to think that nursery staff and carers of the elderly deserve to be paid properly in recognition of what they do?

[TartyMcFarty]

I learned from a friend yesterday that she earns 12k working full time as a qualified nursery nurse. The unqualified staff are being paid less. With the best will in the world you surely can't expect excellent care from someone who's paid a pittance for such a demanding and important job.

Same goes for carers of course, many of whom are routinely paid the minimum wage for their attentions to incapacitated and dying people. WTF?

Why do we, as a society accept this? Our economy benefits from parents of the young and offspring of the elderly going out to work, but it's propped up by those (often women) who have to work for peanuts.

Why is childcare in particular so damned expensive when the people looking after babies on a 1:3 ratio aren't seeing the profit?

And BTW, I'm lucky enough not to have to pay for childcare when I return to work PT as my lovely mum is doing it for me. This isn't intended as a 'why me?' rant.

i don't know, i'd like to be more optomistic for them gina. they are still being built here.

i don't think they will be shut as quickly as people think

They wont be shut they will be taken over by private investors or by a group of investors and either be profit making or community interst so non profit. They will still run by the staff wont get the higher wages as the government wont be subsiding them or no.

David Cameron has already spoke in depth about not wanting 'middle class mothers' to be such a big part of surestart as they are because that wasnt the point in surestart. I think there are going to be extremely big changes to surestart and definitely dont see wages as going up, if anything lots of staff are going to face wage drops or job losses.

i think he may say that but in a way hope that middle class users will pay more and set a standard

I have never thought childcare is expensive - it might be a big chunk of my wage but it's not expensive. It's under £35 a day. £3.50 an hour at a ratio of 3:1 is £10.50 a hour per nursery worker, and of course that has to include all overheads. Per hour I could pay £3.50 (if DS was there for the full 10 hour day)

When ds was in nursery, I worked out that each nursery nurse in the baby room was pulling in £3k/month given a 1:3 staffing ratio. Any other industry, especially if it had a traditionally largely male workforce, you'd get some reward for that. Ds's nursery, I discovered, was paying the assistants £12k pa.

Even with overheads, someone was creaming off the profit and it wasn't the staff. They even had fundraising days to raise money for toys and equipment - with fees at £1k a month! (It was a chain nursery, I'm sure the chief exec is driving a very expensive car and living very comfortably.)

Good childcare is amazingly cheap when you consider the responsibility. These staff are in most cases worth every penny they are paid and should really get more. Looking after children and the elderly takes skill, energy and love. Yes these professions should be more fairly rewarded but I don't think the market could stand to pay more - the cost of living in the UK makes it very difficult for nurseries etc to charge more to parents who can already be struggling to make ends meet. This thread has made me think that a bonus for the lovely ladies at DS's nursery might be a nice idea.

Residential care for the elderly is rarely free Riven.

Riven, I think there is state provision if your mum is on benefits.

People get paid as much as it takes to get someone to do the job.

I have never understood the type of person who happily pays £60 every 8 weeks at the hairdressers, plus generous tip/xmas present, plus going for a wax, manicure whatever - but begrudges it when the childminder puts their fees up by 10p an hour

why do people expect childcare to be so cheap? you are paying someone to look after your most precious "possesion"

I still can't believe there is now a 50% tax band.

Surely the reason that childcare has a price "ceiling" is because if it was more expensive, more people would choose to be a SAHP instead.

It's not a reflection of how much childcare is "worth". It's a reflection of the fact that the parent can only pay so much for it before it becomes too expensive to be worth paying for instead of staying at home.

Am also confused by 3littlefrog's post. Why is she having to pay for her mother's care? Usually either the resident pays, often using funds from the sale of their home, or the state pays. (State funding is not, of course, problem-free - what happens when someone has been footing their own bills but runs out of money and the council thinks the place is too expensive?)

You hit the nail on the head edam.

If a place in a decent care home costs £500, the state pays £300 for the residents they fund. The self pay residents pay £700 to subsidise the state funded residents.

The fees go up by more than the rate of inflation every year.

The self funding resident is not allowed to keep any of their pension or savings, nor are they allowed more than £10 per week of their own savings as spending money.

If the spouse of a resident is living in the marital home, the bills still all have to be paid.

If the resident runs out of money, there is every chance they will be moved somewhere cheaper, if the balance of state funded vs self funding residents is not sufficient to subsidise the state funded residents.

If the proposed move is too awful to contemplate, then it is all hands to the pump to keep up the payment of the fees.

Shit, I'm sorry 3littlefrogs. I had thought they didn't grab savings beneath a certain amount? Been a long time since my Gran was in a home but it looks as if it won't be long before my MIL needs residential care.

