To wonder why my job is so low paid and feel frustrated by it?

[eggsontoast9]

I’m a nursery nurse and I earn £8.72 an hour (minimum wage for over 25’s, I’m 26).
I’ve been in this job for the last three years and do enjoy it apart from the odd day but I’ve always wondered why it’s so low paid. It’s a hard job. I know a lot of people assume we just sit on our bums all day and play with children but that’s really not the case. I work in the baby unit and we can have anywhere up to 15 babies on a busy day, which in itself is bloody hard work. We have to deal with sick, poo, unhappy/unwell children, difficult parents etc. We have to complete paperwork now, normally whilst looking after the children because we’re short staffed and can’t always have time away from the room. We work long hours not because we want to but because we have to as the wages are so low (I work 7:30-6:00 four days a week and 7:30-5:00 another day). Holidays aren’t very generous. I guess the only bonus is we have weekends off unless we have training. I suppose it’s the same as health care jobs such as care assistants.

I like the job and work with a good team but can’t see myself staying here long term just because of the money which is a shame as it’s really hard to find a job that you enjoy sometimes. I was speaking to my younger cousin who’s 18 and she told me she’s just started a job in Asda earning £9.20 an hour and whilst I’m extremely happy for her and proud of her, it has made me realise my job is incredibly low paid and not very well respected in terms of how hard we all work. Before anyone jumps on me, I’m not saying my cousin shouldn’t earn that amount as I appreciate working in a supermarket is hard work to and any job should be paid a fair wage.

What is more frustrating is that we have to complete training each year and work towards gaining qualifications yet our wages are based on our age, so IMO there isn’t any progression available.

AIBU?

And i think the tax subsidy question of 'how much would you pay?' Is misleading.

It's fairly basic maths that subsiding childcare spread over the entire tax paying population would not be as heavy on the pocket of individual families than raising fees significantly, which would also result in more (mainly female) people being priced out of work as well as childcare jobs disappearing all together.

I'd happily pay a small amount more tax over my lifetime if it made this more fair, and also levelled up the playing field in terms of giving other women the opportunity to be able to work while their children are young if costs to parents were lower.

No, YANBU. Caring roles are typically low paid - it isn't right and it isn't fair, but I don't see it changing (in the UK) anytime soon.

Some really interesting comments here, I'm trying to read through all of them!

Have you asked for a raise? If you've been in the role 3 years, it isn't fair that someone new to the field could come in on the same wage. They need to pay you for your experience. They may need prompting as many employers won't do it as standard (particularly with young employees) but will consider it if asked. It is hard to do the first time, but know your worth and be brave. The worst they can do is say no, in which case you'll be in the same position as if you hadn't asked. Good luck.

@WayTooSoon yes can definitely always ask but I'd very surprised if they agreed to a pay rise. My supervisor is only paid 20p more than I am and my deputy manager is paid around £1.50 more. If they were to give me a pay increase they would probably have to do the same for everyone else to.

@curiouslypacific what's your industry, if you can say in general terms?

I completely agree with the OP. I can’t believe how qualified and skilled nursery workers are, and how much responsibility they have, in comparison to what they’re paid.

But it’s amazing how this thread has descended into an immediate misogyny party. It’s women’s fault that women are low paid because women don’t want to pay more for childcare and/or don’t want to pay more tax?

We’re the sixth largest economy in the world (or we were before Brexit, obviously it will shrink next year). We’ve also got one of the most expensive childcare systems in the world (the most expensive by some metrics), yet the qualified and skilled people who work in nursery often get paid less than the living wage.

The UK and Japan are the only OECD countries where more than 50% of funding for early years care comes from private sources (ie the parents).

It's very frustrating. You do an incredibly and important job which is not adequately reflected in the pay.

However, by working I am contributing more to the economy than if I had to stay at home because childcare is not financially viable. As well as paying taxes etc I'm also supporting jobs in the childcare sector which otherwise wouldn't be there. I just couldn't afford to work and use childcare at all if salaries and therefore fees were higher.

Well, exactly, and this is why many other companies subsidise childcare so heavily - put simply, it’s cheaper and more beneficial to society than paying unemployment benefits.

The whole system is set to mean that these jobs have to be low paid if they are to exist at all- but I can't accept that by working and using nursery I am directly contributing to the problem.

Who said that you are contributing to the problem of low pay for nursery staff by working? Nobody. Women working is good for the economy.

If the fees for your nursery went up by 25% in order to pay the staff more, would you happily pay more or would you complain?

It's fairly basic maths that subsiding childcare spread over the entire tax paying population would not be as heavy on the pocket of individual families than raising fees significantly

It’s very kind of you to explain basic maths to a finance director! Being serious for a moment, are you saying that you don’t think that you should pay higher nursery fees but that everyone should pay more tax to subsidise the salaries of childcare workers? How much more tax are you personally prepared to pay?

But it’s amazing how this thread has descended into an immediate misogyny party. It’s women’s fault that women are low paid because women don’t want to pay more for childcare and/or don’t want to pay more tax?

Who said that it’s only women who don’t want to pay higher childcare fees or more tax? The people posting on this thread, who can’t see the irony of commiserating with the OP whilst being very careful about the cost of childcare, are mostly women, but I imagine that the male members of their household think similarly.

I thought that @curiouslypacific put forward some excellent questions about why women choose lower paid work and what might be done about it.

I'm not convinced that subsidy would even raise wages much, unless supply dropped. As long as there is an excess of people willing to do the job for the available wages, market pressure will push wages down towards NMW. If it was impossible to fill nursery roles because everyone was earning £10ph at Asda, wages would rise.

I guess it’s a lot about economics. If lots of people have the skills to do a job, or the demand for a job is not that high, then it is usually not well paid.

