Public is paying for Trudeau Nannies

374 posts / 0 new
Last post
Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture
Public is paying for Trudeau Nannies

http://globalnews.ca/news/2372819/trudeau-spokesperson-defends-familys-use-of-taxpayer-funded-caregivers/?hootPostID=f74914a553f54431be1216a0be67e6a8 

So it appears that the public is funding chilcare for the Trudeau family under the guise of official function. My problem with this isn't that they're getting public money for this. Maybe as PM, it is "part of the office", maybe a "perk".

What gets me though is how hypocirtical it is. During the election, the Libs attacked the NDP's childcare proposal and offered a tax credit instead. The problem with a tax credit is it is money later, and not necessarily enough. The Trudeau's, Canadas premiere "power-couple", are getting real time funding for this while everyone else under junior's plan would have to wait with no gaurantee they'd benefit in any susbstantial way under the tax code.

The NDP got it wrong on child care. They should have said we're going to tax Corproations and use the money to fund national childcare. But to see Trudeau immeidately take adantage of the public purse, especialy given the fact he ie wealty man, married to a woman with a susbstatial professional career where she earns/earned high income is galling. T

This is simply entitlement. It is more of the same. Its more of a few crumbs for the masses and pletnty for them. The hypocracy here is breath taking. Its shows his priorities. He gets help immeidiately and everyone else can wait to see if they are going to get enough. This is galling.

Again, as PM, I suppose you can argue this is necessary, though why they need 2 aides for three children is beyone me. But if the public purse is good enough for the Trudeaus, shouldn't it be open and good enough for the public?

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Why is this ariticle focused on childcare? Of course the Trudeau's should pay for their own child care, and their own chef, and their own car driver and their own etc. etc. Focusing on childcare is just more right wing crap being served up and spewed across the internet.  Notice how the story about the Chef was not about how outrageous it was that we paid for a Chef but whether or not the Chef had a right to stay on in a public paid role. This story is a prime example of the devaluation of work that is traditonally done by women.

The devaluation is even more apparent with the lousy wages being paid. The only question I have is who negotiated on behalf of the staff?  If these are positions paid for by Treasury Board I find the rates appalling.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

K,  you are right on and I agree, the rates are terrible. My focus is on the issue of public childcare. Obviously, the Trudeau's can't see the irony or hypocricy in this. The LPC was fine attacking the NDP's childcare plan, and only offering a "money-later" tax credit. That is so galling. But I would argue it is typical of how Liberals approach governance. I have argued over and over Libs approach this with a feeling of privilege. This is just one more example of that arrogance and disregard for the public. It is galling. But the bigger issue is why isn't publically funded childcare at the front of the Liberals agenda here? It is also an example of his tone deafness. We will see more of this.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Yup Arthur, the Liberals will be Liberals.  Its too bad that the NDP is run by people who purposely looked and sounded like liberals during the campaign. After all as I am told over and over again on this board by NDP partisans, the way to power is to be a big box party representing the middle class but more akin to Costco than Walmart.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Well the only solace I see in this is that people are going to remember this. He will do more of this because he's basiscallly a tone-deaf man; that is what I thought of him and is one of the things I can't stand about him, or the Libs for that matter. If I were the NDP, I'd use this as an opporutnity to positivley pressure him for Daycare. Say something like, happy public can and should help the PM. Will the PM take this futher and insitute a nationally, fully funded National Daycare program? And then clobber him on his stance on Corproate taxes. The old NDP under Broadbent would have been all over this postively by now.

Sineed

Nope this is a sexist manufactroversy cooked up by the media. Justin Trudeau is the Prime Minister. He has teams of people looking after him and his family, including cooks, housekeepers, security people of course, and nannies. Like Kroptotkin says, why single out childcare among all the services paid for by the taxpayers that are unique to the Prime Minister? I mean, is Trudeau a hypocrite for not advocating for tax credits for people who have personal chefs because he has one (or several)?

We don't expect him to pay for his security, his food, or his maids. Why the childcare?

 

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Sineed wrote:

Nope this is a sexist manufactroversy cooked up by the media. Justin Trudeau is the Prime Minister. He has teams of people looking after him and his family, including cooks, housekeepers, security people of course, and nannies. Like Kroptotkin says, why single out childcare among all the services paid for by the taxpayers that are unique to the Prime Minister? I mean, is Trudeau a hypocrite for not advocating for tax credits for people who have personal chefs because he has one (or several)?

