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

        • poboy on 29/03/2018 - 14:05

          Great!

    • worrierwan on 27/03/2018 - 18:46
      -1

      You need to include also the government subsidies that the business receives which would increase the amount to higher than your suggested $10400 amount. Furthermore your suggested wage paid is inflated. The $22 pay is inclusive of tax. Super, workers compensation and payroll tax would no way add $1200/day

    • wudsapp on 27/03/2018 - 20:50
      +3

      Keep in mind that the staff does not get paid for full 11.5 hours. Usually, they get paid 7.5 hours a day (37.5 hours a week). Casual staff get variable hours depending on the time but I don't think no one gets paid for 11.5 hours. This will reduce your cost of wages by 20 - 25%. Lots of centres do not have cooks, they order their meals from outside which is way more cheaper than paying a cook.

      Lots of centres do not maintain all classes throughout the day, they combine two classes when the children number reduced (most of the children get picked around 4). when they combine two classes they reduce the staff as per the ratio. Apart from that, I have seen many centres does not maintain proper staff ratios some days. So the staff are rostered to reflect all these changes and some staff are sent home early if child attendance is low (staff didn't get paid).

      Some centres ask the parents to bring nappies ect. too. A typical centre has more children than 80, this number is a very conservative estimate.

      Considering all these including paying full fees for public holidays I would add 10% more margin at least which makes it 40%.

      I feel employers can do a better job sacrificing a few their profits for wages without increasing fees.

  • bobbified on 27/03/2018 - 15:01
    +3

    Every time the government subsidises or provides rebates on a service, the price eventually skyrockets and its bad for everyone in the long run.

    The amount being paid out of user's pockets lowers slightly in the short term, but in the long run, the price increases more than it should because people can "afford more", so it works out the same.

    Later, when the subsidy/rebate is eventually removed, every user is screwed.

    • Mrgreenz on 27/03/2018 - 22:59

      Well put

    • poboy on 27/03/2018 - 15:10
      +12

      Do you have kids in childcare? Your suggested ratios are out of touch with needs.

    • voteoften on 28/03/2018 - 07:33
      -1

      It's been over 10 years, but I remember the workers constantly sanitising things, putting things away, educating kids. They do not sit around very much, if at all.

    • misu p on 28/03/2018 - 12:17

      Besides making a good point (fewer kids to staff ratio) with a possible solution, your second phrase makes this one of the dumbest posts that I have ever seen.

    • try2bhelpful on 28/03/2018 - 12:43

      yeah, if a few die you can always make more of them, can't you?

    • cypher67 on 28/03/2018 - 20:45

      Please please please go work in a childcare center for a day, film it and come back. You have no idea.

    • arcticmonkey on 28/03/2018 - 21:37

      Stick to the marine life, boy.

  • [Deactivated] on 27/03/2018 - 15:18
    +8

    It's as though people don't bother to check what they're going to be paid before committing to a career. If you don't like the award wage, go do a different job

  • TheBilly on 27/03/2018 - 15:20
    +26

    My wife is an ECT (Early Childhood Teacher) - currently on about $27 an hour. In order to attain this position she has done a bachelors degree and that is the minimum requirement. All childcare centres MUST have an ECT. So I have told her to leave the industry, because the headaches of working in this industry are not worth the remuneration and she is getting and the outlay for getting qualified.

    While people cry poor because they have to pay $120 a day, they need to understand that the system is broken for everyone not just them. This is a typical knee jerk reaction from OP. The government needs to rethink childcare completely and the stupid laws that govern it. I bet most parents arent willing to sacrifice the regulations over the standard of care, but they also aren't willing to pay more. Knee jerk.

    • UNO on 27/03/2018 - 18:39
      +5

      My wife is also an ECT. It is the centre owners making the money, not the staff! This coupled with high rates makes the cost per day so high.

    • idonotknowwhy on 28/03/2018 - 14:12
      +1

      So I have told her to leave the industry,

      The problem is, people in this industry are here because they're passionate about it.

      I think it's crazy that ECT's are paid so little for such an important job! Research shows that early childhood is THE most important stage of your child's development.

      I also agree with government subsidies provided they actually go to the workers. This is THE best opportunity to invest in the future of the country.

      Diverging from the topic a little; but in my opinion, changes/improvements in this area can also solve other hot-topic issues like the gender-pay gap. Simply allow boys to play in the home corner, and girls to play with the toy cars, then wait 30 years and we're likely to see the wage gap close.

