 27/03/2018 - 21:56
          +13

          Doesn't really matter whether OP has children or not. It's still a 1 year course at tafe.

        • Davo1111 on 28/03/2018 - 01:36
          +3

          what's your argument?

    • Strahany on 27/03/2018 - 18:44
      +10

      Considering quite literally every sexually mature human in this country (barring defective reproductive systems) is capable of, and allowed to, have a child, it's fairly difficult to agree with any statement saying that this is a particular skillset. Unless the child has a development delay or some other form of disability, the greatest difficulty is in the sheer effort required to tend to the child's demands. Switch out a child care worker for any other parent, and you won't see the quality in care decline dramatically. McDonald's workers can cover kilometres per shift with plenty of lifting, but if you switch them out for any other person then you won't see a dramatic decline in quality. Conversely, switch out a Carpenter for an average person, and you'll see what happens. All of these individuals work in difficult and physically active jobs, but one is a learned specific skillset that will suffer if not applied correctly, and the other two are not.

      This isn't to diminish what these individuals do, and if a childcare worker would be offended with such a statement, then I'd question why they're in this industry since it's a valid observation, so any criticism of their passion should be easily ignored. Ultimately, humans have been raising little humans since before primitive tools were invented, and I daresay not much as changed in that span of time.

      • Scrooge McDuck on 27/03/2018 - 19:47
        +3

        The ability to care for children is hereditary, and virtually every single one of our ancestors has been able to do it.

      • cypher67 on 27/03/2018 - 21:52
        +2

        So basically, it is just as easy to look after 20 kids that you don't have a maternal bond with as it is to look after your own child?

        • danyool on 28/03/2018 - 18:45
          +2

          But in a child care center, they're not looking after 20+ kids by themselves, it's a ratio of kids to staff, and it would be closer to one staff to 5 kids (depending on age of kids). Is that easy? Not necessarily, but i think your 20+ is out

        • cypher67 on 28/03/2018 - 20:40

          @danyool: Agreed the ratio isn't 20:1, but I've seen 1 staff look after the entire room while the other are preping for the next activity. They dont just break off into groups of 5. But yeah maybe 20 is a stretch.

        • danyool on 28/03/2018 - 20:56

          @cypher67: is the next activity cage fighting? ;)

        • cypher67 on 28/03/2018 - 21:03

          @danyool: I'm always partial to a good knife fight personally

        • danyool on 29/03/2018 - 17:00

          @cypher67: haha!

      • [Deactivated] on 28/03/2018 - 03:43
        +7

        That's rubbish, it takes a special person to direct a group of children and get them I interested in learning or following the rules. It takes an insane amount of energy and actually caring. There's a reason most teachers drop out even after commuting 4 years to a degree. You get what you pay for and if all people want is a safe cage to put their kids in and to be fed of course it could be cheaper but most people just don't understand without spending a week or even a couple months in those shoes.

        I'm not in teaching and honestly couldn't do it as I don't have that type of personality but teachers and carers are worth more than that.

    • Rutger on 28/03/2018 - 18:41

      Which is why prior to the "education is a for profit institution" kids were dropping dead left right and centre as such places hired completely unqualified people and even those who didn't finish year 10?

      Nope.

      It's a shitty job and it should be paid more but there's literally no skill level beyond the absolute basics for surviving as a human being to enter into the profession.

      My nephews used to go to daycare and the woman with not only a degree but her masters in early childhood education is so incredibly useless with kids, well all humans really (not nasty, just a pod), she's known among primary school teachers in the next town (at the school my sister works at).

      The woman that's by far the best? That can spot the tiny indications a child is a bit upset about something? A stereotypical woman who grew up on a farm without brothers aka she had to do all the "boy stuff".

    • This Guy on 28/03/2018 - 21:13
      +2

      It's 1 to 4, not 1 to 20.

      That's with breaks. A child free, 10 minute break every two hours after 4 hours is huge. As is a 30 minute lunch break.

