I’ve dealt with this one differently with different of my kids. I think the most important thing is to look for the best childcare situation, the one that you’ll feel best about leaving your child in. Then, all things being equal, there are plusses and minuses on both sides. If the childcare is near your husband’s job, you are spared some of the hassles of getting the kid out the door in the morning — when I first went back to work, it really helped to have my husband getting Pete mostly dressed and in the car – it meant that I only had to get myself out the door, which seemed hard enough. Also, it meant that I got home first and could have a few minutes to relax and get dinner organized before they got home. Later, Pete was at a school where I could take him, and I enjoyed the drive to and from work with him very much — it was our best conversation time. The only real disadvantage of having childcare close to a job and relatively far from home is what happens when you change jobs.
I would suggest finding the best possible child care, putting preference on close to home. If you have confidence in the care giver the distance will not be so great. If something really terrible happens they will get your child to a hospital faster than you could leave work, pick them up, etc. No matter where the child care is located. Talk to the doctor about medical release forms if you are really worried. My preference on close to home deals with how much time you want to spend in the car, during rush hour, with a tired hungry child. Remember that the childcare jobs location you are choosing will be used for several years.
It makes a certain amount of theoretical sense, and, yes, you’re off-base on this. First, parents (or other guardians) have a joint full responsibility for the child. If they agree on a 50-50 split, and one of them (for any reason) does only 25 percent of the work at a given time, the other one can’t just stand back and say, “I’m doing my 50 percent.” The _work_ may be split 50-50, but the _responsibility_ is split 100-100. I just don’t see it making sense, socially, legally, or in any other real-world way, for an employer to be in a position to say, “Yes, your child has a high fever, but we think your spouse should take a sick day instead, so the kid’s just going to have to sit home alone and uncared for.”
I agree that it would not help the workers much because the cost of living goes up even if they get no raise. So it goes up but they are now paying more, by the time the minimum wage is increased in 2007 they will be paying double at gas tanks, for rent, for CDs, and whatnot. To really make an impact they would have to earn at least $15.00 per hour for normal full time jobs. The salary for childcare jobs also increases.
America’s workers are paying continuously rising costs for goods and services, yet those who earn very low wages have gone seven years with no action by Congress to raise the minimum wage and help them meet those costs. For too many working families a full-time job does not provide enough money to support a family. Raising the minimum wage would increase families’ ability to pay for child care, housing, food and medicine.
Parents and children in rural areas also face a disadvantage – 83% of rural parishes have no private nursery, 93% no public nursery and 92% no out-of-school childcare. The report says: “Only 10% of employees in the UK now work a standard 40-hour week, but flexible childcare services have not been developed to meet the needs of shift workers who still depend on multiple informal arrangements. With both parents in nearly 70% of couples working, there is a demand for an all-day service for three and four-year-olds, not just part-time nursery education places.
Sole custodial parents (generally women) would/should always get the time off (in their case, there’s no one else to do it). Married parents (or parents with joint custody) would only get half the time off. Since time=money (put another way, time off is a compensable factor) a decision by an employer such as you suggest has an adverse impact (i.e. is discrimination) against people based on marital (actually child custodial) status.
In childcare jobs centers, the regulations state that you have to have the required qualifications. If not, you have a small time period in which you have to enrol and commence studies. From memory, it is about a month or two. Most teachers who wish to teach in the 3-5yr age group are required to have a 4 year degree, whereas the Group Leader is only required to have a 2 year degree.
The child care industry and Head Start set this up for themselves. Child care pays only slightly over minimum wage for most workers. Head Start is (except for the rare cases where HS is part of a school system) only slightly better paid. Right now, there is no reason, other than pure altruism, for someone with an early childhood credential to teach child care/preschool. A certified early childhood teacher can about double her salary and work an easier schedule by teaching indergarten or primary grades in a public school-and have almost assured employment since there aren’t enough qualified teachers to go around. Most childcare jobs centers are still on hourly pay, and it is not uncommon to be sent either to cover another classroom or be sent home if the child-staff ratio drops to the point that you’re not needed. Benefits are relatively rare in the industry.
When Rudy Torres, now 16, first went to Washington high school in South Central Los Angeles, he had dozens of classmates. Now most of them have disappeared. “Some of them joined gangs and got killed, a couple of the girls got pregnant, some just dropped out,” says Rudy, whose father was shot dead when he was aged one and whose mother has two childcare jobs to support the family.