  • stratbargain on 27/03/2018 - 15:23
    +11

    I say remove the government subsidies, create public child care services (like public schools) and have it completely government funded with "school fees". Pay the staff a proper wage, and then let the private operators charge what they want (without subsidies).

    It needs major reform.

    • [Deactivated] on 27/03/2018 - 15:41

      Where are we going to get the money from?

      What is a "proper wage" and who gets to define it?

      Private operators cannot charge what they want because the majority of the cost is controlled by the government - minimum wages, licenses, certifications…

      It needs reform and if anything, more government involvement just messes it up more.

      • TheBilly on 27/03/2018 - 17:20
        +6

        Cut the defense force budget by 80%… We don't need it anymore as all our national resources are foreign owned anyway or get sold off on the cheap, if we are taken over I highly doubt we will be banned from going to the beach and enjoying our outdoor life styles, our infrastructure is out dated and worth demolishing anyway, so there is nothing to protect anymore. If something pops up that we do need to protect, then the companies that own all the resources can pay for out sourced mercenaries to do this.

        • [Deactivated] on 27/03/2018 - 17:26
          +4

          Wow. That's the first rebuttal that I did not anticipate.

          I predicted the defence force budget cut response and was ready to cut it down but your rationale behind it, whilst very hypothetical, is actually quite logical.

          It's extreme libertarianism and it's interesting.

          As someone from a heritage of famine and genocide, I can tell you that an invasion never ends with the unblemished continuation of your lifestyle.

        • TheBilly on 27/03/2018 - 17:34
          +1

          @tshow:

          I'm partially joking, I don't agree with my own logic or libertarianism. But hey, I don't know how old you are but if you are around in 30 years, you will see just how global the world will become. Corporate interests will prevail over everything and I mean everything will be outsourced - so why not just jump ahead of the globe. Become pacifist state, outline your global position on war and defense, outsource your protection and use that money to better the interests of your local population and hope that your nice stance will be repaid with a nice invasion if the day ever came.

        • [Deactivated] on 27/03/2018 - 17:40

          @TheBilly:
          Well, you don't have to be a believer of any particular political alignment to make a good point.

          The problem with the statement of, "in the interest of your local population" carries the same dangerous flaw of "for the greater good". That's communism, the opposite end of the same spectrum.

        • 2ndeffort on 27/03/2018 - 18:04

          Not a great outcome for everyone in the defence industry, maybe i would need to do one of these easy Cert III courses and swap high tech military hardware for changing nappies in order to earn a crust……..erm maybe I shouldnt mention nappies and crust in the same sentence!

    • tsunamisurfer on 27/03/2018 - 16:51
      +3

      The world has gone to hell when $22 / hour on average with a tax free threshold of $18k is not a proper wage.

      • [Deactivated] on 27/03/2018 - 17:47
        +10

        It went to hell when everyone believes that healthcare and a home is a right and everyone is entitled to it.

        People now confuse entitlement with oppurtunity, rights with priviledge, equal oppurtunity with equal outcome.

    • GourmetFoodie on 27/03/2018 - 18:32

      Great idea.

  • Cluster on 27/03/2018 - 16:44
    +2

    It looks to me like child care is a nice profitable business, for the owners. Along my daily commute to work I see two brand new Casa Bambini child care centers recently constructed, another large brand new building is being erected nearby. These are located on main roads where the land is certainly not cheap.

    A relative worked at a child care center and complained about low pay, ever increasing workload (he had to write a report on the 'child's progress' in learning every single day for every child!), while at the same time the centere was investing in cosmetic changes to make the building look nicer. Any investment in the staff? No way. More work and payable hours were being cut back. The business was being run to the bone ever since new management from interstate took over. The budget for children's meals was cut to $3 per day per child. Think about that for a moment.

    • [Deactivated] on 27/03/2018 - 17:17

      It's obvious then that society values the appearance of the childcare centre and cares not for the quality of the child minders.

      If it is so profitable to run a childcare centre and people would want a childcare centre with nurture as the focal value, surely your relative would have opened up their own childcare centres and be rather successful by now.

      • TheBilly on 27/03/2018 - 17:27
        +1

        The biggest barrier to entry in Childcare is not regulation. It's property, if the property to open a competitive center was readily available and cheap, then everyone would be opening these up and increasing competition in the market. However one look at Sydney property prices would highlight that this is really only an option available to the already well established businesses with access to cash or capital.