We don't expect him to pay for his security, his food, or his maids. Why the childcare?

 

Bull! The issue is his hypocricy. The Libs attacked the NDP's proposal but only offered a Tax Credit instead. Tax Credit's are "money-maybe-later", and useless but a typical neo-con solution. This is a chance for the Libs to lead.

Say OK, well tax Corporations and use that money to fund a National Daycare program open to everyone.

Deflect all you want The issue is hypocricy. I already said I have no issue giving the PM the money, though I think he should pay for itself. My issue is everyone else who needs the help should be able to get it the SAME way. THAT, is the REAL issue, here.

Badriya

Sineed wrote:

Nope this is a sexist manufactroversy cooked up by the media. Justin Trudeau is the Prime Minister. He has teams of people looking after him and his family, including cooks, housekeepers, security people of course, and nannies. Like Kroptotkin says, why single out childcare among all the services paid for by the taxpayers that are unique to the Prime Minister? I mean, is Trudeau a hypocrite for not advocating for tax credits for people who have personal chefs because he has one (or several)?

We don't expect him to pay for his security, his food, or his maids. Why the childcare?

It is not the fact that Trudeau has paid staff, it is the hypocrisy of on the one hand opposing the UCCB, maintaining during the election that "it’s wrong to give the benefit to wealthy families that don’t need help raising their kids. And to underscore that point, he’s going to give his own family’s windfall to charity." I hate to post an NP link, but it was the first one that came up.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/justin-trudeau-says-hes-giving-...

 

Unionist

Seriously, this is a Conservative talking point - which is why we see Rona Ambrose talking about it.

This isn't about hypocrisy. It's about the need for universal social programs, of which child care is one. If Trudeau pays for his own nannies, that will satisfy Ambrose, but not us. That's a hint that we shouldn't get distracted by it.

Trudeau gets a home paid for by taxpayers. Shall we shout hypocrisy because the Liberals eliminated the national housing program in the 1990s? Or shall we just demand a national housing program?

 

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Unionist, this is the point I was trying to make in starting this thread. Its that politicians of all strips say one thing and do another. But notwithstanding, what makes me mad is the way the Libs attacked the NDP Daycare proposal as unaffordable but only offered a Tax Credit, which is a pay you later and maybe you'll get enough, way of giviing people support. When you combine this with the Trudeau's combined wealth, this is galling. As Badriya said above, he talked about "windfalls" to the wealthy but here he is talking something he DOESN'T HAVE TO when he could pay for it easily HIMSELF. By itself this is not much, but it simply a sign of things to come. Libs will be Libs and there will be more of this. Its like listening to Kevin Lamoureux talking about how people should be allowed to risk their money in pooled pension plans when he has no intention of doind the same himself. But it is inonsense to say, don't talk about this because its a "Consercative Talking Point"; everything is being labelled this. Can't I object to this because of the hypcoricy and unfairness? Do I have to keep quiet because the Libs say I'm feeding the Con trolls? I still say the NDP should jump on this postiviely and make Trudeau publiclly commit to a National Childcare program. This is a perfect opportunity.

Paladin1

During the election Trudeau said he would send back the Universal Child Care Benefit because he doesn't need it.  He doesn't need it because he'll hire nannies on the tax payers expense lol

Sean in Ottawa

I don't have a huge problem with the idea that the PM gets these services paid for. That Trudeau said he did not need the childcare money was presumably at a time when he did not presume that he would win. I don't care very much about this reversal.

I am horrified by the rate of pay. I think this sends a disgusting message. I accept PMs get a public subsidy and I know that they tend to work hard. I would really like to push to shame Trudeau over as a rich member of the 1% like having a person work in his home and not earn a real living wage,

Of all people, the PM should show some leadership on making sure that the people hired for him earn a real, fair living wage.

I don't mind the public paying double the rate those caregivers are getting paid or if they won't, then let Trudeau pay some of the difference.

Yes, I would like to call for a national childcare program that respects the roles and value of care-givers. That is a policy issue but the pay an employee of the PM gets is a leadership issue.

