"Nurseries 'pose risk to children'" - please, this isn't to be a ranty thread - I just wonder what the answer is

[hunkermunker]

Have you read this article?

There's something wrong with a society that doesn't make it easier for parents (I don't mean both, I mean one or t'other - both would be fab, but even I'm not that impractical!) to be at home with their children for at least the first year of their lives, isn't there?

And yes, I know the Government are bringing in 9m paid mat leave, but in reality, lots of firms will just pay the six weeks 90% of full pay and then £104 a week or whatever it is - and that's not nearly enough for lots of families.

Yes, I also know that people can move house/change jobs/downsize - and some people do all this and it works for them.

But equally, there are people for whom this is utterly impractical.

What's the answer?

I think better paid mat leave from 9-12 months - MINIMUM would help. Increased statutory maternity pay too.

don't know hunker. I have stayed home with ds ( now nearly 6) as I thought it was best for him. I haven't always enjoyed it, although some bits have been great. But I feel I have done what I can, nd he has turned out a lovely boy, and very caring towards other people.

Lots of problems convincing people that it's worth paying women to stay at home with their children (because it usually will be women - and that's what is always thought of - layabout women just having children so they don't do any proper work ).

I know loads of people in NZ who took the full year off when they had their baby - only 14 weeks is paid and that is capped at around $350 per week. Then all of the rest is unpaid - although there are more benefits etc. which can be claimed as long as one of you is working 30 hours.

Then they go back to work a couple of days a week and then have the next child and take another year off.

So it can't just be a money issue, as this has got to be one of the most crap places money wise to take a year off and yet so many people do it IME.

I'm coming to the end of my nursery phase with my 3 - all of them have been to a nursery pre-school, but luckily only ever for part of the week as when I did work, I worked p/t.

I don't know what the answer is and I'm in no way wanting a row either - I know for lots of pple there is little option but to go back to work and place the child in f/t nursery - and I feel very sorry for those pple - I really I don't mean that in a patronising way at all. Sorry if it comes across like that, but I think it would have killed me to have to put mine in f/t care and have to go back to work.

Yes, better paid mat leave. 6 mnths min full pay - but then we are in to the small business argument. I think it is so important a question it has to be raised and seriously discussed. Why are other countries getting it so right - Sweden etc??

I think there are some points worthy of serious debate in that article re behaviour etc.

the answer for us is flexible working - and being bloody-minded enough about childcare to work early/long hours. Eg - dh up at 5.30 to start work at 6ish (only few minutes away by bike ), to finish by 2ish so that I can work 2-7, and then some after ds has gone to bed. It's tiring and dh and I don't see each other much atm (I work as much as poss at weekends too) but worth it to avoid nursery for 20mo ds. He'll probably start playgroup at 2.5 I think.
This is how we work it out anyway, and it - just about - works...

I think the important thing to note about the article is that the report highlights the harm done by inadequate nurseries.

I think there is a basic economic problem at the heart of childcare in this country. Because childcare is generally done by women, it is underpaid and there is not enough respect for people who have training and people who look after young children in general. It is easy for someone to set up a nursery with people who are unsuited to the job because afterall anybody can look after children.

If nursery standards were improved across the board and staff were paid a fair wage for the work they do, many people would not be able to afford childcare. For instance, if it is accepted that nursery staff perform a skilled job, that a high ration of staff are needed per child and all nursery buildings should meet a certain standard, the government will need to accept that if they want a mother to go out and perform an unskilled job it is unlikely that her wages will cover the cost of a nursery. Either they need to help with the funding (if they want to keep her in work) or accept that she will not be able to go out to work for a few years.

oh alsp for me it's the best of both worlds in a sense, as ds and I go places (baby groups etc) in the morning, then I also get to work in the pm, knowing he's safe and happy with dh.
BTW I did also take the full year off with ds, so this arrangement has been from 12mo onwards.

high ratio of staff

I think that is a very valid pt MPltyPus re pay for nursery workers - shockingly paid - complete wrong way round. If they were paid much improved wages I think it would encourage stability and improve standards - you are so right - I've thought this many times thru' my nursery years.

I think MPlatypus is spot on to say that if standards were to improve that would mean costs would also increase.

There is also issue of women who take time out from careers not being able to regain their former position.

The government should be concerned that raising taxes in the short term by encouraging monthers to work may store up long term problems for society.

2 things we could do easily - make it easy for grandparents to recieve childcare vouchers only currently redeemable at nurseries/with registered childminders

and make individual tax allowances transferable between parents - making it more affordable for mothers to stay at home if they wish

Long working hours and cost of housing is also a factor. As long as housing costs are utterly disproportionate to potential incomes (I mean, a quarter of a million pounds for a normal terraced house in an area where the average income is £15K? Eh? How does that happen then?) and long working hours are the norm, most parents won't have a real choice. The lengthening of the working week is a real problem, we should be aiming to reduce the average working week, so that life/ work balance can be acheived by everyone.