It’s not fair and it is unfortunate. However I guess it is how much society wants to pay for things. Go in with your eyes open - sometimes a passion may not be likely to pay well - if you accept that risk, then that’s fine. Do factor it into your calculations though. Perhaps there could be alternatives that satisfy some of your criteria, but get paid better/have perks/pension though.

its cultural misogyny. Doesn't take much skill to be a labourer or a scaffolder or a hgv driver (once you've got the licence you can do it even though you might be a terrible driver!). But yet all these roles are paid more because men do them.

This is utter balls. They are paid more because we don't have enough of them, by and large. Childcare pay is naturally limited by economies of scale. It has to be cheap enough for it to be worth a parent paying for it.

Day nurseries in purpose built premises are an expensive way to do it. They attract investment, meaning you get an owner who wants profit, they tend to run for lots of kids at once so you need a manager which is another cost, plus there's rent.

It would improve pay if the government encourage child minding from home residences more.

You have my sympathy. You are doing a very important job and I absolutely agree, it should be paid better.

Unfortunately I don't know how, when or if that will change.

You could try a different nursery, or possibly nannying?

Thank you for doing the job that you do, though.

YANBU

Far far from it. It is incredibly important job and I continue to be shocked at how low paid nursery nurses are.

You are a better woman than me. I would love to work with babies and toddlers in a nursery setting but I wouldn't be able to survive on the wages so I do something less interesting (and far less important) for a more comfortable salary.

Government subsidy for EYs needs a massive overhaul - nurseries nurses are caring for children during one of the most pivotal phases of their life (0-5) and the staff should be compensated accordingly.

I looked at being a teaching assistant but the salary is so low - around £10 an hour.

@iamthewombat you said earlier in the thread that people paying so little for childcare were contributing the problem. I was pointing out that it's not that simple.

In theory yes, I agree that paying an extra 25% for my childcare would be fairer. In practice this would mean that even though I have a well paid job, I'd have had to have stayed at home for the 9 years that I've had preschoolers as it wouldn't have been worth my while working. It would also have meant that the amount of tax I've paid into the pot would be much lower, as well as impacting on my earning potential when I returned to work. It would also mean that fewer jobs in childcare are available because fewer people can afford to pay for it. In short, no I wouldn't be prepared to pay an additional 25% for my childcare because I can't afford to, and there will be a LOT of women out there in my position.

On the tax front, it's a 'how long is a piece of sting' question- I wouldn't be pleased if my tax was raised by 10% so all childcare practitioners could earn £100k. But if raising everyone's tax contributions by 1% would give them a fair wage and cut costs for parents leading to improvements in equal opportunities etc than I'd go for it. And my gut feeling is that it wouldn't even take as much as that to make it fairer- if costs for parents came down, more people could afford to work and more tax revenue would be received.

(And thinking about it, when my nursery became a living wage employer last year and raised fees accordingly in a very apologetic letter, I wrote to them to say well done (and about time!).

So as long it's affordable for me, I really am happy to put my money where my mouth is.

Though I still think their staff are worth more than that per hour really for what they do.

I got out of childcare. It's horrendously underpaid. Even in the nurseries charging 80 quid a day.
Open your own nursery, get out of childcare, strike!! Just don't sit in this job forever grinding your teeth.
You deserve more

you said earlier in the thread that people paying so little for childcare were contributing the problem. I was pointing out that it's not that simple.

Who said it was simple? However, you are deluded if you think that price sensitivity amongst parents about what nursery places should cost isn’t one of the downward pressures on childcare salaries.

I wouldn't be pleased if my tax was raised by 10% so all childcare practitioners could earn £100k.

It would take a lot more than a 10% increase in the taxation of people on average salaries. You say that you couldn’t afford a 25% increase in childcare costs, even if you knew that it would go directly to the staff. There’s no knowing whether that statement is true, ie whether you truly couldn’t afford it or whether you preferred to reserve the (say) £300 per month for holidays and restaurants, but let’s say that you earn £30k and pay basic rate tax.

Do you have any idea how little income tax, relatively speaking, somebody earning £30k pays? I do. It’s only around £3k per year if you have the full personal allowance.

So if you are in that income bracket, a 10% rise in tax would raise an extra £300. That’s not going to touch the sides.

There’s more:

But if raising everyone's tax contributions by 1% would give them a fair wage and cut costs for parents leading to improvements in equal opportunities etc than I'd go for it

I bet you would. Now you also want childcare to be cheaper for you, as well as paying nursery staff a better wage, but you only want taxes to rise by 1%. For you that’s £30. Quite a deal, eh? Not so much for everyone else.

I'm almost through paying for nursery, so no, I wouldn't benefit actually. I'd still be happy to pay additional tax, however if it made it work better for society as a whole.

@Respectabitch - I work in IT in a technical role for one of the big tech corps you'd definitely have heard of. IME female representation in IT is increasing but it primarily seems to be in semi-technical roles like PMs or account managers rather than out and out engineers.

I don't want to derail into a discussion of why most women aren't interested in IT. I just struggle with the idea that jobs still seem to be so gendered even in this day and age and that women's pay and choices are impacted as a result.

How can those of us in 'male' industries open the door to more women and start to balance out this situation?

Having had a look, it would cost about £90 per year per tax payer to 'give' £10k to each worker in nurseries in the UK. And given that they'd then paying tax and NI on that, the actual cost would be lower but I can't be bothered to work that one out.

Spread over the population, most of the funds needed could be raised though small tax increases for people on sensible salaries. For a policy which would then give more people the choice to get back to work and reduce the number of people pushed onto benefited etc, I think that's not bad.

As others have pointed out, the UK is the outlier in well off countries in not providing much assistance.