Opinions on the funding program to increase childcare wages (workers or parents)

[2CheekyMonkeys]

I think we have to take it as a tiny step in the right direction. It is hard to be overjoyed about it though as there are so many conditions attached. The union is pushing for a major increase in members do that when 2 years is up the there will be more people power to fight again. This is what I have read when told that 60% of the staff need to be members to qualify.

The whole EBA thing worries me. What are the owners going to try to put in there. It could be a long process of tooing and froing and missing out anyways due to time restriction.

I hadn't thought of your point in regards to staff leaving unqualifying centers for the ones who qualified. That os scary!!

[MrsFabuloso]

It is great that the govt is 'thinking' about childcare and ech education and the state i which it is in, but this is not a great way to go about reforming childcare wages. It will be a bit of a disaster, me thinks!

[trishalishous]

i think it should be across the board at say $2 an hour, rather than some centers getting $5 an hour. I was shocked to see how low the payrates were, for the people who put so much time and energy into wrangling my toddler

[MummyNaomi]

Good thread ausgirl, I posted on FB that I thought this was a great win, On the face of it, It's a big positive. However another BBer highlighted to me that there is more to it.

As a working parent I want great people attracted to work in childcare so my child has wonderful, skilled carers that are happy and do a great job. So paying them more means some potentially great CC workers who have moved onto higher paying fields may return to what they love. However, do I personally want to pay higher childcare fees to ensure this - well frankly not if I don't have to.

Ideally as the campaign continues it would be wonderful if it extends past 2 years and encompasses all childcare workers. Our centre have been rallying this year (there was an event a few months ago, and there have been posters and communications from our centre about this campaign, I don't know if that means that our centre will be one of the lucky ones to directly benefit). I hope so as our carers are fantastic, work long hours and do a brilliant job so definitely deserve better remuneration. Do they deserve it over their colleagues - who knows, however I've always believed people should be paid for performance, rather than just a set amount cos that's the going rate. Pay harder workers more - it's a no brainer in any field. How do we measure that in childcare though, I have NO idea! However it sounds like the funding certainly isn't going to be distributed in a fair way.

One issue this raised I would be interested to discuss - I was reading some of the reader comments on another site about this and there was a lot of debate whether this funding should come from the government, or directly from the user of the service (eg parents), and I was surprised to read that many people stood by the stance of "You had the kids, you pay for them" and that parents should pay much higher fees to cover the higher wages. It's really not as black or white as this. IMO a high proportion of people using childcare have two wage earners contributing taxes to the ecomony. Why are they less deserving of having tax payer funding benefiting/returning to them in some way. The same argument "You had the kids, you pay for them" could be said to parents that choose not to work and stay home but are happy to receive Family Tax Benefits etc - its all government money being shared about. Working parents are contributing more money via taxes to the economy than non working parents, why are they not deserving of tax spending? And where do we stop funding aimed at children? Close all public schools and make all parents pay full tote for education, after all, "you had them, you pay for them"

Anyway, I digress, its not just about what parents have to pay, the issue is much bigger than this. After looking more into it, I agree with ausgirl that there is risk that unfunded centres will struggle to find staff and there needs to be something in place long term, not just for a 2y period. Although with the looming election, it may just end up being another thing that the Liberal govt will wind back anyway. If it does come to an end, then childcare costs could sky rocket for parents to cover the shortfall, from a personal perspective as a parent paying for childcare, that's scary, that's more money we need to find in an already tight budget. It may force more parents out of work as the cost of care v income becomes untenable and then put further strain on the economy as more will claim FTB as no longer working etc. Its just a vicious circle I guess. A permanent solution is definitely needed.