Paladin1

I know a woman in Ottawa paying $1700 a month in child care for one child.  I'm pretty sure JT can afford to pay for his own.

wage zombie

Paladin1 wrote:

I know a woman in Ottawa paying $1700 a month in child care for one child.  I'm pretty sure JT can afford to pay for his own.

What does that come to per hour?

$1700 a month is $20,400 a year, just barely above the poverty line.

quizzical

Sineed wrote:
is Trudeau a hypocrite for not advocating for tax credits for people who have personal chefs because he has one (or several)?

We don't expect him to pay for his security, his food, or his maids. Why the childcare?

he's a hyprocrite because he said during the camaign tax payers would not be paying for his childcare as he was wealthy.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

It is an example of his sense of entitlement. We saw hints at this during the campaign. But he can prove me wrong; all he has to do is bring in fully pubiclly funded childcare and pay for it by taxing Corporations. This is easy to resolve He's claimed Jack's (blessed be his memory) leftist mantle, let's see him step up and prove it!

terrytowel

Both these workers are actually maids employed by the official residence of the PM. Their role is to "interface" with Trudeau's three children in a habitual way.

Paladin1

quizzical wrote:

Sineed wrote:
is Trudeau a hypocrite for not advocating for tax credits for people who have personal chefs because he has one (or several)?

We don't expect him to pay for his security, his food, or his maids. Why the childcare?

he's a hyprocrite because he said during the camaign tax payers would not be paying for his childcare as he was wealthy.

 

Exactly.

 

Instead of sending hundreds of millions of dollars to other countries why don't we do something to combat exorbitant child care costs.

Sineed

Unionist wrote:
Seriously, this is a Conservative talking point - which is why we see Rona Ambrose talking about it.

And why the National Post is going on about it. I voted orange and disagree with Trudeau on this issue. But he's not a hypocrite for having taxpayer-funded personal services. He's the frickkin Prime Minister.

Consider the subtext: Trudeau isn't supposed to have nannies because Mrs. Trudeau is supposed to stay home and take care of the kids instead of having a job outside the home. Or that childcare isn't a part of the usual running of the household that is paid for by the taxpayers without comment from the National Post. Why is that??

Though it would be a nice gesture if he turned in his salary back to the state, like John Kennedy did.

 

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

No Sineed, the subtext isn't Mrs. Trudeau staying home; the subtext is that Trudeau attacked the NDP Daycare plan, made a big song and dance out of rejecting the UCCB, and out of a promise to pay for his own childcare. I don't have an issue with paying for his childcare, though I resent it given his big mouth, cynical promises he made to get elected. I resent because it is typical of Liberals to claim the perks of office without shame, witout any worry about the message it sends. I say it again, why shouldn't the public also get fully funded public funded childecare. At least the NDP had a plan. The Libs resorted to trying to buy people off on childcare with their, own, limited amount, of money. That's what is so wrong about this.

mark_alfred

wage zombie wrote:

Paladin1 wrote:

I know a woman in Ottawa paying $1700 a month in child care for one child.  I'm pretty sure JT can afford to pay for his own.

What does that come to per hour?

$1700 a month is $20,400 a year, just barely above the poverty line.

That's one child.  Most child care centres have more than one child.

quizzical

Sineed i agree with AC. if he'd said nothing during the campaign while trashing the NDP's childcare platform, i wouldn't have cared. he did. now he's a hyprocrite and i don't give a shit whose reporting it. it doesn't make it less true.

and i also agree it's not about the subtext of Sophie staying home to look after the kids.

she had her own career while he was still an MP. they obviously paid their own childcare then as Justin claimed during the election so now they can pay it too.

and i'm really not on board for all the perks we pay for anyway. now i know about them.

Cody87

Can someone provide a source for Trudeau rejecting the UCCB? I'm not saying he didn't, but I only remember him rejecting income splitting on taxes for couples with children.

 

Questions that need to be answered before I can comment on the rate of pay: are the nannies live-in? How many hours do they work a week? Do they work together or take turns? Are they required to be "on call" even when they're off duty?

NorthReport

This is just sickening. Not only that but instead of a paying a premium for working the nite shift, Trudeau is paying less that the regular rate. 

Pondering

Unionist wrote:

Seriously, this is a Conservative talking point - which is why we see Rona Ambrose talking about it.

