Daughter Going to Playschool, Same Pay for Childminder??

saggycaggy

Hi,

Just a wee question in relation to payment for our childminder. My daughters childminder looks after my 3 year old daughter from 9am-6pm 5 days a week (Mon-Fri).

From September onwards my daughter will be attending playschool from 9am-12.15pm Mon to Friday, the playschool is next door to the childminders.
I am just wondering should we ask for a bit if a discount from the childminder since she will be looking after our daughter for less hours in the week or should we still pay her the same?
She is paid on a weekly basis and not an hourly basis.

Thanks!

Wantobe

I think that's very reasonable- in fact I probably wouldn't be asking if it will change- it would be phrased more like-'Now that Sarah is in playschool for three hours each morning what will the pay change be?'

Maglight

Will your child minder be expected to be on call if your child is ill and can't go to playschool; needs to be picked up early; cover for days when the playschool is closed? If yes then it's not fair to pay less.

Will your childminder be able to get another child to fill the morning hours that are now freed up with your child going to playschool? Can your childminder afford to look after your child part time or will she need to take on a different child fulltime. Do you risk losing a trusted childminder because it's now uneconomical to look after your child.

It's a funny thing. Childcare arrangments usually go sour because of money issues between the adults. It's rarely because of a bad relationship between minder and child.

emmeim

Your childminder will hardly be able to mind another child for those hours so I don’t think you’ll get a reduction. I wouldn’t be expecting one if it was me in that situation. From reading other forums on childcare most people don’t offer a discount for playschool hours as they are dropping off child and picking up child.

ash23

On the one hand I can see why you would think less hours = less pay. On the other hand your minder can't be expected to take a cut in pay because you want your child to attend a playschool for a few hours every day.

I'd broach it with her but I'd expect her to disagree and then it's up to yourself as to what to do.

Moonbeam

Maybe a very small discount but that is all.
She still has to be available to look after the child and can't earn alternative money in the mornings.

saggycaggy

Thanks for the replies and feedback.

Thinking about it now I don't think I am going to mention anything to the childminder and I will just continue to pay her the same amount. As was mentioned above, she will need to be available for us if our daughter is sick or can't attend playschool etc and i'd hate for any arrangements to turn any way sour if I dropped her pay as she's brilliant with our daughter and is very accomodating.

I would probably have to think differently if we were paying for the playschool year also but thankfully we don't have to worry about that.

Thanks again.

Rabidlamb

Saggycaggy, went through something similar with our Childminder.
We started our guy early in playschool & as we had to fund it we dropped her wage.
When the next year came round the state covered the early childcare place so we brought her back up to the standard rate.
We didn't pay great but we paid her 52 weeks a year so she stayed faithful to us.

Frank Black

We agreed €10 less per day with our childminder on days when our little girl attends playschool - she's there for 3 hours a day.

saggycaggy

Well I was only thinking of €10-€20 less per week, just to save us a little bit! We do pay her 52 weeks of the year aand like your childminder Rabidlamb ours is also v.faithful to us.

Fittle

I am always amused at the way people jump to the defence of childminders and their pay - there's a similar thread here somewhere.

This whole 'Can you get another child to fill your childs place' really isn't the OP's responsibility.

Childminding is like any job - if a parent decides to send their child to playschool then the minder either decides to accept the reduction in cost, or gets another full time child. I would love if I had a 45hour a week job paying 200euro (for example). And then my hours were cut to 28hours per week and I still got the same pay. How can you expect to take the same amount of money from your customer for your service (in this case, the OP), when you are in fact now providing that service for 17 hours less per week????

OP, if I was you, I would have a chat with her about obviously reducing her rate. If you do need her to collect early/cover for times when the creche is closed etc, you can of course pay her for those extra hours when and if the need arises.


But the way people here almost always say that childminders should continue to be paid because they can't be expected to accept a reduction due to a decision the parents make (sending the child to a creche for a few hours each morning in this instance) continues to amaze me.

ash23

Fittle wrote: »

I am always amused at the way people jump to the defence of childminders and their pay - there's a similar thread here somewhere.

This whole 'Can you get another child to fill your childs place' really isn't the OP's responsibility.

Childminding is like any job - if a parent decides to send their child to playschool then the minder either decides to accept the reduction in cost, or gets another full time child. I would love if I had a 45hour a week job paying 200euro (for example). And then my hours were cut to 28hours per week and I still got the same pay. How can you expect to take the same amount of money from your customer (in this case, the OP), when you are in fact working 17 hours less per week????

OP, if I was you, I would have a chat with her about obviously reducing her rate. If you do need her to collect early/cover for times when the creche is closed etc, you can of course pay her for those extra hours.

But the way people here almost always say that childminders should continue to be paid because they can't be expected to accept a reduction due to a decision the parents make (sending the child to a creche for a few hours each morning in this instance) continues to amaze me.