        • [Deactivated] on 27/03/2018 - 17:30
          +1

          Property can be leased. Capital finance can be loaned.

          The only barrier here is the appetite for risk. Sure big businesses are far more able to hedge their risk but it is a risk nonetheless.

        • whooah1979 on 27/03/2018 - 17:38
          +1

          @tshow:

          Many cc are located in residential zoning. Leasing a property and then get council approval is risky. Owner operated cc is less stressful.

        • TheBilly on 27/03/2018 - 17:39

          @tshow:

          Agreed, but there are already many companies that are public listed entities owning over 1,500 centers around Australia that you just cannot compete with - even moderate center owners are in the realm of 5+ and most of these end up on selling the center once it is up and running. It's a bit like a supermarket. You can lease the location or finance the build take on all the risk in the world, but woollies, coles or aldi is going to move in soon and kick your ass lol.

        • [Deactivated] on 27/03/2018 - 17:43

          @TheBilly:
          I don't dispute the truth in any of that. It just goes to show how much society agrees with how the CCs are being run. The free market (in this case not really because the government heavily regulates, but so is everything in Australia) doesn't always make the best decisions because the free market is a true democracy. People obviously voted for a pretty face with a rotten soul.

        • [Deactivated] on 27/03/2018 - 17:50

          @whooah1979:
          Completely agree. I've nearly been burnt by beauracracy countless times hence I choose to be cautious with my businesses and only operate on property I own. It's insufferably slow but I sleep well at night.

    • fullmetal on 28/03/2018 - 15:15

      It is very profitable based on Seraphin7 calculation. The business profit is $2400 a day assuming 261 working days that will be $626,400 profit and after 30% company tax it will be $438,480 (Pure profit) to the business investor who doesn't work after initial setup as there are 2 managers running the center. If it cost 2 million to set up a child care centre, you can break even less than 5 years. For any OZbargainer with spare cash to invest, invest in child care centre. Government pump in billions of dollars as subsidy when they should be looking at opening childcare centres instead.

      • [Deactivated] on 28/03/2018 - 16:08

        1. Seraphin7's calculations did not include capital investment cost. The cost of childproofing and cost of licenses is very costly. The cost of paying rent while renovations and fit outs occur. There will be days the centre isn't at full capacity, there will also be days staff goes on leave and you have to pay locums to come in at a higher wage. There will still be a healthy profit otherwise the business won't exist but there is a possibility of running at a loss. It's just business as usual.

        2. I'm all for government removing their hands from subsidy as long as they remove the tax proportionately. Government run anything is a terrible idea. The government's job is to keep the economy running and to keep it's citizens safe, not take over industries and pretend they have the faintest clue on how to run it.

        Essentially, every successful business is profitable. OzBargainers can drive down a commercial street and attempt to replicate the business models observed but chances are, most of us here do not have the appetite for such risks. The government OTOH should not be involved at every oppurtunity. They should be referees, not players.

        • fullmetal on 28/03/2018 - 19:04

          Well I do agreed the high cost thus the initial setup is set at 2 million. I see childcare no different from public schooling system as it is part of a child education. Public childcare should be available in place of subsidy. It is true that if it is run by the government it will be terrible but that is because of how bad the current government is not the construct of government run. With a good government running childcare that will set a standard, remember the days where medicare was not privatised? Government should run key businesses such as public housing, public transport, public health care, public schools etc. It is a similar case of aged care, the exorbitant charges and bikies gang running the aged care group. If a business is not for profit, that would solve a lot of issues such as wages etc.

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

          @fullmetal87:
          But businesses are for profit and they should be.

          Government shouldn't be involved in any businesses. they are there to govern, ie. Set and enforce rules not actually be the business or influence the market.

  • shaybisc on 27/03/2018 - 17:36
    +6

    There is no fix for the childcare centre model. Don't become a childcare worker. Do something that society values.

    • 2ndeffort on 27/03/2018 - 18:09
      +2

      What society values has little bearing on remuneration. Firefighters and nurses dont get paid well in comparison to stockbrokers. Supply and Demand in the labour market is where you cleanup. Find an occupation where you are one of a select few qualified and experienced folks capable of doing something of great value to a large corporation. Offer your services at an outrageous price and be prepared to walk away. I know of people with little to no qualifications, certainly no academic quals that are getting >$1K a day to drive project scheduling software for major projects. I doubt any of them would be held in high regard by society.

