|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Childcare and the Economy
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
There is much spin in Australia about new parents returning to paid work rather than looking after their children themselves being good for the economy.
What is the rationale behind this?
Is it simply creation of new jobs in the sense that someone else needs to be paid to care for their children? So you get two paid people in the workforce instead of one and the more people in the workforce the better for the movement of money and therefore the economy?
If so, what philosophy of economics is this?
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
In the UK there are various reasons for women hurrying back to work, not all purely economic: - maternity pay in the UK only lasts for 33 weeks - usually taken as 6 weeks before the due date and the rest afterwards
- the level of maternity pay is low: you get 90% of your usual salary for the first 6 weeks then either that rate continues or you get £140 per week, whichever figure is the lower
- you can take an extra 26 weeks on top of this but it is unpaid - the theory is that some employers will pay women for this but in practice they don't
- with house prices being so high most couples struggle with the lower income during paid maternity leave - the idea of taking unpaid maternity leave is laughable
To give an illustration, the rate for maternity pay (c£140 per week) is less than two-thirds the money you'd get for a 35 week on the national minimum wage.
Yes, childcare costs can be high, but if you persuade your employer to give you some of your income in childcare vouchers you can save a fair bit of tax. In any case, lots of people either use granny (who they don't pay, or at least not at the market rate) or they stitch together a patch-work of childcare.
Whether or not its good for children to be with carers, rather than parent(s), from 6 months is a moot point and various bits of research give conflicting answers; but the cold economic fact in the UK is that most couples can't afford to have one stay at home, at least not when its only one child.
And all of that before you get to address the issue of how returning-to-work mothers are discriminated against, and how even taking the statutory maternity leave can have a catastrophic effect on a woman's career.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Is it simply creation of new jobs in the sense that someone else needs to be paid to care for their children? So you get two paid people in the workforce instead of one and the more people in the workforce the better for the movement of money and therefore the economy?
No, I have always heard it justified on the basis of not wanting to lose the skills and experience of the mother.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
In the UK there are various reasons for women hurrying back to work, not all purely economic: - maternity pay in the UK only lasts for 33 weeks - usually taken as 6 weeks before the due date and the rest afterwards
- the level of maternity pay is low: you get 90% of your usual salary for the first 6 weeks then either that rate continues or you get £140 per week, whichever figure is the lower
- you can take an extra 26 weeks on top of this but it is unpaid - the theory is that some employers will pay women for this but in practice they don't
- with house prices being so high most couples struggle with the lower income during paid maternity leave - the idea of taking unpaid maternity leave is laughable
To give an illustration, the rate for maternity pay (c£140 per week) is less than two-thirds the money you'd get for a 35 week on the national minimum wage.
Speaking as an American, where even 6 weeks of unpaid leave is not a given in many jobs, that just sounds lovely and so enlightened....
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Is it simply creation of new jobs in the sense that someone else needs to be paid to care for their children? So you get two paid people in the workforce instead of one and the more people in the workforce the better for the movement of money and therefore the economy?
No, I have always heard it justified on the basis of not wanting to lose the skills and experience of the mother.
The Scottish Government has also justified their policy of free (part time) child care for 3-4 year olds as creating jobs in the child care sector. That's in addition to the skill retention of the parent (it doesn't have to be mum that would otherwise stay at home with the children, although it usually is). It has been estimated that the additional tax income from these extra employees would cover the costs of the scheme, if that tax revenue wasn't retained by HM Government rather than being returned to Scotland.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
*Leon*
Shipmate
# 3377
|
Posted
There's some truth in this, but there's also a flaw in how GDP is calculated which makes the benefit look bigger than it really is. Since politicians are effectively assessed on GDP numbers, it makes politicians look better if mothers go back to work.
If a mother goes to work and then spends all her wages on a nanny, that creates more GDP than if the nanny does the work that the mother would have done (since both of them are doing paid work). But that's clearly absurd because exactly the same work is being done.
Most economists agree that, to fix this, it would be a good idea if unpaid housework somehow counted towards GDP, if only someone could work out a good way of calculating its effective value. But until they do come up with an agreed way, we have this absurdity.
