analogy- owners

analogy- owners

by: whmon - 23-03-08 22:46

An interesting analogy: Our nursery charges £31 per 8 hour day for babies and £29 per 8 hour day for 2 year olds. As you know, the staff ratios are 1-3 and 1-4. These prices, £31 and £29, are about what you would expect to pay in an average restaraunt.

Getting back to the restaraunt analogy - can you imagine if restaraunt owners were told by the government that the staff in their business could only serve 3 clients within an 8 hour period if they are serving e.g a steak dinner, and only 4 if they are serving Beef Wellington?

What would happen is that overnight, all of the restaraunts in Britain would close down.

I am not suggesting by any means that the ratios should change. What I am suggesting is that the government, who wants parents to get back into work should be actively helping day nurseries to fund childcare. I seriously can't think of any other business that the government is trying to destroy.

by: Maestro

That is the most stupidest thing I have read for ages!!!!!

by: lucy221

I can see (i think!) what you are trying to get at here, but perhaps a better analogy could have been used!!!

by: Annie

whmon, perhaps you should move out of nurseries and into creative writing. Your plot was a bit complex I had a hard time folowing it but it is late at night. Perhaps you could send me some beef wellington!

by: newsetting

sorry, i think im a bit thick sometimes but i dont get it. Can someone explain?!?

by: Maestro

Basically the children are represented as food, the waiters/waitresses are the nursery staff. whmon is suggesting that if the restaurant staff had to follow the principle of only serving the same number of customers as nursery staff look after children, the restaurants would be closed down.

I think whmon has forgot that steak and beef wellington dont need constant care and supervision (and that we don't, under any circumstances eat the children, no matter how close to a steak they may seem). Just because your nursery prices are similiar to a restaurant doesn't mean the rest of the nursery is.

Im still laughing when I read it!

RE: RE: analogy- owners - 29-03-08 00:05

by: whmon

Exactly my point Maestro!! Steak and Beef Wellington DON'T need constant care and supervision, children DO. So why our our services devalued?

by: Maestro

Even for steak and beef wellington those prices are quite high even in top restuarants, was there perhaps a pudding or starter, maybe a drink? Would this be similiar to adding the cost of meals and nappies in the price??

 aaaaaaaaahahahaa... sorry couldn't resist!

RE: RE: analogy- owners - 28-03-08 23:50

by: whmon

OK, let me try to explain to the above posters in simple terms: How many businesses are told that they can only deal with 3 clients per member of staff within a day for a charge of around £31 per client? Yet the service they offer is crucial to government policy.

Let me further point out that the above posters are either A: Nursery staff, in which case I quite understand your response, paying peanuts for monkeys as they say. Or B: Much more worryingly, owners (I doubt it very much), in which case the private sector hasn't got much hope as people like myself are fighting for equity yet carrying a lot of dead weight.

I personally have had my voice heard in Parliament regarding pre-school funding. Presently, I am making headway regarding the payment of Tax Credits directly to the setting.

For the information of you posters, these things are being done to save your jobs.

 

by: Maestro

My original statement still stands

by: Annie

 So does mine. The problem is in trying to provide care as a business. It's the same for hospitals, care homes, home helps and childcare. The case in point is that it is the children who are the receivers of the service so how does increasing the ratio improve things for them? The fact is that many years ago when I worked in Social Services the cost of a childcare place was at least double what it is today because staff were paid local authority rates etc.  The private sector has to set a rate people can afford and then try to come up with the quality of service people expect and this usually means lower wages, using trainees or running understaffed at some points. I agree that there are times when supervision is fine with a lower staff ratio and I would always maintain that numbers alone do not assure the manager that the supervision will be appropriate. I know that when there are a full complement of staff, often less gets done. Human nature. Incidentally, having worked in catering when I was a student, the wages there are very low and the competition is stiff, hours long so how much a beef wellington?

RE: RE: analogy- owners - 31-03-08 23:24

by: whmon

I did not say that the ratios should be increased. I said that the government, who sets the ratios should help fund it.

When you worked for Social Services the fees were more expensive because of the wages paid by the government. The private sector has tried to compete, not by lowering wages, but by the owner working without a wage. But why should I and my ilk, have spent all of my life studying to multiple degree level and then getting well paid jobs in order to invest all of that hard-earned money in buying a nursery simply to fund jobs for others, and work without a wage? The government should be helping a sector that it needs.

Please don't think that the private sector runs by using trainees or by being understaffed. We are private busnesses and consequently try to beat the competition through sheer quality like any other business.

How much for Beef Wellington? Perhaps I was a little over confident in the expectation of people being able to understand the analogy. You mention hospitals, care homes etc. So - can you imagine the government demanding that Doctors, nurses, dentists, home helps, etc only being able to deal with 3 people per day?

What about firefighters, how about hairdressers only being able to do 3 customers per day, what about shop assistants - only 3 customers. Do you know of any other profession or job that demands this constriction?

Children need the ratios. The Government need childcare. The Government have set the ratio. Family sizes have decreased. My grandmother could have looked after 3 children on each knee. The ratio is political. The private sector will always be the scapegoat under a Labour Government.

by: sue

 About you ( whmon) saying about tax credits being paid directly to the nurseries. Well how would you think that might work? I mean from the take that these are means tested so depending on a family income ,they may get  up to 80% of childcare costs plus any other tax credits which is all paid monthly in a lump sum. so for example would a child attending a nursery, the parents  getting e.g 250 a month towards child care, would then  the nursery get a letter  from the goverment saying well here is £250 for Child A  so you only charge the parents whatever the cost is minus the £250? so if iam not making myself clear very tired. I am a parent and I am a child care worker. I just think giving the funding to the settings is not quite clear cut.

RE: RE: analogy- owners - 31-03-08 21:50

by: whmon

Why shouldn't the nursery get a letter saying here is £250 for child A, it would be no more problem for the government than sending a letter to the parent saying here is £250 for child A.

I see what you are implying about admin time/costs for the nursery deducting tax credits from actual fees, but believe me, this would be less costly to the nursery than employing a credit collection agency because that parent has decided to use the tax credits money to buy a new car/ holiday/ etc.

by: sue

  In sentence above, I meant to say  "sorry if  I am not making myself clear just very tired.

by: Maestro

You would not save any money at the end of the day. If parents are not going to pay they wont. If the tax credits pay 70% you still have to obtain 30%. A collection agency may still be required, even with tax credits going straight into your account.

If a parent makes a false claim and you accept the money in good faith that you believe a genuine claim to have taken place, what would happen? The inland revenue have powers far greater than the police. If they want the money they will just come and get it! A parent could even say that the nursery knew! It would then be a game of your word against theirs! The new budget altered the terms and conditions that a member of HMR&C can enter your premises at any time and demand all accounts and receipts for checking, without notice and without a warrant, their powers are great! You accept a false payment from the HMR&C then I expect them to be at the nursery as first point of call! More time and expense!

Then overpayments, underpayments. Parents/carers would still be liable to pay the nursery more or less fees. They dont pay and then you are at the collection agency again!!

Then there's the admin side! You've got 100 children on your register and you are having to cross check part payments, online banking or monthly statements, time processing paperwork to recieve the payments and then acknowledging the payments. Governments love red tape and if they are making payments to third parties through "parent consent" you can bet your bottom dollar that they make you jump through every hoop to get it.

Bottom line.... Tell your parents/carers to pay weekly, if they miss a payment then the nursery place is suspended! Simple! You wouldnt go to a restaurant and tell them you will pay at the end of the month would you! Or that your employer would pay them in a few weeks after filling in these forms! No matter how nice their beef wellington is they will still say no!

by: Maestro

Lets stop with the crap analogies eh!

by: whmon

The saving would be that even if a percentage of the money was collected in, it would be better than zero being collected in.

by: Maestro

The tax credits would stop as soon as the parents/carers took them out of the nursery so no good if they did a bunk owing any notice period. If you have allowed them to accumalate an increasing debt then yes, I agree any payment is better than no payment, but the cost of time and administration would not really make it worth it, unless you accounted for an amount in the nursery fees.

As I have said, far simpler and more cost effective to take payment every week and suspend nursery places if there is no payment. Many services require pre-payment, there are not many that dont these days.

by: Annie

I owned my own nurseries in the private sector, I paid myself a wage though not as much as I received in Social services but the going rate for a nursery manager in the private sector, I have many qualifications too and  I understand your frustrations but the fact is that many nurseries do use trainees instead of staff , do run understaffed and  do pay low wages. I go around many nurseries as part of my job and I talk to man y managers - some clued up, some in cloud cuckoo land.The fact is childcare is expensive if you do it right and parents can't afford to pay what it would cost. As a tax payer should the government pay for children to be minded 

RE: RE: analogy- owners - 02-04-08 09:21

by: Tunja

"As a tax payer should the government pay for children to be minded?"

Well, paying for them to be minded would possibly be more cost effective than nursery as there are lower overheads to cover and from September the EYFS will apply to both settings.