Fittle if your job came to you and said they were reducing your hours you'd most likely accept initially but start looking for another job which paid in full.

The logic behind defending the pay is when people are saying they are happy with the minder but through no fault of the minder want to reduce their pay.
It is always possible to find a cheaper minder but if someone wants to keep their minder then they can't expect to cut their pay and have the minder be ok with that.
In some instances, it may suit a minder to have a reduced pay for less hours but for most it's their income and they need it just as much as we need our wages. And for most they will find another child whose parents will pay the full rate so they won't be out of pocket. For the sake of €10 per week, most parents will not want to lose their trusted minder.

Of course parents can tell their minder they are cutting their wage and leave it to the minder to suck it up. But can they expect to keep their minder and do that? Unlikely. So it's the parents choice as to which is more important. The money or keeping the childminder.

Fittle

ash23 wrote: »

Fittle if your job came to you and said they were reducing your hours you'd most likely accept initially but start looking for another job which paid in full.

The logic behind defending the pay is when people are saying they are happy with the minder but through no fault of the minder want to reduce their pay.
It is always possible to find a cheaper minder but if someone wants to keep their minder then they can't expect to cut their pay and have the minder be ok with that.
In some instances, it may suit a minder to have a reduced pay for less hours but for most it's their income and they need it just as much as we need our wages. And for most they will find another child whose parents will pay the full rate so they won't be out of pocket. For the sake of €10 per week, most parents will not want to lose their trusted minder.

I just completely disagree that ANYONE can expect the same pay for reduced hours. The fact that these are her wages etc, is not the OP's responsibility - if the minder is that stuck, it's up to her to get another child for those hours. It is wrong to put a guilt-trip onto the OP. And it's wrong that the minder should expect to be paid for a service she is not providing!

I have had my share of minders and we are now settled with a lovely one. I had (foolishly) been continuing to pay her when I didn't use her - summer hols, xmas hols etc. She told me about 18 months ago that she was embarrassed taking my money for doing nothing for me!
Nowadays, I pay her when my son is being minded by her. No matter who decides she can't - i.e. whether I am off work or she is not available.
If she's not minding my child, I don't pay her.

I think this whole paying people to 'keep the childs place' is a remnant of the celtic tiger when creches were extortionately over-priced.

A minder is not a creche remember - a minder is (usually) another parent who is making one extra dinner per day, or making on extra trip to a school per day. It is a completely different situation than a creche, and should not be treated in the same way in my opinion.

Wantobe

I agree with Fittle- the childminder is not minding the child for the same amount of hours. In fact the very nature of childminding is that the childminder is going to eventually have less and less hours- it's not as if this is an unexpected event- surely it's commonplace and even expected.

But if the difference is only 10 per week and that amount is relatively insignificant to the OP ( and I have friends for whom 40 per month is actually a large sum of money at the moment especially) and it could cause resentment then of course the OP should take all that into consideration.

ash23

Fittle wrote: »

I just completely disagree that ANYONE can expect the same pay for reduced hours. The fact that these are her wages etc, is not the OP's responsibility - if the minder is that stuck, it's up to her to get another child for those hours. It is wrong to put a guilt-trip onto the OP. And it's wrong that the minder should expect to be paid for a service she is not providing!

I don't know that anyone is of the frame of mind that someone should be paid for hours they don't work. however it is the OPs choice to cut the hours, not the minders. If my hours in work were reduced it would impact me financially and as a result I would have to find another job. It's similar here. The only way the OP can realistically expect her minder to keep her child is if she pays her the same rate. She can risk cutting her pay and hours and losing her. Thats fair enough. But if she wants to keep her, she might want to consider that this is her minders income and they might not be able to afford to take a cut.

I have had my share of minders and we are now settled with a lovely one. I had (foolishly) been continuing to pay her when I didn't use her - summer hols, xmas hols etc. She told me about 18 months ago that she was embarrassed taking my money for doing nothing for me!
Nowadays, I pay her when my son is being minded by her. No matter who decides she can't - i.e. whether I am off work or she is not available.
If she's not minding my child, I don't pay her.

I think this whole paying people to 'keep the childs place' is a remnant of the celtic tiger when creches were extortionately over-priced.

I don't agree about it being a remnant of the Celtic Tiger. I think you are very fortunate to have a minder who is ok with only being paid when she has the child. But from experience and minders I know, they rely on the income and need it and can't afford to take a hit on a parents whim.

A minder is not a creche remember - a minder is (usually) another parent who is making one extra dinner per day, or making on extra trip to a school per day. It is a completely different situation than a creche, and should not be treated in the same way in my opinion.