  • drillvoice on 27/03/2018 - 18:29
    +1

    I used to work for United Voice, which is the union for early childhood educators:

    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).

    The union is arguing that the increase should be funded by the Federal Government, as I understand it, not the parents. This is similar to how pay increases were funded following the ASU case through the FWC for an increase in pay.

    $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.

    Part of the argument is that other professions that have a similar level of qualifications required actually attract much higher pay (around $30 / hr). So the campaign is effectively for pay equality in that sense. My understanding is that the other professions that are paid more tend to be male-dominated, so there's likely a gender dimension to this also.

    • tsunamisurfer on 27/03/2018 - 18:40
      -4

      The union is arguing that the increase should be funded by the Federal Government, as I understand it, not the parents.

      Funded by the Federal Government means the taxpayers = Parents. In fact this is worse because it is only funded by taxpaying parents which is about half the families in Australia.

    • kingmw on 29/03/2018 - 00:07

      Asking the increase to be Federally funded is unlikely to work as childcare workers are only a small proportion of their electorate, even if parents are involved the Government will say something like "we will have to decrease the age pension to fund this" and just wait for the backlash from the pensioners to kill the argument.

  • GourmetFoodie on 27/03/2018 - 18:43
    +7

    You can earn $22 an hour working in a retail shop!! Of course they deserve higher pay given they are looking after and educating our kids!

    The problem is the entire model is flawed. Back in the day it made sense for child care to be a private model as it was used by a minority of the population as most women were stay at home mums. Now society has changed and childcare is a necessity for most families, just like kindergarten or primary school. The private model has not been able to deliver a fair outcome so the government need to step in and nationalize the whole system.

    • UNO on 27/03/2018 - 22:14
      +4

      You are spot on!society has changed. The annual cost of child care is similar to that of private school. $150 per day, 5 days a week for 52 weeks is $39,000 per year. Less the $7,500 rebate, is still way over $30,000 per year.

      A lot of early childhood teachers who have kids earn less than $50,000 per year gross…approximately $42,000 net.

      Like several people have said, ECTs are hugely undervalued.

    • c0balt on 28/03/2018 - 12:48
      +2

      Government needs to nationalise the whole childcare system?

      Then we will have 10 administrators for every actual childcare worker, and then we would need to hire 10x the childcare workers because they would all be in meetings all the time rather than actually working.

  • Matslurpee on 27/03/2018 - 18:47
    +4

    I support a $25 hourly rate, but 35% is completely delusional.

  • bad hombre on 27/03/2018 - 19:10

    This is an extremely difficult one as others have stated above.

    Where is the money going to come from? Business will not pay! Should they? All business some sort of a return for the risk of running a business. Parents won't pay! Parents already are dealing with low wage growth, high basic living costs and high house prices. What about the government? They might pay but they will also take something else away.

    Maybe it's up to us to make some sacrifices to our high standard of living?

    No easy answers unfortunately.

    PS. We have a 3.5yo and a 1.5yo. Daycares costs $130p/d. Eldest goes 3 days a week and youngest stays home for the time being.

    • tsunamisurfer on 27/03/2018 - 19:44
      +4

      Parents already are dealing with low wage growth, high basic living costs and high house prices.

      Exactly, people these days are lucky to get CPI rate increases in their annual review, yet these guys want 35%???

      • burningrage on 28/03/2018 - 12:51

        I think you have been getting an automatic neg for every post you made but I do agree with you.

      • tryagain on 28/03/2018 - 12:59
        +1

        35% is totally unreasonable, but so is your stance that they don't deserve to be paid more because you don't want to pay more.

        • tsunamisurfer on 28/03/2018 - 14:21

          My OP said nothing about me not wanting to pay more.

          My rationale for now increasing their pay was simply their skillsets are easily obtained, and there are people who will step in at $22 / hour should they feel the need to leave the industry.

        • tryagain on 28/03/2018 - 20:54

          @tsunamisurfer: Probably read between the lines, I think your "easily obtained" might be a little misinformed, I think you will find that the qualifications range from none to a degree with the predominant one being a diploma, yes a diploma isn't as long as a degree but an 18 month full-time qualification in my mind probably deserves a bit more, if you want to compare though for equal pay in different sectors, have a look at what someone wtih an early childhood degree can earn as a childcare worker as opposed to as a teacher.