There's a slightly more rational view that the theory of comparative advantage means there would often be some real benefit to a mother going back to work. For instance, if we return to my example above but the mother is doing a job that earns more than a nanny, and the nanny isn't capable of doing that job, then the mother going to work would be good for the economy. This is also likely to be relevant if the mother is using some form of childcare with better economies of scale than a nanny, such as a nursery. But the benefit to the economy here is smaller than if we ignore the value of the mother looking after her own children.
(I'm obviously just looking here at what's 'good for the economy'. This begs some interesting questions about the relationship between what's good for the economy and what's good for society)
Posts: 831 | From: london | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Is it simply creation of new jobs in the sense that someone else needs to be paid to care for their children? So you get two paid people in the workforce instead of one and the more people in the workforce the better for the movement of money and therefore the economy?
No, I have always heard it justified on the basis of not wanting to lose the skills and experience of the mother.
Same difference. Increase in GDP - the movement of money and the growth of the economy.
Presumably the higher the skilled and experienced the more contribution to GDP.
But if that was technically the reasoning, the govt should only be funding childcare for skilled and experienced parents.
[ 11. May 2015, 14:08: Message edited by: Evensong ]
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Is it simply creation of new jobs in the sense that someone else needs to be paid to care for their children? So you get two paid people in the workforce instead of one and the more people in the workforce the better for the movement of money and therefore the economy?
No, I have always heard it justified on the basis of not wanting to lose the skills and experience of the mother.
Same difference. Increase in GDP - the movement of money and the growth of the economy.
Presumably the higher the skilled and experienced the more contribution to GDP.
But if that was technically the reasoning, the govt should only be funding childcare for skilled and experienced parents.
I don't think it's "same difference" at all. One of my colleagues has just gone on maternity leave. I don't hope she comes back to work in a year's time because I want to see money moving around, I hope she comes back to work because she's an incredibly intelligent person who's exceptionally good at her job and I know that it's very difficult to find people who are good at this job. It is preferable to keep someone who we already know is great at it.
Your logic about only funding skilled and experienced parents might be technically correct, but you're not taking into account the sheer impracticality and cost of making that kind of assessment. It would basically involve the government giving parents a second employment interview. It's rather simpler to make the working assumption that employers usually got it right when they hired someone to undertake a job in the first place.
Nor do I agree with your simple correlation between skills/experience and higher GDP. Quantifying contribution to GDP is far from simple. I've no idea, for example, how I'd go about calculating my contribution to GDP. The 'product' I make is not very tangible and is given away for free.
[ 11. May 2015, 15:01: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Is it simply creation of new jobs in the sense that someone else needs to be paid to care for their children? So you get two paid people in the workforce instead of one and the more people in the workforce the better for the movement of money and therefore the economy?
No, I have always heard it justified on the basis of not wanting to lose the skills and experience of the mother.
Same difference. Increase in GDP - the movement of money and the growth of the economy.
Presumably the higher the skilled and experienced the more contribution to GDP.
But if that was technically the reasoning, the govt should only be funding childcare for skilled and experienced parents.
I don't think it's "same difference" at all. One of my colleagues has just gone on maternity leave. I don't hope she comes back to work in a year's time because I want to see money moving around, I hope she comes back to work because she's an incredibly intelligent person who's exceptionally good at her job and I know that it's very difficult to find people who are good at this job. It is preferable to keep someone who we already know is great at it.
So you don't see the reasoning as economic? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I do see the reasoning as economic, but not in the simple, direct way that you're putting it.
It seems to me that you're simply portraying it as more employed people = more economic activity. That just treats it as a purely numbers game, with employees being interchangeable.
What I'm talking about is having better results by having the right person in the right job. I'm sure in commercial settings that equates to more money.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Money has always been more important than people. People need to serve the economy, the economy is not for their benefit.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
What's good for the economy: me going out and breaking a window, getting arrested and charged and brought to court and convicted, and the householder claiming the cost of the window on their insurance.
What's bad for the economy: me behaving like a law-abiding citizen, reducing the need for police, courts, or insurance.
So, there's that aspect to the economics of paid childcare*.
(* I stayed at home to look after my children.)