I have a childminder now and still pay her when I choose for my child not to be there on an agreed day. If she can't work I don't pay but if she is available and willing to work on that day, she should be paid. If you went into work and the building was closed for some reason beyond your control, you'd expect to be paid. You showed up and were available, you should be paid.

Similarly if work cut your hours and your wages, you would have to accept it, agreed. But you would not have to stay there if something better came up.
It's the same here. OP can tell her minder she is getting a pay cut and hope it's ok but she might lose her childminder.
If she's willing to take that chance, she should. Personally I wouldn't risk that for the sake of a tenner a week.

Moonbeam

Look on it a different way, the childminder is on call while the child is in play school and I don't know anyone that does not get paid for their on call.

Fittle

ash23 wrote: »

If my hours in work were reduced it would impact me financially and as a result I would have to find another job. It's similar here. The only way the OP can realistically expect her minder to keep her child is if she pays her the same rate.

Look, you're entitled to your opinion but I don't agree with you and I think by saying that the only way for the OP to keep this minder, is not to cut her rate is laying a guilt trip on the OP.

This is NOT the same as your job. This woman is at home each day and minding the OPs child - if she's not minding the child, why on earth should she be paid???? It's just inherently wrong to pay someone for a service when they aren't providing you with the service - no matter who decides that!

I would also reduce the minders rate much more than 10e per week! A reduction from 45 hours to approximately 28hours a week is about 35-40% reduction in hours - I'd reduce the rate accordingly.

If I was going to reduce the rate at all, that's what I'd be doing.

Fittle

Moonbeam wrote: »

Look on it a different way, the childminder is on call while the child is in play school and I don't know anyone that does not get paid for their on call.

You can look at anything in a different way and come up with a different solution, but the childminder isn't 'on call'!. It's not like her employer (the OP) is asking her to sit in her home from 9am - 12.15pm in case she needs her!! I imagine the minder can go about her daily business in those few hours (do her shopping etc) - and why should the OP pay her for those hours???

If she needs her in those hours, fair enough, she can pay her for whatever service she provides - but to pay her for those hours when the woman will not be minding her child....have you all lost your mind

ash23

You don't have to agree and I'm not laying a guilt trip on her at all. I'm just letting her know that a consequence of her cutting the hours may be that she loses the minder.
Similarly to when I've told minders that a consequence of them asking for a pay increase may result in the parents moving the child.

OP asked for opinions yes? I'm giving mine based on my own experiences. You're giving yours. We don't have to agree. That's ok.

Fittle

Are you suggesting the OP continues to pay the 45hour a week rate when the child starts school next year too so? When is it 'ok' in your opinion for the OP to cut the minders wages?

ash23

Fittle wrote: »

Are you suggesting the OP continues to pay the 45hour a week rate when the child starts school next year too so? When is it 'ok' in your opinion for the OP to cut the minders wages?

As I've said, quite clearly I thought, Op can suggest a paycut at anytime. When the child starts school she can suggest an afterschool rate and a full day rate for the days off etc. And if the minder likes it, she can accept it. If not, she may choose to get a younger baby in who will be fulltime.

Same as now. Op can suggest a paycut, minder can accept or decline.

Fittle

ash23 wrote: »

As I've said, quite clearly I thought, Op can suggest a paycut at anytime. When the child starts school she can suggest an afterschool rate and a full day rate for the days off etc. And if the minder likes it, she can accept it. If not, she may choose to get a younger baby in who will be fulltime.

Same as now. Op can suggest a paycut, minder can accept or decline.

And why can't she ask for a similar after school rate now?
What's the difference?
The child will be in creche until 12.15 - it will only be one hour later next year when school starts.

Frank Black

OP seems to be generating a lot of different opinions.
We’re lucky we’ve always had a good relationship with our CM and we use the following system.
If we’ve pre-arranged with our CM that kids are not being dropped in i.e. holidays and suchlike, then we don’t pay for that day.
If it’s a last minute thing e.g. one of the kids is sick and either myself or OH have to take a day off work – then we do pay CM for that day.
When our girl started playschool, CM was not looking after her between 9.00 – 12.00 so we paid €10 less per day – now previous posters have mentioned that CM is still ‘on call’ during this time but I disagree, I would consider that myself and the OH are the ones on call if there was any issue at the playschool – thankfully, this has never cropped up.
It really depends on what relationship you feel you have with your CM, but I personally don’t see any issue in paying less money for less CM hours (and if our CM feels different, she’s never raised the issue with us).

ash23

Fittle wrote: »

And why can't she ask for a similar after school rate now?
What's the difference?
The child will be in creche until 12.15 - it will only be one hour later next year when school starts.

Nothing. I've already said she can. Are you reading my posts?
There will be 2 hours less when the child goes to school so no point agreeing a rate for that now. But she can ask for a reduction and the minder may agree, may not. OP may get to pay less or she may have to find a new childminder.