      Both my partner and myself get one day alone with our child. The activities that our child receives at our day care is equivalent to 1 and a half hours alone with either of us. On our alone days we poo and shower with our child…

      Yes, child care involves a ton of paper work. But that is not value added to my child's development. It's compliance quality control as too many bad operators have operated in this field.

      I am not saying they don't deserve more. But most 'low skilled' jobs require the same amount of dedication with out the rewards of working with children.

  • Corrugated Ironman on 27/03/2018 - 13:52
    +2

    Totally disagree OP

  • [Deactivated] on 27/03/2018 - 13:54
    +2

    Everyone is striking for more pay.

    If everyone is paid more, cost of goods and services goes up. Maybe some industries will move offshore so some will lose their jobs.

    In the end, the increase in pay will be linear with the increase in cost of living. Only net difference is fewer jobs and a weaker economy.

    • pjetson on 27/03/2018 - 16:07
      +1

      If everyone will stop putting their prices up, I will be able to stop needing more pay.

      • [Deactivated] on 27/03/2018 - 16:16
        +1

        It's a very well tuned bicycle isn't it?

        • pjetson on 27/03/2018 - 16:20
          +1

          It's not a very well tuned bicycle is it?

          I fixed that for you :-)

        • [Deactivated] on 27/03/2018 - 16:37
          +5

          @pjetson:
          But it keeps going round and round. It's a finely tuned bicycle but the seat is missing and you still have to ride it.

        • Rutger on 28/03/2018 - 18:42
          +1

          @tshow: The seat is missing and there's a lot of assholes who want to sit on the laps of many others while they try and ride it.

        • [Deactivated] on 28/03/2018 - 18:44

          @Rutger:
          Someone set me up for the perfect poetic hyperbole.

  • Freitag on 27/03/2018 - 13:55
    +20

    In my experience the early childhood workers that have looked after my son have been very skilled, hard working, high achieving, caring and professional.
    I could imagine paying a baby sitter $20/hour where they don't do much, but my son comes home having been taught and cared for so well. I know I couldn't do their job half as well.
    Perhaps the childcare centre you've used in the past hasn't been great, maybe you could find better value for money out there.

  • dcep on 27/03/2018 - 14:00
    +11

    why don't we strike back by not having any babies ?

    • CyberMurning on 27/03/2018 - 14:03
      +12

      agree. totally. should slow down making babies especially if you cant afford it. i dont agree with the mentality of "i know we cant afford, we still renting and in casual jobs but i like babies, doesnt matter, centerlink will help us, we must to have babies, they are cute"

      • ausdday on 27/03/2018 - 14:29
        +4

        If we don't have babies now, who is going to pay for our healthcare and pension in the future?

        • dcep on 27/03/2018 - 14:35
          -4

          our tax paid

        • ausdday on 27/03/2018 - 14:39
          +14

          @phunkydude:

          your current tax paid is used to fund current pensioners.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 27/03/2018 - 20:05
          +8

          If we don't have babies now, who is going to pay for our healthcare and pension in the future?

          Our own savings and superannuation.

        • ausdday on 27/03/2018 - 21:03

          @Scrooge McDuck:

          If you can do something to make sure all 24 million aussies have enoigh saving and super in their account to support their lives after retirement, i will vote you to take over Mr. Turnbull's position.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 27/03/2018 - 22:26
          +2

          @ausdday:

          If you can do something to make sure 12 million aussies vote along with you, i will see what i can do.

        • ausdday on 28/03/2018 - 09:37

          @Scrooge McDuck:

          "Don't ask what 12 million aussies can do for you. Ask what can you do for 12 million Aussies"

        • c0balt on 28/03/2018 - 12:13
          +1

          @ausdday:

          The pension sounds like the definition of a Ponzi scheme that screws over young people.

        • x853 on 29/03/2018 - 07:33

          Your babies or we can import some babies from OS

      • Scrooge McDuck on 27/03/2018 - 19:54
        +1

        i dont agree with the mentality of "i know we cant afford, we still renting and in casual jobs but i like babies, doesnt matter, centerlink will help us, we must to have babies, they are cute"

        They're also quite fun to make.