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mark_in_manchester
not waving, but...
# 15978
|
Posted
I'm at home looking after my kids, with a very PT 'little job' keeping me off the gin while the kids are at school. I'm a man, in case that was unclear.
I have a PhD and nearly 20 years HE lecturing experience. But f*ck the economy (car, holiday, kitchen) - we had kids, for f*ck's sake.
--------------------
"We are punished by our sins, not for them" - Elbert Hubbard
(so good, I wanted to see it after my posts and not only after those of shipmate JBohn from whom I stole it)
Posts: 1596 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alyosha
Shipmate
# 18395
|
Posted
The work ethic is utterly out of control in the UK.
I work hard, but I find the constant pressuring of all people (including all parents (whether healthy and able or not)) into employment to be a cloying and stifling atmosphere to live in.
They would tell Christ to get a proper, meaningful job.
Posts: 162 | From: UK | Registered: Apr 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
To an economist, the only thing that has value is money. Unpaid child care does not involve money so it's value is not measurable nor taxable, so it has no value. Sending the Mom back to work increases GDP by her wages, and generates child care expenses which are income to someone else (and taxable), so that's by definition more valuable than encouraging a Mom to stay home.
Note that plopping a senior in a commercial "residence" gives dollar value to her care, so it's more "valuable" than helping her stay in her home. Disabled, too. A bean counter valuation system is very threatening for many of us, including but not limited to children.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Money has always been more important than people. People need to serve the economy, the economy is not for their benefit.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Demas
Ship's Deserter
# 24
|
Posted
Many of the women of my acquaintance see their jobs as more than just sources of money. Just like men, they also see their jobs as sources of intellectual satisfaction, adult conversation and the feeling of 'a job well done'. Life at home with a small baby can be stressful and alienating and return to part time work can help. It's not just about the cash or the abstractions of 'the economy' for them. These jobs were a vital part of their lives before their babies.
--------------------
They did not appear very religious; that is, they were not melancholy; and I therefore suspected they had not much piety - Life of Rev John Murray
Posts: 1894 | From: Thessalonica | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
How about your employer fund a daycare in your workplace? I saw it in Norway. I am thinking it should be everywhere.
Imagine a board meeting. Knock knock at the door. The exec gets up and opens the door, and child comes in and parent comforts them. Everyone else checks on their kids. Meeting resumes in 15 mins.
Why not?
[ 19. May 2015, 01:33: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
What's good for the economy: me going out and breaking a window, getting arrested and charged and brought to court and convicted, and the householder claiming the cost of the window on their insurance.
What's bad for the economy: me behaving like a law-abiding citizen, reducing the need for police, courts, or insurance.
This is highly doubtful. Because you're simply labelling "the economy" as "effort" and turnover of money, and not considering whether the effort is actually producing anything. Think of what else could have been done with the money that was spent on catching and punishing you and replacing the window.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
Many of the women of my acquaintance see their jobs as more than just sources of money. Just like men, they also see their jobs as sources of intellectual satisfaction, adult conversation and the feeling of 'a job well done'. Life at home with a small baby can be stressful and alienating and return to part time work can help. It's not just about the cash or the abstractions of 'the economy' for them. These jobs were a vital part of their lives before their babies.
Life at home with a small baby can also be fun and rewarding if you have a good support system. I used to say that if I returned to my job as a solicitor, I'd miss the intellectual stimulation of being at home with the kids.
I was a conveyancing lawyer, and I'd done the conveyancing of over 1,000 homes by the time I left to have my first child, so the intellectual bit was wearing thin. My fellow solicitors talked a lot about money (this was the tail end of the "greed is good" times) and I often felt isolated at work.
Once home, I studied through the Open University, joined a bi-lingual mother and toddler group, a church book group with creche and a Bible study with creche. I did a very part time voluntary post which I could do with a child in tow, and I helped with the church Girl Guides. Plus I listened to Radio 4. I met new people through the groups, and life blossomed.
We were fortunate in that for the first 5 years of our married life we lived on my salary alone whilst my husband did his PhD and first post-doc years and so we could live on his salary alone when the kids came along. We lived in a cheap studenty part of a city where everything was accessible on foot.