The ideal is for it to be possible and normal for each partner to work half a week, so that domestic, childcare and earning duties are split evenly across the adults in the family. If the adults then want to divvy up the work differently, that's up to them. But it should be possible. And it can only be possible if wages are more aligned to the cost of living, ie in most cases, housing. Which means a reduction in house prices or an increase in income. I simply don't know how it is that the market is sustaining high house prices.

i took one year maternity leave then went back for 3months to fulfil my contractual obligations then left.

while i was working dh stayed at home (working mostly from home) this was great for both of them and really developed their relationship

this was never the ideal situation. i felt i could have worked flexible hrs as did dh, his work was ok about it mine was not. this for no good reason that i could see. i spoke to the union who felt i had a case, but really i did not have the energy to fight it.

we had decided that nursery would not be an option until dd was at least 3 so i guess we made choices to accommodate that, but we were helped by favourable finacial circunstances at the time, but of course this can change. the quality of care really troubles me.

In germany they have recently introduced a law which gives one partner 67% of their last salary (capped at a certain upper limit, I think the most they can receive is 1,800 ? a month) for a year after the birth of a child, with 2 extra months if the other partner (in practice the father) stays at home. I am utterly delighted at this - we badly want another baby but would not be able to afford for me to give up work. I was back FT at 5 months after ds, doing marking and stuff long before that, and am incredibly grateful to have had such a flexible job that meant I could still bf him pretty much on demand, for example, and that dh was at home. But I still desperately wish I could have been a 'proper' SAHM and have complexes as long as my arm about it.

Message withdrawn

Yes Pruni , that's right, a German employer is obliged to hold the job open for 3 years ('only' the first year is paid, though). The point about renting is another good one - in germany renting is the absolute norm, no stigma whatsoever attached. Since moving over here I've completely failed to get the whole UK 'property ladder' thing. Tenants have extensive rights over here, it is not an insecure lifestyle at all.

Ironically, Germany is a pretty misogynistic country in many ways. Working mothers have a pretty hard time in terms of the way they are viewed.

Gosh, I honestly don't know how we'll ever reach a solution to this one (although Caligula seems to have it sorted!) - it's such a complex issue really - I just don't know.

For us it meant that I left my career (that was rapidly on the up and I didn't want to stop work but OTOH could not put ds in nursery - it was killing me), and worked from home. For the last 5.5 years (in which time we had another 2 children) it's been a killer - dh has worked all day while I've done child care and then I worked most evenings, often from when he got in at 6.30ish up to midnight, and weekends while he did child care. Not so bad for dh really but I've lived in a permanent state of exhaustion for all that time really (made worse by spending 2 years trying to sell a house - soooo stressful).

However, I realise I was 'lucky' to have this choice - it's worked for us in the sense that the children were at home with me during the day while they were little and that now I have a job I can do in school hours.

I also think there are other people that do have choices that they don't take because they aren't prepared to put those hours in or sacrifice their career or whatever it is.

Of course for many there is no such choice and I just don't know the answer.

On a slightly different note, I've been really annoyed by two news articles recently, one re: improving provision for women to work part-time, one about the Tories' alleged plan to allow a woman to give her tax allowance to her husband if she stays at home with children.

On the second story, I would doubt very much that it would be legal to pass legislation like that and that (whether the Tories like it or not!) if they want to do it, it will have to allow one parent to pass the allowance to the other parent. On the first story I was gnashing my teeth that yet again in this country we insist on regarding combining work and childcare as a women's issue.

I say 'in this country' but I think this is probably quite prevalent in mainland Europe as well, given their provision for maternity leave is generally worse than ours (certainly in France and Holland). But having lived in Sweden I find this attitude completely bizarre. On the other hand, I'm not sure who would be willing to stick paying 60% tax in order to fund 480 day parental leave? (3 months of which must now be taken by the father, incidentally, to reduce perceived inequalities in the marketplace).

Agree tribpot. And I'm wondering how the tories' plans benefit lone parents.

RE: renting, depending on the size of house, where I live atleast, the monthly cost of paying a mortgage is often substantially cheaper than the cost of renting. I know that there are obviously additional costs involved in buying a house and that the mortgage repayment depends on mortgage terms. I think there is also the issue that when you pay a mortgage you are paying towards a resellable asset.

There must be something in this renting, otherwise those sensible Germans wouldn't be doing it - I am just wondering what would persuade me to rent rather than buy.

MP, I have always found that having a mortgage is much much cheaper than renting.

Plus you have an increasing asset.

Also renting is so unattractive in the UK compared to the continent because security of tenure is simply not as good.

Message withdrawn

I do agree with Pruni that we get the balance wrong in what we want out of life financially

I was reading a magazine article the other day about a couple with children - the bloke worked 60 hours a week as a successful accountant and kept bleating on about how he was 'working for a good life for his children'; his wife worked as well

I honestly don't think you need that much money for a 'good life'; dh and I have deliberately kept our careers low-key because we want to be around for our children. We have passed up opportunities when they would mean longer hours or a longer commute.

I realise that we're lucky to be able to do this - we got on the housing ladder at the right time etc and as a result we can stay where we are - and I know that there are couples who are forced to work long hours to make ends meet. But the few people I know who send their children to nursery for all or most of the week could survive quite well on far less money, it's just that their priorities are different to mine

in germany, I think its pretty hard to kick someone out of a rented property.

Over here, once the 6 month minimum period is up, 2 months notice and you're out (normally).

Think that makes a big difference

Dunno what the solution is. I gave up work cos tbh I didn't want my kids in nursery. I don't want to be at home with my kids, really, would much rather use childcare but just can't find anything that meets my (admittedly rather unrealisitically high) standards. I'm actually pretty peed off that, 40 years after the sex discrimination act, this should be the situation.

Oh I suppose more flexible working would help. More onsite nurseries. jobs kept open for 3 years deffo.