    • Almost Banned on 27/03/2018 - 18:35
      -1

      Or at least babies that we want other people to look after for us?

    • Scrooge McDuck on 27/03/2018 - 19:54
      +2

      why don't we strike back by not having any babies ?

      Is practice OK?

    • ozzpete on 29/03/2018 - 05:57

      Or a practical "strike back" for parents with kids in childcare already …
      Groups of 5 parents get together, and each arrange 1 day per week off work, the parent who takes care of the 5 kids for that day collects the childcare fees ($150x5=$750) . Or even have mothers/parents groups organise a childcare worker for their group of kids, they can pay the childcare worker better, plus cut the childcare centre out of tbings.

  • NancyCat on 27/03/2018 - 14:02
    +6

    They are definitely underpay. An average babysitter (without any child care/education qualification) is $20/hour!!!

    • Davo1111 on 27/03/2018 - 14:27
      +5

      well, that would be a casual uni job, with irregular pay.

      • UNO on 27/03/2018 - 18:34
        +4

        And no tax!

    • kingmw on 28/03/2018 - 23:50

      Also you have to consider that these are probably penalty rates (evenings and weekends)! Otherwise no one would bother.

  • CyberMurning on 27/03/2018 - 14:03
    +3

    heard many horror stories about the centres employing overseas students with so so English skills.

  • tsunamisurfer on 27/03/2018 - 14:21
    -3

    My post is not a comment on the quality of their work, their dedication, their professionalism nor how hard their work.

    It seems people believe they deserve to be paid more which I was already prepared for, who would like to pay the extra $64 / day should the unions get what they want?

    People here are already lamenting the costs of child care especially when they hit the $7,500 rebate threshold, how many people are going to be happy paying the full price of child care with only the knowledge their carer is getting more pay?

    Child care has to be affordable, otherwise it has impacts on the family unit.

    • [Deactivated] on 27/03/2018 - 14:33

      Some will tell you that the other unions should fight for more money so they can afford the increased cost of living.

      Detroit used to be a proud city of union controlled industry. Maybe we can learn from the biggest municipality bankruptcy in history.

    • arcticmonkey on 28/03/2018 - 08:45

      I have shares in childcare companies which are doing well. If they give away margin, prices can certainly come down and wages can go up.

      Childcare is an essential service. It's in the governments best interest to offer rebates and make it cheap. It's also in the best interests of society to have happy and healthy childcare workers.

      • burningrage on 28/03/2018 - 12:46

        If they give away margin, then the companies would cease to exist as there is no margin for people live on. The people who invested money into the business will get no reward for that investment.

        Is that what we are trying to achieve?

        And the problem with rebates is that it can be inflationary because the operator knows the Govt will pay some part of it.

        Cost of living is an issue indeed but it creates a vicious circle just like what the OP is suggesting.

    • kingmw on 28/03/2018 - 23:53

      Well we can do what the Europeans do and pay mothers to stay at home with their children for the first 1-2 years of their life. Then childcare won't be such a problem…

      http://www.businessinsider.com/countries-with-best-parental-…

  • Banana on 27/03/2018 - 14:32
    +11

    If we are measuring how much we should pay a profession based on perceived importance of their role then let's not forget your own very significant hipster baristas, who get up at 6am just so they could hand you a cup of carefully crafted, soy organic flat white /justsayin

    • [Deactivated] on 27/03/2018 - 14:34
      +12

      Respectfully, they actually get up at 4am.

      It takes a while to prep the corn starch to slide into their skinny jeans and another few hours of readjusting their voice after testicular torsion.

      • Scrooge McDuck on 27/03/2018 - 20:09
        +2

        Don't forget beard oil!

        • [Deactivated] on 27/03/2018 - 20:14
          +8

          I never understood how your extract oil out of beards but those hipsters clearly do.

        • [Deactivated] on 28/03/2018 - 14:20
          +2

          @tshow:

          similar process to how they extract baby oil out of babies

        • [Deactivated] on 28/03/2018 - 18:47

          @terminal2k:
          Philosoraptor.