Have you contacted Age Concern (has a new name but am sure google will find) to make sure the home is acting quite properly?

Don't feel bad edam. It is a very complicated system, and it does penalise people who have worked and saved - however, it would be a whole lot worse if no-body was self funding - indeed it would be unsustainable!

It isn't the home that makes the rules (although I know the owners do very nicely)it is the local authority that makes the rules.

Age concern are very much aware of all this, and they do give very good financial advice, but the fact is, in some parts of the country, elderly people cannot access any kind of assessment of needs unless and until they allow SS to undertake a complete investigation of all their assetts/finances. Even though technically this is not legal.

It is a minefield, and one that most people know nothing about until they are already exhausted and worn out from caring, and don't have the time or energy to fight the system.

With an ageing population things are only going to get worse.

Nursing care is supposed to be free, but the definition of nursing care is not what you would think either!

Sigh.

The key words in your OP are 'she' and 'women'. The reason for the low pay is that the workers are mostly women, doing what is perceived as 'women's work'.

I was flabbergasted that there are neighbours willing to pay my DS a tenner to mow a small lawn (about 10 minutes work even with picking up the dog poo first) and a bit out front every Saturday. He also gets the same amount per hour (does about 4 hours a weekend) for doing odd jobs (mowing, painting, scraping, cleaning out a garage) for another neighbour. DD2, otoh, babysits her butt off for hours and hours every week, and not only does nobody inquire if she cuts grass, they expect her to be happy with maybe 5-7 quid per hour to feed and put to bed up to 4 children, then clean up after dinner and all the toys, change nappies, etc. It starts early. DD2 could mow a lawn just as well as DS can, and he can babysit just as well as she can, but he doesn't any more because he makes more, and it's frankly easy money, doing gardening and odd jobs.

mathanxiety - It depends how you see it though. I personally would see looking after the 4 kids way easier than having to mow lawns or paint etc. Personally I think looking after kids is way easier than when I used to work in a supermarket, waitress, shelf stacking etc to but maybe there is something up with me!

Sorry, going to have to use the old copy and paste strategy ...

Gina82: 'I have worked in childcare for ages and managed to buy my own place etc in an expensive area. All the other nursery workers also have their own mortgages so I dont think wages are too low if your ok with money.'

With all due respect Gina, how did you get a mortgage? You must either have a higher-earning spouse (and I think you've said otherwise) or have been on the property ladder for some time if you can afford a place in an expensive area. This is an advantage that most of the young women working in nurseries don't have. Or perhaps you come from a wealthier background? Just guessing here, otherwise I simply can't see how it's possible.

violethill: 'FWIW the nursery staff probably had more disposable income than I did when I had two at nursery - it took all of my salary.'

Really, you think so? The friend I mentioned in the OP has the 'benefit' of a 10% discount for her DD if she goes back to work. All the same, that will swallow her earnings. She simply couldn't afford to go back if she has another baby.

What 3littlefrogs points out about how wealthier residents in care homes are expected to subsidise those worse off is a fucking disgrace. But the real issue is, as she says, that the owners do very nicely out of it.

My OP isn't really in relation to community interest or Sure Start nurseries, which don't appear to exist here. It's about the proprietors of private care provision who are creaming off tidy profits but paying their staff a pittance.

As for Sure Start, I make a lot of use of CCS, but I know it's not really me who needs them. I think I probably should expect to pay something towards it. You rarely see families from more deprived backgrounds using ours, so IMO the resources should be better targeted.

That's shit. Wonder why Age Concern hasn't challenged it in the courts?

When my sister worked in a home for adults with LDs, she was convinced the owners were doing very dodgy things with the residents' money. Seemed the owners could do anything they liked and SS were quite happy to turn a blind eye. While my sister was very much of the opinion this money was actually the patients' and they should say what happened to it. These were people on benefits, though, don't know if that makes a difference?

Mind you, the owners and senior staff did have a very paternalistic approach, my sister had to challenge them over a couple of things like 'allowing' residents to spend their own money in the pub. One particularly entertaining debate was around a resident who wanted to buy some blue movies - perfectly legal but much disapproval. My sister fought his corner and won! (Not that she approves of pornography but believed it was his choice to make.)

Btw, the parents of one of my schoolfriends made enough out of their old folks' home to pay private school fees for two kids. I used to visit the home every week to chat to the residents (as an alternative to PE in the 6th form - far more interesting) and I did NOT think their fees were being used to pay for excellent facilities or activities...

Yes absolutely, not just employees in geriatric care homes but carers who work at home without pay or thanks or appreciation.

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.