That's the risk anyone takes when negotiating a pay decrease/change of terms with their minder.

Fittle

ash23 wrote: »

Nothing. I've already said she can. Are you reading my posts?
There will be 2 hours less when the child goes to school so no point agreeing a rate for that now. But she can ask for a reduction and the minder may agree, may not. OP may get to pay less or she may have to find a new childminder.

That's the risk anyone takes when negotiating a pay decrease/change of terms with their minder.

Most junior infants get off school at 1.30, so its only one and a quarter hours more than creche. And I agree with black francais, when the child is in creche it's the parents who are 'on-call'.

You have already stated that 'The only way the OP can realistically expect her minder to keep her child is if she pays her the same rate' so yes, I am reading your posts.

ash23

Fittle wrote: »

Most junior infants get off school at 1.30, so its only one and a quarter hours more than creche. And I agree with black francais, when the child is in creche it's the parents who are 'on-call'.

You have already stated that 'The only way the OP can realistically expect her minder to keep her child is if she pays her the same rate' so yes, I am reading your posts.

Well yes, i believe that if she cuts her minders rates/hours, the minder will look for another child. I also said on many, many, many occasions that it's a risk.
In fact my very first post on the issue is

On the one hand I can see why you would think less hours = less pay. On the other hand your minder can't be expected to take a cut in pay because you want your child to attend a playschool for a few hours every day.

I'd broach it with her but I'd expect her to disagree and then it's up to yourself as to what to do.

so I'm still saying the same thing.

My daughters class finished at 2.15pm up to 1st class as do all the local schools here so I wuldn't say it's definite that it's only going to be an hour less once the child goes to school.

implausible

saggycaggy wrote: »

the playschool is next door to the childminders.

I think that this is very important. Often, in this situation, a childminder would have to drop the child off and pick them up, incurring motoring and inconvenience costs. This is not the situation here, so I personally think it's fair to be paying less for childminding. Not only is she having the child for fewer hours, but dropping the child to playschool couldn't be easier.

As for the "on-call" issue, surely if a child had an accident, a parent would be rushing home from work anyway, regardless of whether the child is at the childminders, in playschool or at school. The childminder is hardly going to be sitting in the house waiting for the phone to ring. As another poster pointed out, she can go about her business for those 3 hours off.

OP, does your childminder take other children? If she does, you could ask what has happened in those situations. If this situation hasn't arisen before, she will probably be expecting a pay conversation.

saggycaggy

Thanks again for the replies, I think at first I thought it was black and white, less hours = less pay but then I wasn't too sure which is why I asked.
I know I said that I would ask for a €10-€20 cut per week which would be €40-€80 per month which would actually be significant to us, it would cover a bill for 1 month or pay off extra off our loans.
Our childminder looks after two other children two days per week so is also getting paid for these children. I have no idea what pay she gets for these children but one of them is attending primary school so I assume it's less than what I am paying.
To be honest I am more confused now, I do not want to loose our minder-she is brilliant with out daughter and we even brought her abroad with us when we got married last year to look after our daughter on our wedding day so we think highly of her.
I think I will sit down and talk to her and see can we negotiate a slight decrease considering the less hours our daughter is in her care.

nicowa

saggycaggy wrote: »

Thanks again for the replies, I think at first I thought it was black and white, less hours = less pay but then I wasn't too sure which is why I asked.
I know I said that I would ask for a €10-€20 cut per week which would be €40-€80 per month which would actually be significant to us, it would cover a bill for 1 month or pay off extra off our loans.
Our childminder looks after two other children two days per week so is also getting paid for these children. I have no idea what pay she gets for these children but one of them is attending primary school so I assume it's less than what I am paying.
To be honest I am more confused now, I do not want to loose our minder-she is brilliant with out daughter and we even brought her abroad with us when we got married last year to look after our daughter on our wedding day so we think highly of her.
I think I will sit down and talk to her and see can we negotiate a slight decrease considering the less hours our daughter is in her care.

I think you could ask for the slight decrease you're suggesting. She's already got a few other kids in her care and I think most people responding didn't realise that. She's already at home during the day with one of them. Espicially with the fact that she's right beside the playschool it shouldn't be too much of a problem.

LashingLady

As someone mentioned before, kids going to playschool and school is a natural progression that childminders are well aware of. Realistically from now on you are never going to be going back to full-time childminding except for holiday time.

I think you would be well within your rights to discuss with the minder a new rate considering your child is going to playschool. She knows the story, and maybe she will get another younger toddler in aswell. If you weren't getting the free year then you wouldn't even be asking this, it would be a given that the CM rates would cut. The childcare burden is such a big one. For the early years a lot of women I know are spending most of their salary on childcare. The govt are giving us this free year, take some benefit from it if you can, I'm sure your CM knows the story......