This isn't about hypocrisy. It's about the need for universal social programs, of which child care is one. If Trudeau pays for his own nannies, that will satisfy Ambrose, but not us. That's a hint that we shouldn't get distracted by it.

Trudeau gets a home paid for by taxpayers. Shall we shout hypocrisy because the Liberals eliminated the national housing program in the 1990s? Or shall we just demand a national housing program?

Exactly.

Criticisms of Trudeau and the Liberals can't be reactive on every little thing they do or don't do because it will become background noise.

His "sunny ways" and "non-partisan" approach to governing will not be beaten by partisanship and sniping. The first time I heard "sunny ways" I thought it was on the corny side but it was a smart move because it positions everyone else as "not sunny", as downers or nay-sayers, not the kind of people you want to follow. The opposition parties are in danger of being categorized as whiney losers.

For that reason criticism needs to be serious and at least come across as non-partisan and values based.

 

quizzical

offs pondering, the link is in another thread, maybe the Bravo Trudeau, to his actual words. it was prior to this thread's opening. stop denying when you know you're just trying to cover his ass.

and as for your making comments about non-partisanship. how about you try listening to your own words. as for values you have indicated the bottom line is where your values are so......values are subjective.

i value NOT being a hyprocrite. it's obvious you don't for example.

terrytowel

NorthReport wrote:

This is just sickening. Not only that but instead of a paying a premium for working the nite shift, Trudeau is paying less that the regular rate. 

Wealthy people have been known to pay the 'help' appaling low wages. Especially true for families who are famous, cause in their mind it is the prestige of working for someone famous that means more than the money.

Sean in Ottawa

Turns out it is the same nannies they had before and were paying themselves -- just that the public will now pay.

Pondering

And the trio’s parents are busier than most of us these days, with their father running a country and their mother doing the soft-diplomacy work demanded of the spouse of a head of state. The children have two occasional nannies, whose salaries, it was just reported, come out of the general housekeeping budget allotted to the prime minister’s family. This has led to varying degrees of outrage across social media and in the press. There’s the explicit criticism of the prime minister’s hypocrisy, since during the campaign he spoke out against Conservative tax and benefits policies that favoured wealthier families (like his) over poor ones. And then there’s the veiled critique of Gregoire-Trudeau’s approach to mothering.

Let’s take the hypocrisy argument first. That would carry more weight if the uproar were also about all the other expenses associated with running an official residence. For reasons both symbolic and practical, the prime minister and his or her family need to live in a home that is at once grand enough to host receptions and secure enough to function as a government office. The prime minister is not expected to pay for the running of this rarified household. We citizens and taxpayers cover that: We pay for the cooks and cleaners and snow shovelers and gardeners and drivers and security guards. Yet none of these salaries has caused a fuss. Nor have the salaries of those who work at Rideau Hall and Stornoway — though it would be far cheaper to house the governor general and the leader of the opposition in rental condos in ByWard Market and have them do their own dishes and vacuuming. ...

http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/public-paying-trudeau-nannies#new

Quizzical, as to partisanship, I'm not a politician looking to get elected in 2019.

I agree the hourly-rate is ridiculously low for both day and night but night nannies are paid less because there is little to no work to do. The children are sleeping. Great job for students.

quizzical

tt, the low wages are just another aspect to Justin's and Sophie's sense of privilege and thinking people will be appeased and not care too much about the lies because they're not paying a good wage to the TFWs. they're so out of touch with Canadian's reality, i'm getting more alarmed everyday.

their primary aspect is lying to get elected, and everything past is just topping on the liar's cake.

 

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Pondering wrote:

I agree the hourly-rate is ridiculously low for both day and night but night nannies are paid less because there is little to no work to do. The children are sleeping. Great job for students.

So it'd be OK to pay students less because they're students. That kind of logic is why there are unions. You sure you aren't a neo-con Pondering? Its OK to pay someone else becacuse they're still in school? Is that what you are saying?

quizzical

pondering, nor is anyone here running to be  elected but yet you leveled hyprocrisy charges at us all commenting about this in order to devalue our comments.

whoa Sean..so they paid their nannies poorly to begin with. not surprised.

 

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Cody87 wrote:

Questions that need to be answered before I can comment on the rate of pay: are the nannies live-in? How many hours do they work a week? Do they work together or take turns? Are they required to be "on call" even when they're off duty?