  • LUTSlit on 27/03/2018 - 19:27

    What about the children!

    • [Deactivated] on 28/03/2018 - 10:51
      +2

      Don't tell me they want a pay rise too.

  • shaybisc on 27/03/2018 - 19:32
    +1

    The obvious solution is to copy worlds best practice- the Swedes I gather- but that would mean more taxes and everyone knows tax is bad and must be lowered. Besides, they'd probably pump the little darlings full of socialist claptrap and make the boys wear dresses.

    • [Deactivated] on 28/03/2018 - 10:58
      +1

      The Swedes have a very modest military spending and is heavily (or solely) reliant on the USA if threatened.

      I wouldn't live in (practically) defenceless country.

      • sph on 28/03/2018 - 19:06
        +2

        Your dreaming if you think we can currently defend against Indonesia (300million) or China (1.2 billion). We are also dependent on the US.

        • [Deactivated] on 28/03/2018 - 19:23

          If I had a gun, I am not defenceless. That doesn't mean I can stop a gang, even a small one. It is still a deterant, and if there is an intruder, their invasion isn't without consequence.

          We may not stop Indonesia but we can inflict sufficient damage to ensure a mutually assured destruction. They cannot invade us without casualties that would leave them defenceless.

  • wudsapp on 27/03/2018 - 20:27
    +2

    You have no idea what the industry is and how much child care workers put on daily for their work.

    It is true that the basic requirement is Cert II which is not that expensive. Do you really value a profession depending on the cost of the course that you have to undergo? I think that is ridiculous.

    If you have children and have been to a child care centre you would have noticed how hard these people work. Looking after kids is not an easy job and they put on lots of things to build the next generation. I guess no one should undervalue that. On top of hanging around with children, they need to write reflections for each child (which you might get as a daily update) and they need to do programming (which constitute of activities to carry out during the week), each of these needs to reflect back to the NQF. Do you think they at least get a sufficient break during the day apart from 30 minutes lunch break? And still only paid 37.5 hours in most places a fortnight.

    I understand that the cost parents undergo as myself also paying about $500 fortnight after centerlink and the costs which may incur due to this requested payrise. I guess the employers can do much better with pay rates with the existing child fees. Not sure how much profit margin they keep but for me, it looks comparably high.

    The centres usually charge for 365 days regardless of holidays. The management sends employees home when the child attendance is low (fully paid even absent). Not too sure why the employers itself can afford a pay rise rather than asking the government to help out.

  • MrCAMEL on 27/03/2018 - 20:40
    +1

    Well if I did my 4 year, cert 3, full time apprenticeship now, I would get 21$ per hour when I finish, at the award rate. I believe the rate is the same as an award rate paid cert 3 trained, for 4 days a week for 6 months, childcare worker.
    On that basis, to have that rate, full time, after that much training, it sounds pretty good.

  • DiscoJango on 27/03/2018 - 20:43
    +1

    get born into an ethnic family. then you have large free family based child care facilities

  • BargainCowboy on 27/03/2018 - 21:03
    +1

    The problem here is not the actual workers but is twofold: a) the government, which doesn't subsidize and regulate enough and b) the pigs that are running these child care centres and shamelessly bump up the rates every few months.

  • freakatronic on 27/03/2018 - 21:31
    +7

    Soon minimum wage in Australia will be $35 per hour, but a loaf of bread will be $10. Socialists are rubbish with money though. The think they can print more to solve everything. The unions have already killed nearly every one of Australia's golden geese. The only things left to do here - building houses and making coffees.

  • Sarge2401 on 27/03/2018 - 21:33
    +1

    My wife works in childcare. She has a cert 3 a diploma and a degree in education. Currently studying her master's. The work load that has been enforced by the government is what they have the issues with. They have to observe each child 3 times a month, do activities for that child and then write a report for each one of those. All while they are supposed to be teaching them to start to write, read and learn the valuable skills that we need in life. Apparently as of 2019 all childcare workers need to be diploma qualified.
    While I agree that they need a pay rise I do feel that 35% Is a bit steep. But it is like all negotiations. Start high and then find a figure in the middle that everyone finds agreeable.