It's not necessarily the case that paid work = intellectual satisfaction and at home with baby = mental stagnation and isolation.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
bib
Shipmate
# 13074
|
Posted
I have always held the strong view that parents should budget to have children and not expect the rest of the community to fund that privilege.If you can't afford to fund your own children then don't have kids. Of course there are always some special circumstance where families need special assistance, but the majority of us could do without our luxury cars, McMansions, the latest of everything and exclusive private schools and thus afford to raise our own children rather than pay someone else, who may indeed plant values in the child that are contrary to your own beliefs.I feel very disturbed at the pressure put on young mums (and sometimes dads) to reenter the work force when they would prefer to fulfil the enormous and rewarding task of developing the young minds of the future generation.
--------------------
"My Lord, my Life, my Way, my End, accept the praise I bring"
Posts: 1307 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by bib:
I feel very disturbed at the pressure put on young mums (and sometimes dads) to reenter the work force when they would prefer to fulfil the enormous and rewarding task of developing the young minds of the future generation.
Though, that is an enormous task. And, it is one that until very recently has never fallen fully on the shoulders of parents. Why do we have an expectation that parents today are capable of doing something that practically no other generation in human history has called on parents to do? We live in a historically abnormal society: one where children are raised in small families largely isolated from cousins and other children in the extended family; where parents raise children largely without the everyday support and advice of their parents and siblings. As a society we have largely replaced the extended family with other things, including professional child care and paid employment.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Demas
Ship's Deserter
# 24
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
It's not necessarily the case that paid work = intellectual satisfaction and at home with baby = mental stagnation and isolation.
Absolutely not, and I didn't mean to imply that. I'm glad you found a rewarding path.
My point is merely that some women, including some I have known very well, go back to work "early" for good reasons that go beyond having to earn money, safeguard their career or contribute to the economy. I wanted to make sure this thread didn't develop an almost unstated judgment against women who "hurry back" by casually assuming that they always did so against their own best interests (as properly understood by third parties) or out of "cold necessity".
--------------------
They did not appear very religious; that is, they were not melancholy; and I therefore suspected they had not much piety - Life of Rev John Murray
Posts: 1894 | From: Thessalonica | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
Indeed. If I had found law less dull, I'd have gone back. I was lucky in that I could cherry pick low-cost activities from several nearby churches. I was far less isolated than I had been whilst working in a large legal office and far, far, more stimulated.
If I have a qualm about childcare, it's that it is pushed by schools careers advisers here as the career of choice of the less academically able girl. Realistically, wages are low, and school pupils with decent grades would be daft to go into child care. But I suspect there's something unhealthy about the idea that childcare isn't for intelligent people.
However, if the status of childcare was raised, then it would be more expensive, and it's expensive enough as it is.
I really don't see an answer to this one.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Childcare isn't unique in being a vital service that is considered to be "low status" with consequently low wages. Teachers and nurses also seem to come under that category as well, both professions that could benefit from increased recognition for the contribution they make to society. Imagine how much better off our children would be if early years education provision was considered a high status profession attracting some of our brightest people to inspire our children to learn and socialise. Rather than just "give them something to colour and keep them from getting hurt"
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
Childcare, teachers and nurses... all traditionally female occupations.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
Actually, quick rant, something which really annoyed me when I was at home with small children was the assumption that babies and toddlers somehow make things easier.
When my husband was at home studying before we had kids, no-one ever said to him "That's nice, that you're studying. It's good to have a wee hobby. It'll stop you from getting bored." But as soon as we swapped over, and I was doing an OU degree part-time with the kids, that's exactly the attitude I got.
Perhaps it was because I was part-time, rather than full-time, or because it was OU, rather than a physical Uni building, or perhaps it was because I already had a professional qualification, and so it wasn't obvious why I'd want another degree, but apparently degrees become easy, as soon as you're studying with the Singing Kettle playing in the background, and rocking the baby with one foot, whilst typing.
In fact, I wondered about setting up a "Hire a Toddler" business. "Got an important deadline coming up? Feeling stressed? Finding it hard to concentrate? Hire a toddler (finger paints extra!) and feel the stresses melt away as whatever you're doing becomes "a fun little hobby"!