What difference does it make if they lilfe in, take turns are on call, etc.? Who cares. People are entitled to earn a living wage, live comfortably, and save for retirment. You know this is what they used to use to justify the low wages paid fruit and vegtable pickers in California. How do you think Ceasar Chavez was so successful in his union drives? What's next, its OK, they buy from the Company Store. Those things are arguments used by neo-cons to justify paying workers less. You know this is a left wing board, right?

Pondering

quizzical wrote:

pondering, nor is anyone here running to be  elected but yet you leveled hyprocrisy charges at us all commenting about this in order to devalue our comments.

whoa Sean..so they paid their nannies poorly to begin with. not surprised.

I've admitted many times to be partisan.

I haven't criticized anyone in this thread at all and certainly not called anyone hypocritical. I am referring to the NDP not individual posters.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Pondering this thread is not about the NDP. Its about Trudeau's hypocricy. Why are you trying to derail this thread?

swallow swallow's picture

Quote:

The children have two occasional nannies, whose salaries, it was just reported, come out of the general housekeeping budget allotted to the prime minister’s family. This has led to varying degrees of outrage across social media and in the press. There’s the explicit criticism of the prime minister’s hypocrisy, since during the campaign he spoke out against Conservative tax and benefits policies that favoured wealthier families (like his) over poor ones. And then there’s the veiled critique of Gregoire-Trudeau’s approach to mothering.

Let’s take the hypocrisy argument first. That would carry more weight if the uproar were also about all the other expenses associated with running an official residence. For reasons both symbolic and practical, the prime minister and his or her family need to live in a home that is at once grand enough to host receptions and secure enough to function as a government office. The prime minister is not expected to pay for the running of this rarified household. We citizens and taxpayers cover that: We pay for the cooks and cleaners and snow shovelers and gardeners and drivers and security guards. Yet none of these salaries has caused a fuss. Nor have the salaries of those who work at Rideau Hall and Stornoway — though it would be far cheaper to house the governor general and the leader of the opposition in rental condos in ByWard Market and have them do their own dishes and vacuuming. What’s more, no one is seriously proposing dumping 24 Sussex — the official PM residence in such desperate need of repairs that the Trudeaus haven’t been able to move in — even though the estimated costs of renovations (to be covered by tax payers) are upwards of $10-million.

Only someone unaware of the effort and work involved in raising kids would consider the care of the prime minister’s children an “unessential” household expense. Are the people who watch the Trudeau children less necessary than the people who maintain the family’s car? The Trudeaus aren’t the first family to pay for child care from the household budget: Brian Mulroney had a nanny (though, perhaps to avoid similar criticism, he called her a maid). But if there are questions about the nannies’ salaries, maybe we could start with why their fees are so low. At $15 to $20 an hour during the day — and $11 to $13 an hour at night — for official prime ministerial babysitting, Canadian taxpayers are getting off cheap.

What’s been unsaid in the criticism (but is nonetheless understood by many women) is that this is in part a judgment on Sophie Gregoire-Trudeau — a mother who, like most mothers, gets criticized when she is seen as not taking care of her kids properly, especially since being the prime minister’s spouse isn’t considered a real job.

[url=http://www.chatelaine.com/news/the-trudeau-nannygate-controversy-is-just... Giese, writing in Chatelaine[/url]

Pondering

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Pondering wrote:

I agree the hourly-rate is ridiculously low for both day and night but night nannies are paid less because there is little to no work to do. The children are sleeping. Great job for students.

So it'd be OK to pay students less because they're students. That kind of logic is why there are unions. You sure you aren't a neo-con Pondering? Its OK to pay someone else becacuse they're still in school? Is that what you are saying?

No, nighttime security guard is also a job that is low paid and that many students choose to do because they can use the time for study.

These jobs are not low paid because students can do them. They are low paid jobs with a perk, little actual work to do so the free time can be spent studying.

The day nanny gets more because she does more work.

In this case both the day nanny and the night nanny are underpaid.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Pondering wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Pondering wrote:

I agree the hourly-rate is ridiculously low for both day and night but night nannies are paid less because there is little to no work to do. The children are sleeping. Great job for students.