    • BartholemewH on 27/03/2018 - 21:43
      +5

      My wife is in early childcare but not in a centre. We do have family and friends that work in centres and I don't really see how it makes sense financially. For people to suggest that $22 an hour is sufficient for the stresses involved in this work is a joke. I know 19 year olds that make approx. $30 an hour serving drinks at the RSL, where the biggest stressor is a glass that came out of the washer dirty. For those thinking of entering early childhood, here's my tip as an accountant. Don't.

  • Daabido on 27/03/2018 - 21:41
    +5

    Female dominated industries almost always have lower remuneration than male dominated industries;
    https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/20/upshot/as-women-take-over…

    That combined with a lower wage for those in a "caring" industry, as referenced in the same article, means these workers will be pushing a mountain of dirty nappies uphill to get a pay raise. It's not going to realistically happen, so I suggest that those who are able to should leave the industry for better pay elsewhere.

    • infinite on 28/03/2018 - 12:59

      Yes but that's because they make poor financial, career and lifestyle decisions based on their fee-fee's and not any form of logic or decision based on research. It's nothing to do with the nonsense fallacy of "different pay for different gender". People are paid what their worth, value and negotiating abilities are.

  • martismo on 27/03/2018 - 22:05
    +4

    Childcare is a crucial part of the education system but until recently, compared with schools has been much less regulated and almost entirely run by private enterprise.

    If childcare could be redesigned it would be far better if it were part of the state education system with private providers competing against the state-run centres as currently happens in primary and secondary schools.

    In primary and secondary education, nobody blinks at government subsidies of more than $10000 per student per year.
    Additionally having child care as part of Primary schools would make it far more consistent in quality as the regulation would be better implemented.

    Even qualified teachers in Childcare receive less than their similarly trained counterparts in primary schools. This is partly because the workforce is poorly industrially organised and has been very poorly served by their unions which have agreed at some earlier time to separate their salaries from their primary counterparts.

    Many childcare workers provide a fabulous service and deserve to be treated more generously.

    • o53djz7qTPY4der on 28/03/2018 - 02:30

      Primary school teachers go through significantly more training.

      Early childcare workers are essentially baby sitters.

    • infinite on 28/03/2018 - 13:01

      There's not even a sniff of comparison possible between the qualifications, training and experience required to be a fully qualified teacher and a child care worker.

  • darkchoc on 27/03/2018 - 22:07
    +3

    $22 an hour. But the hours are generally not full time. A very significant proportion of the childcare workforce are required to work elsewhere to supplement their income.

    There is little pay progression in terms of salary increases i.e. a very flat salary scale.

    Due to the lack of hours and lack of pay increases, good educators leave to get higher pay in other sectors. So it is very difficult to keep retraining staff.

    Society and our needs in Australia have significantly changed. The sector needs reform to protect and give the educators a fair go, so that in the long term everybody benefits. Look after the educators and people can participate in the economy knowing our children are well looked after.

    I would welcome the day that teachers are renowned like other professions, paid like professionals and trained to the same level as professionals. It would have a cost attached, but the benefits to society in the long term would mean we would be well equipped to deal with automation and AI etc.

  • ribze1 on 27/03/2018 - 23:09

    What bugs me is that these workers get say $175/day (@$23/hour) and take care of ~6 kids, assuming a 6:1 ratio. Parents are paying between $70 and $192 a day. Let's say $120/day for arguments sake.

    I get there are other overheads for the business but each worker is essentially bringing in $720/day for the business.
    Business would be clearing $1000s a day in profit.

    By the way, if a child is enrolled and doesn't turn up, the parent still pays. As long as enrolments are full then the cashflow is guaranteed.

    Source: https://www.careforkids.com.au/child-care-articles/article/7…

    • infinite on 28/03/2018 - 13:04

      So TL/DR, you simply have no clue about the costs and overheads of the business then…………

    • kingmw on 29/03/2018 - 00:15

      Well if you don't make money for the business, then there is no business. This argument could be said for any employee. A Macca's worker is paid 18/hr but sells thousands of dollars of food per hour etc…

      If the employee is not worth their wage then they should not be employed in the first place…..

  • sanerr on 27/03/2018 - 23:21
    +9

    I have done (contracted) work in the past at several childcare centres, I still do work for 5 centres currently.

    ALL the owners have multiple luxury cars, have at least 2 and generally 3-5 centres. And live in top tier suburbs.