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
What's good for the economy: me going out and breaking a window, getting arrested and charged and brought to court and convicted, and the householder claiming the cost of the window on their insurance.
What's bad for the economy: me behaving like a law-abiding citizen, reducing the need for police, courts, or insurance.
This is highly doubtful. Because you're simply labelling "the economy" as "effort" and turnover of money, and not considering whether the effort is actually producing anything. Think of what else could have been done with the money that was spent on catching and punishing you and replacing the window.
Unfortunately, that's exactly how GDP is calculated. We even include drugs and prostitution in the figures.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
posted by Demas quote:
Many of the women of my acquaintance see their jobs as more than just sources of money. Just like men, they also see their jobs as sources of intellectual satisfaction, adult conversation and the feeling of 'a job well done'. Life at home with a small baby can be stressful and alienating and return to part time work can help. It's not just about the cash or the abstractions of 'the economy' for them. These jobs were a vital part of their lives before their babies.
That is true for educated middle-class women who have stimulating careers; for many women a job is just that - a job, something that they do in order to get money, possibly a chance for social interaction with workmates but not a lot more.
As for returning to part-time work: one of the biggest cons perpetrated on working mothers was the introduction (at the behest of that typical working mother, Harriet Harman) of the "right to ask for part-time work".
All this achieved for most women was (a) a refusal on the part of her employer to consider it; (b) a mental note made by many employers that the woman wasn't keen on returning full-time, so (c) she moved herself into prime position for being let-go/made redundant.
As for workplace nurseries and other enlightened stuff: the worst case of treating a returning mother badly I've ever known was a friend who worked for the Roman Catholic church. She was forced to take annual leave in order to take her child to the clinic for shots; was expected to continue working even when her child had chicken-pox; was refused the possibility of working from home when her child was ill. In the end they got rid of her by lying and saying her job has disappeared - which it hadn't, they just used a combination of 2 employees and 2 volunteers to cover what this one superwoman had been doing.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Demas
Ship's Deserter
# 24
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
That is true for educated middle-class women who have stimulating careers
No, not just them.
quote:
for many women a job is just that - a job, something that they do in order to get money, possibly a chance for social interaction with workmates but not a lot more.
Sure, I never said otherwise. Though I wouldn't underestimate the value of social interaction with workmates that isn't about baby!
--------------------
They did not appear very religious; that is, they were not melancholy; and I therefore suspected they had not much piety - Life of Rev John Murray
Posts: 1894 | From: Thessalonica | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
Back in the 1960s the US Department of Labor published a ranking of jobs according to the skill required.
Childcare and valet parking had the same rank.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
the famous rachel
Shipmate
# 1258
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
As for returning to part-time work: one of the biggest cons perpetrated on working mothers was the introduction (at the behest of that typical working mother, Harriet Harman) of the "right to ask for part-time work".
Whilst the plural of anecdote is not data, as a mother of a four year old, I know a lot (a few tens) of mums with kids of a similar age. Well over half chose to return to work outside the home after their children were born, and I can only think of three who work full time. All the others (including me) successfully asked for part-time work, and got roughly the arrangements they were looking for. Of the other three, one asked for part time work and was refused, but the other two just wanted to go back into the workplace full time. Also, I know a couple of men who asked for part-time hours to allow them to better care for their children. They also were allowed their request. The people I have in mind range from shelf-stackers at Tesco to teachers to doctors. For a lot of people, this legislation seems to be working.
(As I understand it, the legislation mandates your employer giving serious consideration to your request, and a valid reason if your request is refused. If some employers are failing to follow these rules, that strikes me as providing a case for greater monitoring, not for giving up on this legislation altogether).
Best wishes,
Rachel.
--------------------
A shrivelled appendix to the body of Christ.
Posts: 912 | From: In the lab. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
Here's some info about it, from ACAS. It's actually the right to request flexible working not part-time working. And as the famous rachel says, the employer does have to seriously consider it and give a "sound business reason" for refusing it; this suggests that the assumption is they should be approved unless there are good business reasons not to.