  • o53djz7qTPY4der on 27/03/2018 - 14:43
    +2

    I think that the government should agree to subsidise an amount less than 35% but only on the proviso that centres are publishing profits and anything over and beyond 5-10% profit is used to subsidise the government's contribution to your centre.

    I firmly believe that if this were the case childcare costs wouldn't be increasing as much as they are and it would make these centres more accountable.

    • tsunamisurfer on 27/03/2018 - 14:55

      But the tax payer funds the subsidies, so either the government will have to tax us more, or reduce spending elsewhere to fund these increased subsidies.

      The government is also in a lot of debt so going into debt to pay for this would not be prudent either.

      • dcep on 27/03/2018 - 15:10
        +10

        remove negative gearing to fund this then

        • Almost Banned on 27/03/2018 - 18:37
          +2

          Do you support removing the deduction for costs on all income producing assets, or just one class- housing? And if so, why just this class?

        • buckster on 27/03/2018 - 22:23
          +10

          @blaircam: because housing sound be primarily for what it is designed for, and not as a means for people to make money

        • Almost Banned on 28/03/2018 - 01:39
          -3

          @buckster: and food should be primarily for sustenance, not money - does Kraft lose all of its cost of production now?
          Clothing is for shelter and modesty, not money - does Target lose its production costs?
          Medicine is also pretty important and should be for saving lives, not money. Now PFizer has to suck up all its costs and cannot reduce their income by their cost of production?

          I think you can see that you haven't made your argument very well.

        • trapper on 29/03/2018 - 14:42

          @blaircam:

          One of the few 'assets' people seem to buy with the intention of making a loss though… lol

        • Almost Banned on 29/03/2018 - 17:10

          @trapper: Depends.
          It may be one of the few asset classes your average Joe in the street buys at all - but it is not uncommon for business to acquire entities with carried forward losses as a write-off.
          And while it may make operating losses, it will eventually make a (capital) gain. Again, this is not unusual. Holding costs on many long-term projects run at a loss until the project takes off. I imagine most mines make losses in the first few years.

        • trapper on 12/04/2018 - 15:37

          @blaircam:

          Don't get me wrong, I have one too. ;)

          But I can see that it's fundamentally not right to be chalking up 'losses' that are realised immediately against other income, whilst the whole time actually making a gain. (that will only be taxed years down the track - or maybe even never)

        • Almost Banned on 12/04/2018 - 17:02

          @trapper: I don't have an investment property.
          But this is what happens with all sorts of assets.
          Any leveraged purchase works the same way.
          People borrow to buy shares, gold, art, whatever. All with the intention of claiming their borrowing costs as losses, and hoping for a longer term capital gain.
          Again I ask, why is land any different?

        • trapper on 02/05/2018 - 14:20

          @blaircam:

          You can't claim 'depreciation' on your shares, gold, or art though

      • arcticmonkey on 28/03/2018 - 21:31

        Go harder on corporate tax avoidance.

        Thank God the incompetent Liberals didn't get the $60 billion big business corporate handout through.

        The money is there for the Libs mates.

    • [Deactivated] on 27/03/2018 - 15:09

      What should the government remove in place of this subsidy?

      • dcep on 27/03/2018 - 15:11
        -1

        negative gearing

        • [Deactivated] on 27/03/2018 - 15:13
          -1

          Negative gearing doesn't cost money, it makes money. It's a contentious issue because it skews the distribution of wealth by creating oppurtunities that are practically only viable for the wealthy. It creates social problems but if incentivises development and spending.

        • dcep on 27/03/2018 - 15:20

          @tshow:

          how many tax $ loss on negative gearing ?

          what incentives ? my house price worth more ?

        • [Deactivated] on 27/03/2018 - 15:39
          +2

          @phunkydude:
          It incentivises movement of money, ie developers develop more hence builders build more, etc… The developer may not pay tax due to gearing but everyone downstream does. This is money that may not be spent in Australia if negative gearing is removed.