    Don’t think for a second that they’re in it for anything but the money, it’s all business to them.

    You’re all fortunate that the people actually caring for your kids are doing it because they love children, because they sure as hell aren’t doing it for the pay!

    • Almost Banned on 28/03/2018 - 01:40
      +5

      If that's true they don't need more - and could be paid less.

      • sanerr on 28/03/2018 - 07:02
        +2

        I’d like to see you spend a few weeks on $825 before tax and see how you feel about it then.

        Everything is getting more expensive but these workers have been left behind and short changed for years.

        35% might be a bit of a stretch but as someone said earlier, in negotiations you must start high.

        • roundnumbersonly on 28/03/2018 - 08:00
          +1

          I think he/she is talking about the owners, rather than the workers?

          I know the owner of the childcare centre my son goes to drives a late model bmw, and according to the cenrre director, owns 5 other centres, has no background/qualifications in education. I don't think he gives two hoots about the workers/children, only about making maximum profit off them.

          On the other hand there are centre owners who worked their way up from being educators and centre directors that have genuine intentions for the children and staff, but lack the business acumen to keep the centre financially viable, and end up running the centre into the ground.

          I think the benefits with the CCB/CCR changes coming in July will not be fully passed on to the parents. My centre has been very shifty as they wont confirm/deny whether fees are going up this year, but I suspect they will. All I know is that the owner is enjoying riding the gravy train.

          I don't think that gravy train will last forever though, but once it does end, they'll be trying to jump on to aged care/nursing homes.

        • Almost Banned on 28/03/2018 - 12:01
          +1

          You said they don't do it for the pay.
          If they are truly motivated by altruism then they would do it for less.
          Of course, that is highly unlikely to be true - so your original claim that they don't do it for the money is incorrect.

    • Jdog88 on 28/03/2018 - 08:46
      +2

      If the profit wasn't this high the intelligent business owners wouldn't have risked going into the business in the 1st place. If it turns into a low margin business you'll end up with a franchise model and we all know who wins in that situation.

    • Duram on 28/03/2018 - 11:29
      +1

      If its that easy then start one up, pay your workers more and still live a good life.

    • infinite on 28/03/2018 - 13:05
      +2

      So how's that any different from any business owner, or any typical employee looking to further their career with standard financial and career aspirations?

    • kylarstern on 28/03/2018 - 20:55
      +2

      Thats just plain ignorant.
      And what if they do? They obviously worked their butts off to establish those centres, invested time, blood, tears and their money to gamble to start a business that requires deep pockets. If it was so easily ludicrous why dont you do it? Why doesn't everyone do it? Because its not that easy and black/white you simpleton.
      Do you think every child car centre owner is some greedy spoilt guy/gal born with a silver spoon who was inherited millions of dollars to just buy land and build a centre? I'd say they deserve it and if someone can work their ass off to make a successful business, good on them. You can learn a thing or two.
      I'd like to see you start one up, pay for workers and spent millions on infrastructure and land. There's no free lunch in the world, buddy.

  • Donaldhump on 27/03/2018 - 23:43
    +3

    Random idea that may / may not work

    What about allowing income splitting between couples and encourage one to spend time without children prior to school a few days a week or even full time.

    Ie if parent 1 esrned 80k and parent 2 stayed at home, they both earn 40k for the fiscal year

    Only downside it’s less tax received by the government and prob no better off.

    Just seems so many parents have no choice but to work and the child / parent time is lost.

    • Almost Banned on 28/03/2018 - 01:42
      +1

      Great idea - joint filings for couples.
      Plenty of self-employed effectively do it now. So why not extend it to all regardless of their individual ability to implement tax structures to allow it.

      • Donaldhump on 28/03/2018 - 01:48

        yep only those with business can rort it

        • follow on 28/03/2018 - 14:36

          Does that mean you pay your husband/wife money to decrease your tax obligations?

          So if john gets 100k net, he pays Jane 50k to pay less tax?

        • Donaldhump on 28/03/2018 - 16:00

          @TarquinOliverNimrod: yes, every business owner employs there stay at home SO as a secretary. I used to employ my mum many years ago, i think she opened letters for like 1 hour a week. This was in another country before anyone wants to call the ATO.

        • follow on 28/03/2018 - 16:04

          @unclesnake: hmmmm you've tingled my pickle.