So it'd be OK to pay students less because they're students. That kind of logic is why there are unions. You sure you aren't a neo-con Pondering? Its OK to pay someone else becacuse they're still in school? Is that what you are saying?

No, nighttime security guard is also a job that is low paid and that many students choose to do because they can use the time for study.

These jobs are not low paid because students can do them. They are low paid jobs with a perk, little actual work to do so the free time can be spent studying.

The day nanny gets more because she does more work.

In this case both the day nanny and the night nanny are underpaid.

Pondering, this is so cute. OK, why did you bring up students? Answer, please. Thanks.

Pondering

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Pondering wrote:

I agree the hourly-rate is ridiculously low for both day and night but night nannies are paid less because there is little to no work to do. The children are sleeping. Great job for students.

So it'd be OK to pay students less because they're students. That kind of logic is why there are unions. You sure you aren't a neo-con Pondering? Its OK to pay someone else becacuse they're still in school? Is that what you are saying?

No, nighttime security guard is also a job that is low paid and that many students choose to do because they can use the time for study.

These jobs are not low paid because students can do them. They are low paid jobs with a perk, little actual work to do so the free time can be spent studying.

The day nanny gets more because she does more work.

In this case both the day nanny and the night nanny are underpaid.

Pondering, this is so cute. OK, why did you bring up students? Answer, please. Thanks.

Day nannies get paid more than night nannies because it's a much more demanding job.

I brought up students because they take jobs like night guard or night nanny and other night jobs that allow them to study while being paid. Non-students also take these jobs only they usually can't spend the time as profitably.

The point is, many night jobs pay less because they demand less work. Other night jobs pay more because they require just as much work or they put employees on swing shifts so everyone has to take a turn.

In the case of nannies, day nannies work much harder than night nannies so they are paid more.

The amount they are being paid is the going rate for nannies. I expect them to be paid more because of who they are working for. Government should be setting an example of proper living wages.

 

pookie

terrytowel wrote:

Both these workers are actually maids employed by the official residence of the PM. Their role is to "interface" with Trudeau's three children in a habitual way.

That language was used by Brian Mulroney years ago in a similar controversy and was widely mocked.  It did not issue from the current PMO.  The women employed here were described by Kate Purchase as "members of the household" who engage in "secondary childcare activities".

 

 

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Pondering wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Pondering wrote:

I agree the hourly-rate is ridiculously low for both day and night but night nannies are paid less because there is little to no work to do. The children are sleeping. Great job for students.

So it'd be OK to pay students less because they're students. That kind of logic is why there are unions. You sure you aren't a neo-con Pondering? Its OK to pay someone else becacuse they're still in school? Is that what you are saying?

No, nighttime security guard is also a job that is low paid and that many students choose to do because they can use the time for study.

These jobs are not low paid because students can do them. They are low paid jobs with a perk, little actual work to do so the free time can be spent studying.

The day nanny gets more because she does more work.

In this case both the day nanny and the night nanny are underpaid.

Pondering, this is so cute. OK, why did you bring up students? Answer, please. Thanks.

Day nannies get paid more than night nannies because it's a much more demanding job.

I brought up students because they take jobs like night guard or night nanny and other night jobs that allow them to study while being paid. Non-students also take these jobs only they usually can't spend the time as profitably.

The point is, many night jobs pay less because they demand less work. Other night jobs pay more because they require just as much work or they put employees on swing shifts so everyone has to take a turn.

In the case of nannies, day nannies work much harder than night nannies so they are paid more.

The amount they are being paid is the going rate for nannies. I expect them to be paid more because of who they are working for. Government should be setting an example of proper living wages.

 

I don't understand your answer at all.

mark_alfred

Night and day workers should be paid the same.  Ultimately, the responsibilities are equal (that being the health and welfare of the children), even if the actual activities differ.  Further, due to the stress of having to go against one's biological rhythm, I'd say that night workers should also be given a shift premium on top of their salary.

Pondering

mark_alfred wrote:

Night and day workers should be paid the same.  Ultimately, the responsibilities are equal (that being the health and welfare of the children), even if the actual activities differ.  Further, due to the stress of having to go against one's biological rhythm, I'd say that night workers should also be given a shift premium on top of their salary.

Actually a lot of night nannies, probably sleep "on the job". A night nanny just has to be available if the children wake up in the night just like parents. I don't know if that is the case with the Trudeau's but it is the norm. They brought their two youngest children with them to Europe but the eldest stayed home presumably because of school. I doubt there is anyone staying awake all night watching him but someone does have to be available and responsible for his needs other than the guards if he does wake up or if there is a fire etc..

swallow swallow's picture

Night shift workers at group homes, who sleep while there and wake up only to deal with problems as needed, are a similar case. The social workers doing the day shifts might object (and so might their union) if they were paid less. 

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Pondering wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

Night and day workers should be paid the same.  Ultimately, the responsibilities are equal (that being the health and welfare of the children), even if the actual activities differ.  Further, due to the stress of having to go against one's biological rhythm, I'd say that night workers should also be given a shift premium on top of their salary.

Actually a lot of night nannies, probably sleep "on the job". A night nanny just has to be available if the children wake up in the night just like parents. I don't know if that is the case with the Trudeau's but it is the norm. They brought their two youngest children with them to Europe but the eldest stayed home presumably because of school. I doubt there is anyone staying awake all night watching him but someone does have to be available and responsible for his needs other than the guards if he does wake up or if there is a fire etc..

Pondering, have you ever worked a job where you work at night? I did it for almost 30 years; in the Navy you stand rotating watches at night. You go to bed at different times. It doesn't matter is someone sleeps through the night or not. This kind of employment still physically affects them. There is no question that Junior improperly paid his workers and they are being improperly paid now. I can tell you that when I was at Sea you didn't always "sleep through the night", even if yo weren't on watch, and if you have never done this kind of work, Id argue  you can't really appreciate it is to a person's mental and physcial welfare.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/editorials/the-pms-nannies-in-politics-people-remember-the-little-things/article27550366/ 

This is just the first of I am sure will be dozens of "little things" like this the Libs will do. This hubristic behaviour will bring this guy, quicker than any Lib might think. People are tired of this hypcoricy. This is poision for the Libs. I said it before and I'll say it again, this sense of smugness. of hubris of being "entitled to your entitlements" is what will bring junior down.

JKR

Unionist wrote:

Seriously, this is a Conservative talking point - which is why we see Rona Ambrose talking about it.

This isn't about hypocrisy. It's about the need for universal social programs, of which child care is one. If Trudeau pays for his own nannies, that will satisfy Ambrose, but not us. That's a hint that we shouldn't get distracted by it.

Trudeau gets a home paid for by taxpayers. Shall we shout hypocrisy because the Liberals eliminated the national housing program in the 1990s? Or shall we just demand a national housing program?

 

I agree that the talking point here is that all parents in Canada should have universal access to affordable childcare and early childhood education programs. It's not wrong that the Trudeau family has this but it is wrong that many other families don't.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

JKR you are right. It why I started this thread. Its about fairness.

mark_alfred

JKR wrote:
Unionist wrote:

Seriously, this is a Conservative talking point - which is why we see Rona Ambrose talking about it.

This isn't about hypocrisy. It's about the need for universal social programs, of which child care is one. If Trudeau pays for his own nannies, that will satisfy Ambrose, but not us. That's a hint that we shouldn't get distracted by it.

Trudeau gets a home paid for by taxpayers. Shall we shout hypocrisy because the Liberals eliminated the national housing program in the 1990s? Or shall we just demand a national housing program?

 

I agree that the talking point here is that all parents in Canada should have universal access to affordable childcare and early childhood education programs. It's not wrong that the Trudeau family has this but it is wrong that many other families don't.

Yes, and it was wrong for Trudeau to advocate against all families having access to affordable universal child care during the campaign.

Unionist

JKR wrote:

I agree that the talking point here is that all parents in Canada should have universal access to affordable childcare and early childhood education programs. It's not wrong that the Trudeau family has this but it is wrong that many other families don't.

Correct.

thorin_bane

Pondering wrote:

quizzical wrote:

pondering, nor is anyone here running to be  elected but yet you leveled hyprocrisy charges at us all commenting about this in order to devalue our comments.

whoa Sean..so they paid their nannies poorly to begin with. not surprised.

I've admitted many times to be partisan.

I haven't criticized anyone in this thread at all and certainly not called anyone hypocritical. I am referring to the NDP not individual posters.

So much BULLSHIT in this statement. The only true part might be in this thread.

Pages