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
As for returning to part-time work: one of the biggest cons perpetrated on working mothers was the introduction (at the behest of that typical working mother, Harriet Harman) of the "right to ask for part-time work".
All this achieved for most women was (a) a refusal on the part of her employer to consider it; (b) a mental note made by many employers that the woman wasn't keen on returning full-time, so (c) she moved herself into prime position for being let-go/made redundant.
Do you have an data for this? Given that in 2014, it was extended to all workers, it sounds unlikely it was the failure you suggest.
Also, it wasn't just for mothers prior to 2014- it was for all parents.
And, it's more anecdata, but my wife's experience was similar to the famous rachel's friends': she asked and was granted it (she works as the cook in a children's nursery, ironically enough).
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
M.
Ship's Spare Part
# 3291
|
Posted
Nothing to do with children, but I requested, and got, flexible working last year - I work a nine-day fortnight, with the 9 days being longer to make up the time.
I seem to remember there are only 8 reasons why it can be refused - you have to have a good business reason, in effect.
I love it.
But then I'm approaching the end of my career, I'm not at the beginning.
M.
Posts: 2303 | From: Lurking in Surrey | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ethne Alba
Shipmate
# 5804
|
Posted
In theory....... in the UK.....early years provision IS apparently being propelled into a high status profession attracting some of our brightest people to inspire our children to learn and socialise.
In practice:
* the providers who Are achieving this are usually independent, focussed on best outcomes for the children, train and retain their staff and have a very long waiting list for families.
* the rest pay peanuts, get the less able and have a very high staff turn over rate.
+ any early years providers who merely give children something to colour and keep them from getting hurt, will soon see their Ofsted rating plummet.
[ 20. May 2015, 16:09: Message edited by: Ethne Alba ]
Posts: 3126 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mark_in_manchester
not waving, but...
# 15978
|
Posted
My kids had a great time at nursery. At the time (when I was still enjoying the - um - mental stimulation of a Proper Job) I wondered what I was doing entrusting my kids half-days to a bunch of largely unqualified Salford teenagers on the minimum wage. It wasn't so cheap, either. But the supervision of the staff was OK, the staff were friendly and caring, and the kids had a lot of fun. After a while it struck me that £7 an hour looking after kids is probably a lot more fun than £7 an hour packing boxes in a food plant, if you like that kind of thing, and maybe more secure and portable - so hey, motivated staff.
And Ofsted. Well, they came to our (great) primary school twice in two years and though no variables changed outside their inspection regime, they moved it from 'outstanding' to 'special measures'. I won't be troubling myself to view their opinions regarding our forthcoming secondary school choices.
[ 20. May 2015, 17:20: Message edited by: mark_in_manchester ]
--------------------
"We are punished by our sins, not for them" - Elbert Hubbard
(so good, I wanted to see it after my posts and not only after those of shipmate JBohn from whom I stole it)
Posts: 1596 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
I never cease to be amazed at the power that people have ceded to OFSTED, and the terror with which it is regarded.
When my children were coming up to Key Stage 1 testing, some fool TA mentioned about tests and they came home asking what it was all about, so I told them: these are tests the government wants you children to take to see if your teachers are doing the job they're paid to do. They are of no importance to you.
And that is the case: since SATS have no bearing on which school a child attends they are completely irrelevant and should be treated as such.
Teachers who reduce whole classes of children to a state of terror over their SATS should be shot: the person being tested is the teacher. If they're that anxious why didn't they put in more spade-work earlier in the school year?
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
And that is the case: since SATS have no bearing on which school a child attends they are completely irrelevant and should be treated as such.
Bzzt.
SATs levels are used by secondary schools to stream the new intake.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Yeah, and streaming sucks. It's just a variation on the old defunct grammar school system with the 11+.
Just because members of the government all went to public or grammar schools does not automatically mean those schools got everything right. And, certainly assuming children all fit within a small number of categories and can be seperated accordingly for educational purposes is one of the things they got way wrong.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
Streaming saved my life. But that's probably for a different thread, as we're straying massively from the OP.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
I suppose that depends on whether we're extending "childcare" to include schooling. Which, admittedly is an unusual use of the word - normally it would only correspond to pre-school (and, maybe after school/holiday time especially for younger children).