        • Donaldhump on 28/03/2018 - 16:10

          @TarquinOliverNimrod: if you have your own business like a plumber, electrician employ any one not using their tax threshold.

          If you don't own a legitimate business, i.e. just a contractor you will get bent over. In fact i think if you just contract for one place its classifed as personal income anyway.

          i don't like it, i think everyone should be able to do it. give people the following choice

          1.) split income and receive no child care rebates
          2.) do not split income and receive child care rebates

          some business owners pay their kids hat are like 10, they will get done

        • follow on 28/03/2018 - 16:12

          @unclesnake: if you contract for one place, how is that different tho? You still pay for and manage a business

        • Donaldhump on 28/03/2018 - 16:17

          @TarquinOliverNimrod: it's disguised employment, you are not a legitimate business. Look up Personal Services Income (ATO), or IR35 in Uk etc.

          You can't run your income through a business, and pay 30% tax etc on the holdings. You can try but get caught is painful. There probrably dodgy umbrella companies that encourage it, but get audited and they will not care.

        • follow on 28/03/2018 - 16:20

          @unclesnake: what if you're a legitimate subbie for a one builder?

          I was thinking this but probably won't work:

          Pay yourself the tax limit.
          Pay partner/parent tax limited.
          Pay company on the rest

        • Donaldhump on 28/03/2018 - 16:36

          @TarquinOliverNimrod: no good, 100% of your income comes from your labour. Anyway ask an accountant, i might be completely wrong. gotta remember the ATO will do anything possible to stop you doing this.

          I worked in the solomon islands where my income was tax free, and me being cautious consulted my accountant / ATO, and of course the ATO insisted i pay it here instead as i was still a resident. Could i stop being resident, not in their opinion as my roots are here, i owned a house here, my family was still here, i intended to return here etc…… i should have just sold my house, moved family here, and returned to europe or something, but i do enjoy living here.

          I knew some blokes who didn't and they are alot richer than me, but you are doing a Steve Smith, if you get caught you are going to cop it.

          difference between tax evasion and tax avoidance. the first is illegal, the second isn't.

          read this

          https://www.ato.gov.au/Business/Personal-services-income/

        • follow on 28/03/2018 - 16:40

          @unclesnake: interesting. Cheers

    • Donaldhump on 28/03/2018 - 01:48

      without=with above

  • Medrad on 28/03/2018 - 07:03
    +3

    Pay-rise is a necessity and it is NOT a female-pay-equality issue. Men in the industry get paid the same as the women, just so few of them in there.

    For an industry that is "essential" to many households it is greatly undervalued by the broader community.
    Tertiary education is mandatory (in VIC anyway) just to be at the bottom of the career structure. This is a government issued requirement. This is increasing as has been mentioned earlier.

    Wife is an ECE, works in charge of a room at a large centre (>150 children). Has to manage staff, children, activity structures, students… everything. She's lucky to get $26 an hour before tax. Her brother, uneducated, no HSC/VCE, does crud-kicking labouring on CFMEU sites, gets paid crazy high amounts above this.

    Early Childhood Educators face the toughest conditions at work. Government issue the rules, don't want to get involved in running the industry. Private operators run at minimal cost for maximum profit and don't always re-invest back into the system. For parents, if you worked in childcare, you could not honestly look after the kids how you'd raise your own at home. The safe and direct instruction issued by the government as to how children must be raised is so strict it's mind-boggling how these workers do it so well.

    The big conundrum is this… the government want more tax dollars so want parents to go back to work as much as possible. This requires childcare services. Childcare is regulated so heavily and becomes such a requirement that it needs to be respected with higher wages. Parents don't want to pay the fees. Government don't like spending money on anything, and even the subsidies given to parents isn't considered. It's a catch 22 situation. ECE's need equal wages with other Cert3/Diploma qualified workers. ECE's need more recognition for what they do and be seen as the highly talented and skilled workers they are.

    • [Deactivated] on 28/03/2018 - 08:24
      +1

      But it is work socially expected of women. It is work that is done by more women than men. That means it is a gendered pay issue

      • try2bhelpful on 28/03/2018 - 12:50
        +1

        It is a female dominated industry, which means the pay tends to be at the lower end of the scale. As other people have indicated there are plenty of building site labourers that would be paid significantly higher than child care workers, but because it is a male dominated unionised group they get more money. The work women do tends to be considered worth less because they do so much more of it for free in the home.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join