          Moreover, your house being worth more and foreign investors buying houses isn't a coincidence. It all happens to increase stamp duty revenue and increases state revenue.

    • x853 on 29/03/2018 - 07:35

      Why the (profanity) should the government pay any more to contribute to a person's choice to procreate?

      Maybe DINks need to form their own union -

  • Seraphin7 on 27/03/2018 - 14:47
    +40

    Using this as a guide to staffing ratios (staff being the single largest cost) you can do some back of the envelope costs.

    Let's assume the centre is in NSW has a total of 80 children … 20 in the less than 2 years group, 20 in the 2 - 3 years group and 40 in the 3 - 5 years (school age) group.

    You need 5 staff for the less than 2 years group, 4 staff for the 2 - 3 years group and 4 staff for the 3 - 5 years group. That's 13 staff in total dealing with the actual care of children. Centre management and tasks such as the cook are additional.

    Per the discussion here, let's assume the child carers are getting paid $22 per hour. Our centre is open for 11.5 hours per day. Even assuming no additional hours that's a wage bill of 13 x 22 x 11.5 = $3,289 per day. Add on top of this, superannuation, workers compensation and payroll tax and you'd be at a ballpark of $4,500 per day.

    Add to the above the cost of the cook (let's say 8 hours at the same $22) gives about $240 a day after the other costs above are added.

    Our centre has two managers, let's assume they're making $1,500 a week ($75k a year). That gets you to $300 a day, or about $400 a day each after the above costs are considered. That's $800 a day together.

    So our assumed wage bill is a total of $5,540 a day.

    The you have the non-wage costs … business insurances, property rent costs, purchase of food, equipment to be used in the rooms, etc. I would imagine rent to be the single largest cost. On a full commercial basis, you could easily be talking $250k a year in rent ($1,000 a day). Let's assume the insurances, food, materials, etc. run to $200k a year ($800 a day, or $10 per day per child).

    That brings us to a cost base of $7,340 a day in this assumed model. Give it another 10% and you get to $8,000 a day.

    If the 80 children are on average charged $130 a day to attend, you have $10,400 a day in income against the $8,000 a day cost base, for a profit of $2,400 a day (or about a 30% margin). This all works out to about a typical set of financial ratios for a service-based business and is not indicative of a business hideously overcharging.

    The issue then, is where does the 35% (or whatever figure) pay rise come from?

    We know the business isn't going to just absorb this cost and effectively run break even per this analysis.

    It could pass the costs on to parents, but that will yield an increase in fees of about $25 a day (19%) if the business does not add its profit margin to $34 a day (26%) if the business maintains its overall margin on costs. Most parents are already cash-strapped so this is going to be hard.

    What's left? The only other option is to change the staff to child ratio … or, in other words, have less staff, but pay them more. Obviously this is subject to government regulation, but is this what parents want? Most parents I've spoken to almost recoil in horror when such a scenario is put to them.

    The challenge in this whole scenario is to cut through the emotive arguments of "they're looking after our children … they deserve more" and get to the underlying financials. It then becomes fairly simple. Increased wages to staff can only come about by some combination of (1) a business willing to reduce is profitability, (2) parents prepared to pay more or (3) governments permitting a relaxation of the staffing ratios in a trade off for higher wages.

    TL;DR - wage increases can only be paid for by lower profits, higher fees and/or lower staffing ratios.

    • [Deactivated] on 27/03/2018 - 15:04
      +9

      Very thoroughly spelt out for people who do not understand the employer/investor's perspective.

    • poboy on 27/03/2018 - 15:08
      +1

      This is a good write up. Well done. The $130 per kid sounds a bit steep - I suspect it's closer to a $110 average.

      The (4) option is government increasing the subsidy or adjusting the taxation/deduction rules. While income dependent, the child care subsidy is about 50%, so a 35% increase (which they won't get…) will equate to a 17% increase, with the government paying the balance.

      • iclee30 on 29/03/2018 - 12:00

        My centre charges $130 a day.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join