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
Well, having worked in a school for 7 years as a TA, I can confirm that some parents do indeed look on the staff as childcare, and that's pretty much all. Heaven forfend that they get a phone call asking them to come and get their poorly child (who was ill when they came to school, thus infecting the rest of their class, and their teacher).
Aaaand that's one of the reasons I stopped.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
posted by Doc Tor quote:
SATs levels are used by secondary schools to stream the new intake.
Not any of the secondary schools I know of. They hold SATs in such low esteem they all use the "experience" day in the summer term before children start at their new school to administer their own tests (done in a fun, quiz-like way) which gives a rough guide, and then final setting happens at the end of the first term.
[hit the wrong button!]
[ 21. May 2015, 10:14: Message edited by: L'organist ]
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
How about your employer fund a daycare in your workplace? Imagine a board meeting. Knock knock at the door. The exec gets up and opens the door, and child comes in and parent comforts them. Everyone else checks on their kids. Meeting resumes in 15 mins. Why not?
I had a friend whose employer ran a day care nursery on site, it was great, no side trip to some other location going to and from work, no fretting about work going overlong and owing a penalty to the babysitter who can't go home (it was the employer's problem), and she could use break times for a quick visit with the child. Great if there could be more on site nurseries.
But interrupting a meeting because a child is crying is a whole different game. All day long one or another child may be crying, especially if the child learns that's a way to break the routine with a visit to Mom or Dad. So the meeting barely gets back to "where were we" and brains go through the not instant adjustment back to work, and we're barely back into deep analysis of the chart when knock knock another child wants attention.
Interrupted work is slower, the break is not just the 15 minutes but time needed to get back into the brain all the details and where you were headed with the thought that got interrupted by the knock. Interrupted work is momentum lost, interest no longer focused, which can cause inaccurate work, details get forgotten or ignored as the overlong meeting infringes on lunch hour (when all would be free to check on their kid without interrupting others' progress on a project) creating physical and mood discomfort.
And what is the non-parent worker supposed to do during all those 15 minute breaks?
Uninterrupted meetings can get serious work done and end on time, and then people typically take a few minutes break on their way back to their cubicle.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
the famous rachel
Shipmate
# 1258
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ethne Alba:
In theory....... in the UK.....early years provision IS apparently being propelled into a high status profession attracting some of our brightest people to inspire our children to learn and socialise.
In practice:
* the providers who Are achieving this are usually independent, focussed on best outcomes for the children, train and retain their staff and have a very long waiting list for families.
* the rest pay peanuts, get the less able and have a very high staff turn over rate.
We have a slightly odd childcare solution at the moment, which results in our son attending two providers, one of which fits your first category well and the other of which might be described more closely by your second category (although all the staff are qualified (some to degree level) and staff turnover is currently pretty low, but it's at the less fancy end of the spectrum certainly, and the pay for the staff is not great).
Both the settings our son attends have their strengths and weaknesses, but it should be noted that he absolutely loves the more basic nursery, and prefers it to the posher "Kindergarten" currently. He's learning a lot in both contexts - more stuff which will be relevant to academics later at Kindergarten, but more stuff about mixing in groups, and being part of a team at Nursery, I suspect. Helping small kids learn through play needn't be that difficult, and the people who are best at it seem to do it naturally, not necessarily by having been trained to the highest degree.
Best wishes,
Rachel.
--------------------
A shrivelled appendix to the body of Christ.
Posts: 912 | From: In the lab. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ethne Alba
Shipmate
# 5804
|
Posted
![[Smile]](smile.gif) Love your post...and declaring myself as someone who works in child care provision.
Economically all the reasons cited in this thread are valid.
And yet in our city, i am seeing more parents opt to remain at home during the pre-school phase, choosing to seriously downsize, making massive life-style choices and sometimes as a result of trying out child care provision and finding that sadly it wasn't for them.
I'm not saying one way is correct and the other way is wrong, just that of late more people seem to be prepared to consider another way of doing family life
[ 27. May 2015, 11:15: Message edited by: Ethne Alba ]
Posts: 3126 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
