We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum. This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are - or become - political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Childminder charging me for her holidays?
Comments
-
Not that it's any childminder's fault or responsibility - but I do find it odd that capable professional women are forced out of the job market solely due to the cost of childcare. And it doesn't even have to be "fancy" childcare like a private nanny - childminders are generally considered the cheapest option but even their services work out too expensive for many women that consider going back to work.
That's a shame and that's definitely not right.
so whats the solution?
women who childmind are also workers!
they cannot be expected to work for much less than they do already, surely?
unless the government subsidise them or something but them im sure you would have a whole lot of other people up in arms about that
i hate to say this and im not usually one who does, but if you choose to have children then you choose to take the pitfalls that go with that, and paying for childcare while you work is one of them£608.98
£80
£1288.99
£85.90
£154.980 -
If the worst happened, it would be no consolation at all. However, less serious accidents can happen even in the best regulated situations, and if an accident led to the loss of teeth, for example, then being able to claim private dental treatment from the insurer could make a horrible situation marginally better.galvanizersbaby wrote: »Yes I agree with you - I have wondered how being insured would be any consolation.
Or if parents had to take a lot of time off work to care for an injured child, insurance might help with that: TBH I don't know exactly what it covers, but I'm thinking of other kinds of insurance which cover a multitude of situations, not just the 'worst case'.Signature removed for peace of mind0 -
thatgirlsam wrote: »so whats the solution?
women who childmind are also workers!
they cannot be expected to work for much less than they do already, surely?
unless the government subsidise them or something but them im sure you would have a whole lot of other people up in arms about that
i hate to say this and im not usually one who does, but if you choose to have children then you choose to take the pitfalls that go with that, and paying for childcare while you work is one of them
Actually I do think that government needs to subsidide the childcare sector. And I don't mean the ridiculous CTC which is only good for families with income below average - as if families on average income can afford £1000 childcare fees per child per month.
Government is more than happy to fund women who "chose to have children" (one, two, three or as many as they wish) as well as their unemployed partners by providing them with free accommodation and enough money to raise families without ever needing to work. So why shouldn't it subsidise nurseries and childminders to make childcare free for women who actually want to work? I don't see why many people would be against this shift in governmental funding?0 -
In order to be self -employed there are criteria you have to meet. Paid holidays would be an indication you should be treated as employed. As I stated the National childminding authorities have issued guidance to CM that they should not charge full for their holidays for this reason . I checked this very throughouly when the issue arose for me.
I am really suprised that a person running courses would be teaching CM that they should charge full or that they have a choice. Once again they are putting a risk a very benefical status-self employment.
As a I work in this area I think it is something I will follow up. Probably time the whole matter was investigated more thoroughly. The childminders in my area have 6 children at £4 an hour =£24 an hour they are the able to deduct a huge amount of expenses -including an element of their own household expenses. The net result is that they are getting a very reasonable amount of money whilst often doing what they want to do ie shop etc.
The whole less than the minimum wage arguement does not hold water .
I think if you want to be treated as self employed then you take the risks and disadvatages of self employment ie that you don't not get paid for holidays. It is acceptable to take a notional or reduced fee to hold a place but it is unacceptable to take a full fee for the CM own holidays or for Bank holidays when you are by your own choice not providing a service.
I'm grateful to the OP as it has reminded me how much this situation annoys me and I will make sure I speak with the relevant people at the Inalnd Revenue and at the Childminding Association.
I do not recommend that they charge for holidays, I am an accredited tutor for the National Childminding association and you only have to google the query and find that many Childminding information sites talk about the paying holiday versus not paying holiday.
I know the information I am giving out is correct as I was observed on my last lesson which covered this very topic by an NCMA regional lead tutor! I am also brought in by other local authorities because of the quality of our training and information!
Please see the link below to an NCMA guide to childcare go to pg 19 and you will find questions to ask, not my local authority but useful anyway
http://www.chesterford.org.uk/images/how_to_choose_a_childminder.pdf
it mentions about what fees may need paying for childminder holidays!!
another one direct from the NCMA website
http://www.ncma.org.uk/for_parents/working_with_your_childminder/holidays_and_sickness.aspx
I think it clarifies the situation clearly, I could add more links but quite frankly see no point and am quite insulted that you have called into question my professionalism!