[wysiwyg]

One issue this raised I would be interested to discuss - I was reading some of the reader comments on another site about this and there was a lot of debate whether this funding should come from the government, or directly from the user of the service (eg parents), and I was surprised to read that many people stood by the stance of "You had the kids, you pay for them" and that parents should pay much higher fees to cover the higher wages. It's really not as black or white as this. IMO a high proportion of people using childcare have two wage earners contributing taxes to the ecomony. Why are they less deserving of having tax payer funding benefiting/returning to them in some way. The same argument "You had the kids, you pay for them" could be said to parents that choose not to work and stay home but are happy to receive Family Tax Benefits etc - its all government money being shared about. Working parents are contributing more money via taxes to the economy than non working parents, why are they not deserving of tax spending? And where do we stop funding aimed at children? Close all public schools and make all parents pay full tote for education, after all, "you had them, you pay for them"

Just in response to this - these are some of the statistics I found around this (from makecarefair)

Impact on a woman’s career

48% of women said the cost of childcare negatively hit their career but not their partner’s career
71.6% of women said their partner’s career had not been held back at all
24% of working mothers say working isn’t viable however they remain in the workforce due to independence and the necessity for career progression
Leaving the workforce for cost of care reasons has a compound negative effect. After leaving the workforce 52% of unemployed carers feel that their skills have been reduced whilst off work, and 49% have reduced confidence in their ability to return to work.
The relationship between the cost of care and employment choices affects employees on all incomes, i.e. from those on relatively high incomes (AUD$90K and upwards) to those on relatively low family incomes (AUD$50K and below).
Hence strategies to address all incomes groups will have a significant impact upon choice and workforce participation for all employees.
Impact on workplace participation and the Australian economy

51% say one parent would have to quit their job if the costs of childcare increase
For every AUD$1 the Government spent on childcare, the Government get back AUD$1.86 in revenue from improved workforce participation rate
50% of parents would increase their hours of work if care was more affordable
46% of parents say the cost of childcare for their children under school age is too high relative to their income. 36% are considering leaving the workforce
26% have already reduced their hours of work because of the high cost of care for children under school age.
Strategies to reduce the cost of care will have a direct impact on employment outcomes as there is a strong casual relationship between the financial cost of care and employment choices, and affordability is a key issue for all employees with caring responsibilities
In 2006, affordability of care influenced the departures of 64% of employed carers from the workforce, and 60% of unemployed carers would return to the workforce if care was more affordable.

The bit in bold is particularly interesting and is not a bad return really.

I actually despair at most of the comments that you see on media sites on the issue - a lot of them show no grasp of the economics of work and childcare - the whole you had kids you pay for them argument is ridiculous and almost always ends up with a comment about we don't need children because we can just allow migration - well I am sure quite a few of those migrants will want children too. I hope that people who actually make decisions don't spend too much time thinking that is what 'real' people think - I am sure that people who post on media sites maybe are less than 1% of the actual population.

[The[cookie]Doctor]

Personally, I can't stand the greedy owners comments, unless you have actually seen the financials of a centre, you have no place to discuss it. I think it's very ignorant to assume all centres not classified as "not-for-profit" are profiteering. There are some that I have no doubt make a tidy profit but I would perceive this to be a select few and not the vast majority so please don't 'tar us with the same brush'.

The real "greedy" ones are the property investors who buy the properties/land/business sites and then expect the businesses to lease it making between tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. If the government could put money into owning the properties it would certainly inject much more funds back into the businesses (centres) themselves.
I don't know of any centres that actually own their property in our area and where I work is well over $30 thousand a month in leasing fees alone.

Ausgirl as for your original post, I had a massive rant on my FB as I think it is a ridiculous scheme that only serves to create a divisive industry and more trouble for parents and business later on. It is not targeted at all of the Early Childhood industry only LDC centres, its theory is to create "more high quality workers" which really means staff will just leave centres to find others that do have payrise funding. This is not a sustainable, and don't even get me started on "fair" way, to support the professional wages if the industry! I read on the CFK website many centres will not even apply as it is simply a disgrace to the whole system.
I also agree that families who have two incomes that rely childcare are definitely not taking more than their fairshare back given they are contributing more to our economy. It is a very misunderstood argument and distasteful / sour grapes to say "SAHP don't expect people to pay for them to look after their kids, why should their working partners pay for someone else's childcare".