As far as I am concerned, as long as it is all discussed before contracts are signed and all are in agreement when signing then its is up to the parents what they pay and the childminders what they charge!'we don't stop playing because we get old, we get old because we stop playing'0 -
:rotfl:Actually I do think that government needs to subsidide the childcare sector. And I don't mean the ridiculous CTC which is only good for families with income below average - as if families on average income can afford £1000 childcare fees per child per month.
Government is more than happy to fund women who "chose to have children" (one, two, three or as many as they wish) as well as their unemployed partners by providing them with free accommodation and enough money to raise families without ever needing to work. So why shouldn't it subsidise nurseries and childminders to make childcare free for women who actually want to work? I don't see why many people would be against this shift in governmental funding?
Are you serious?
It would cost an absolute fortune to subsidise childcare to make it free for everyone to work if they wanted to. I don't see why the taxpayer should be expected to pay for this, except for those on low incomes, as it is at the moment.
I'm a sahm, as I wanted to be one and it wasn't worth my while working as childcare is expensive and my job was min wage. After I had dd2, childcare would have cost more than I earned.
When deciding to have children, the cost of childcare, going part time or giving up work is just one of many thing you have to take into account. Most people have to cut back somewhere to afford it, unless you have a relative who will do it for free.0 -
If the worst happened, it would be no consolation at all. However, less serious accidents can happen even in the best regulated situations,and if an accident led to the loss of teeth, for example, then being able to claim private dental treatment from the insurer could make a horrible situation marginally better.
Or if parents had to take a lot of time off work to care for an injured child, insurance might help with that: TBH I don't know exactly what it covers, but I'm thinking of other kinds of insurance which cover a multitude of situations, not just the 'worst case'.
Yes that would be useful but a quick goggle for childminders insurance indicates that it may not cover that sort of thing (course there are possibly policies that would)
http://www.mortonmichel.com/child/summary.htm0 -
:rotfl:
Are you serious?
It would cost an absolute fortune to subsidise childcare to make it free for everyone to work if they wanted to. I don't see why the taxpayer should be expected to pay for this, except for those on low incomes, as it is at the moment.
I'm a sahm, as I wanted to be one and it wasn't worth my while working as childcare is expensive and my job was min wage. After I had dd2, childcare would have cost more than I earned.
When deciding to have children, the cost of childcare, going part time or giving up work is just one of many thing you have to take into account. Most people have to cut back somewhere to afford it, unless you have a relative who will do it for free.
Yes, I am absolutely serious. I happen to come from the country where this is how the childcare sector works - most nurseries are state-owned and free. True, there is a waiting list to some of them.
At the same time, women do not get council houses and indefinite generous state support if they have children and neither do unemployed people.
That's what I mean by the shift in governmental funding.0 -
Fly baby are you from Sweden or Denmark? I would love to go to Denmark to see forest school in its true sense and the quality of the childcare, they do really put the funding in and you can tell, same with Sweden.
Can't see it happening here though but can see both sides of the argument!'we don't stop playing because we get old, we get old because we stop playing'0 -
Yes, I am absolutely serious. I happen to come from the country where this is how the childcare sector works - most nurseries are state-owned and free. True, there is a waiting list to some of them.
At the same time, women do not get council houses and indefinite generous state support if they have children and neither do unemployed people.
That's what I mean by the shift in governmental funding.
What country's that?
While I don't think people should be on benefits long term and keep on having children if they're in a position to work, what would happen to their children if their parents didn't receive benefits? They didn't ask to be born.
Personally I don't think the taxpayer should be subsidising everybody's childcare and wouldn't want to see a huge increase in tax to pay for this.0 -
choccymoose wrote: »Fly baby are you from Sweden or Denmark? I would love to go to Denmark to see forest school in its true sense and the quality of the childcare, they do really put the funding in and you can tell, same with Sweden.
Can't see it happening here though but can see both sides of the argument!
No, from a different one.
Why cant you see it happening here (this is a genuine question)?0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 347.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 251.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 451.7K Spending & Discounts
- 239.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 615.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 175K Life & Family
- 252.6K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards