Public is paying for Trudeau Nannies

374 posts / 0 new
Last post
thorin_bane

swallow wrote:

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. 

MY GF is works midnight at a group home. She is NOT allowed to sleep at. She has to spend the night cleaning and taking care of the guys. There is less working with the clients(as they are mostly asleep) but she still has to clean and do mountains of paperwork. The people on midnights are assigned these chores because there is less one on one with the clients. But I assure you they are kept very busy on most nights.

Slumberjack

In the experience of many, the fact that politicians don't seem to mind appearing in full view of the public up to their eyeballs in hypocrisy is indicative of the contempt that they feel toward the public in general.  Trudeau is simply carrying on with a very long tradition.

JKR

Arthur Cramer wrote:

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

I agree, it is about fairness. Hopefully fairness will be the primary concept conveyed here. The social democratic frame shouldn't be allowed to be crowded out by the neo-liberal frame that supports the notion that it is wrong for the state to to pay for childcare.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Well, Junior has a chance to do somethng really major and important. This would be a real legacy creator for him if he stepped up and did it right. I'm willing completely to throw partisanship aside to see a proper National Daycare program, Universal and open to ALL Canadians regalrdless of income, that worked. If he did that, I'd be the first to publicly praise and thank him for it. And he'd have the NDP along with him all the way to help sell it and do it right. This is a real national building chance for him. If he wants a legacy, here's a way for him to do it. I'll cheer him on if he does it! Damn rights I would! As long as it done right, no problem! You won't hear any nay say from me. I want GOVERNMENT TO WORK FOR ALL!

JKR

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Well, Junior has a chance to do somethng really major and important. This would be a real legacy creator for him if he stepped up and did it right. I'm willing completely to throw partisanship aside to see a proper National Daycare program, Universal and open to ALL Canadians regalrdless of income, that worked. If he did that, I'd be the first to publicly praise and thank him for it. And he'd have the NDP along with him all the way to help sell it and do it right. This is a real national building chance for him. If he wants a legacy, here's a way for him to do it. I'll cheer him on if he does it! Damn rights I would! As long as it done right, no problem! You won't hear any nay say from me. I want GOVERNMENT TO WORK FOR ALL!

Great attitude!

NorthReport

Trudeau busted!

quizzical

it's wrong for the state to only pay childcare for 'the Prime Minister' especially when he said  he would be paying his own childcare expenses.

the bs he stated in order to deflect the public awy from the NDP's childcare plan is more than fkn bs actually.

what a ...

Debater

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?

 

Even Stockwell Day said today on P&P that this is a fake controversy and that he thinks Sophie Gregoire has been portrayed in an unfair light.

It is standard procedure for the PM to have a staff in which some of these things, including childcare, are paid for.  Other PM's have had the same thing in the past, as did Harper for his kids, I believe.

pir pir'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..

I agree with mark_alfred about equal responsibilities resulting in equal pay.  I've worked in various night shift jobs when I was a student, and while I agree with Pondering that some of them provided the extra perq of being able to do some studying because there wasn't necessarily a lot to do other than watch, I didn't sleep on most of them, and my employers would not have appreciated me doing so -- I was there so somebody was awake and able to act instantly in case something happened.  None of them was as a "nanny" per se, but I did work nights in a group home where I was not allowed to sleep.  I would be surprised if sleeping were the norm for night nannies, who for the most part take care of babies. I know somebody who does that.  She stays awake the entire time; seems most of her clients expect that.  She feeds the kids, changes them, takes care of them when they are sick or restless, does laundry, prepares things for the next day, and basically assures that the parents get a full night's sleep without being woken up by a crying baby.  For babies it's not really that different from being a nanny during the daytime, except there are no outings to the park; I'd say night nanny might even be the less pleasant job.  Things change once the children sleep through the night; that's when most people give up their night nannies.  Maybe the Trudeau's night nanny gets to sleep now that the youngest is older; good for her.  But she still has the same responsibilities for the lives of the children.  Imagine something happens to a child of the PM.  I sure as hell wouldn't want that job, because everybody and their sister will feel entitled to second-guess you.

The only job I had where I could sleep while on shift was as an EMT, but I often didn't get much sleep, and it was usually not exactly refreshing.  When I did various forms of watch duty as a student, yeah, it beat running around all day; it was comparatively cushy -- as long as nothing happened, and the stress that something might happen was always there. I can understand why some people think that the lower pay is justified, but I tend to look at responsibilities instead -- am I responsible for life or death?  Might my own life be on the line?  That's more stressful than a lot of jobs that are much less cushy.  I find it actually quite hard to arrive at a fair pay for different jobs because conditions are often not easily comparable.

As to "going against one's natural rhythm", my natural rhythm seems to be 13:00 to 5:00 -- good luck finding an employer who accomodates that; it's good that I am self-employed now and can mostly work when I want.  The only shift work I ever really hated was rotating; it was hard to switch again and again always when I had just finally gotten used to the new schedule -- I sure would have liked to get paid more for the stress in that case; I was walking around like a zombie.  I don't think night work should automatically pay more because I think the benefits can balance the downsides or even outweigh them.

Why bring up students?  Because those tend to want low-effort part time and night jobs; they usually don't have kids yet that might need them during the day, and they already have a demanding full-time job if they take their school work seriously.  When I was a student I preferred working nights because I had class during the day, and working nights allowed me to run errands and do shopping without competing with everybody else during the little time left if I had also worked during the day.  It was tough enough with the "cushy" night jobs.. 

terrytowel

If Trudeau could afford to pay for these two Nannies as leader of the third party, then he can afford to pay for  these two out of his PM salary. Which is higher than that of a Party leader. As he said himself during  the elxn campaign, it is about fairness.

Paladin1

Arthur Cramer wrote:

Well, Junior has a chance to do somethng really major and important. This would be a real legacy creator for him if he stepped up and did it right. I'm willing completely to throw partisanship aside to see a proper National Daycare program, Universal and open to ALL Canadians regalrdless of income, that worked. If he did that, I'd be the first to publicly praise and thank him for it.

 

Arthur I suspect you are like me and have a very specific view on what a leader is and how they should act.

A leader should "be the last to eat".   A leader should not  accept (or have) benefits that their workers do not have. I keep seeing a lot of comments other places; but he's the prime mininister! That's exactly why he should pay out of his pocket.  The captain on your old ship wouldn't have had free day care (just for example) because "he's the captain". It would have been very poor optics to say the least and would have hurt morale.

And that's what this is about,  optics.  Even if it's justifiable one way or another part of his election legacy was to go on the record and say he would give back that child care money because "he doesn't need it".    Well now the people that DO need it are in a basic way paying for him.

The Liberals are under the spotlight now and they need to not only react to this instant-contraversy media rage but predict it too. What about the dozen other things people aren't upset about right now? It doesn't matter, this is what they've sunk their teeth into this week. Liberals have another 4 years of it.

 

Slumberjack

If he said he didn't need publicly funded childcare because he can afford to pay for it himself, but then turn around and accept publicly funded childcare, even if it does represent, for the person who's job it is, merely a portion of the overall work, then that is the issue, not the fact that publicly funded child care may be warranted in their situation.  If a national leader and his spouse have a host of official responsibilities to attend to in their day job, then the provision of respite care for the both of them does make sense.  It's either that, or they yawn their way through official protocol engagements with representatives and leaders from other countries, or perhaps nod off in question period like Rob Anders.  Watching what he does as opposed to what he says is the real issue, because where else might this disconnect apply in the conduct of his government?

Geoff

It makes me worry about his pronouncements on more substantive issues such as TPP and Bill C-51.

Unionist

Geoff wrote:
It makes me worry about his pronouncements on more substantive issues such as TPP and Bill C-51.

Are you under the impression that Trudeau broke some promise or told some lie here?

Fact check:

Trudeau said, during the campaign, that he was donating his $3,440 in Universal Child Care Benefit [Conservative misnomer] to charity, because he didn't need the money.

Now he has lucked into a job that includes child care as a fringe benefit.

Because the misnamed UCCB has nothing to do with child care, Trudeau and Grégoire are legally entitled to keep the $3,440 and spend it on beer and potato chips if they so desire.

So question: Are they keeping the $3,440, contrary to what Trudeau said, or are they donating it?

The rest of this thread is Conservative talking points and, as Sineed pointed out, "a sexist manufactroversy cooked up by the media".

Sean in Ottawa

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.

 

When day nannies do night work this is overtime. In this case these are not students but day nannies with a lower after-hours pay.

Do we know when the day pay ends and the night pay starts? That may be relevant.

Sineed

unionist wrote:

The rest of this thread is Conservative talking points and, as Sineed pointed out, "a sexist manufactroversy cooked up by the media".

Quoting unionist quoting me for emphasis. This entire thread is predicated upon the assumption that childcare isn't a necessary expense, or else people wouldn't be saying that the Prime Minister has to pay for his own childcare or be a hypocrite.

What about his food, security, and housing? All these are paid for by the taxpayers without comment.

The Prime Minister's living circumstances reflect his position as leader of the country. If in the course of renovating 24 Sussex, he added all sorts of lavish fittings worthy of a despot (indoor tennis court? Olympic size pool? exhorbitant interior design?) he should certainly come under harsh criticism. But this thread assumes that childcare isn't a necessary part of running a household and instead comes under the category of a luxury that the rich guy should pay for himself. Not a very progressive stance IMV.

Slumberjack

The NY Times wrote about Trudeau as a potential antidote to cynicism in politics.  Plenty of media ink has actually been wasted on the topic of Trudeau in relation to the word cynicism, more or less. It is in this context that an opposition is within it's rights to take a crumb like this when it's handed to them.  Trudeau himself spoke about cynicism and politics.

Sean in Ottawa

https://ca.care.com/articles/hiring/7-tips-for-hiring-overnight-childcare/

"Rates of pay vary depending on where you live. Overnight nannies should receive the same rate as a nanny who works daytime hours, even though the children are asleep. Visit Care.com’s pay calculator to get an idea of what caregivers are earning in your area.
If you’re having your daytime nanny stay overnight from time-to-time, you may need to pay them overtime. Check your province’s laws on paying overtime, for instance for BC you can find the details here. 
The cost of a nanny will also be more expensive than a babysitter."

If you enter a Rockliffe area postal code (where the Trudeau's are) you get a rate of pay of just over $18 per hour. This suggests that the day rate $15-20 is the market rate. But when you consider that the night shift should be paid the same this changes everything. The average then comes to $14.75 -- or just below the bare minimum.

At times the nannies are paid lower than minimum wage because they get meals says the PMO -- in other words they are working night shift and still paying something for their meals.

As I said before -- the Trudeau's should show some leadership in recognizing the value of care-giving and in recognition of what living wage actually is.

As foir the student reference -- that's BS -- these are adult women who are experienced and they should not be subject to so-called "student wages. But in Ontario there is a definition of student wages:

"Student minimum wage - This rate applies to students under the age of 18 who work 28 hours a week or less when school is in session, or work during a school break or summer holidays."

http://www.labour.gov.on.ca/english/es/pubs/guide/minwage.php

True these women at night get at least $0.45 over the student wage and could get as much as $0.25 less than minimum wage (due to the food they get.

It is absurd that ANYONE on this progressive site could even start to defend these rates of pay by the government of Canada to care-givers in the PM's residence. I would expect that on a right wing conservative site alongside a defense of scrapping all minimum wage laws. Here the reaction you would expect would be closer to disgust. But of course Trudeau has his fans and he can never go wrong...

Sean in Ottawa

Here is another discussion of rates -- this one almost two years old

http://canadiannanny.ca/how-much-does-a-nanny-cost

Again $15 the average -- no discussion of lower night rates. And this is live in.

Sure looks like the Trudeau's are paying bare minimum overall and at times below that.

quizzical

i don't give a shit if anyone thinks the calling of Trudeau a hyprocrite over the hiring of 2 nannies is "not progressive". i think supporting a hyprocrite who doesn't believe in universal childcare is 'not progresssive'. and btw it's NOT a necessary tax payer expense after Justin said NO to universal childcare.

he decried  univeral childcare as bad and benefitting wealthy people like himself.

eastern Canadians must have stockholm syndrome or something. they voted for a hyprocrite who doesn't think they should have tax payer funded childcare while he goes after it right after he's elected.

well i say suck it up Justin and Sophie pay for your own childcare seeing as how your wealthy and don't need taxpayers money to do it.

btw these nannies were NOT hired by Trudreau and Gregiore prior to them being elected. they were hired after.

 

Sean in Ottawa

quizzical wrote:

 

btw these nannies were NOT hired by Trudreau and Gregiore prior to them being elected. they were hired after.

 

It does not look like you are right about that. At least one was with Trudeau ever since he became leader. The other is less clear but it seems to predate the election of the party. They were hired by the government but previously they were hired by Trudeau.

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/trudeau-hires-his-childrens-forme...

Stockholm

Sineed wrote:

But this thread assumes that childcare isn't a necessary part of running a household and instead comes under the category of a luxury that the rich guy should pay for himself. Not a very progressive stance IMV.

No, I fel that childcare is a necessary part of running a household...and i think that Trudeau should commit to providing FREE univeral child care for all canadian parents before he sticks his snout in the trough and takes it for himself while everyone else gets nothing.

Trudeau's attitude reminds me of GOP members of congress who denounce any forn of "socialized medicine" but them happily make use of the tax payer funded free health care that they all get by virtue of being members of congress.

Trudeau clearly thinks child care is a "frill" that Canadians don't really need - therefor let him pay for that "frill" himself if that is what he believes. 

Paladin1

Sineed wrote:

 

What about his food, security, and housing? All these are paid for by the taxpayers without comment.

 

Let him pay for his own food and security.

Sineed

Paladin1 wrote:

Sineed wrote:

 

What about his food, security, and housing? All these are paid for by the taxpayers without comment.

 

Let him pay for his own food and security.

Well sure; that's an argument that can reasonably be made. But everyone is singling out childcare as the controversial luxury.

We can (and certainly should) criticize his stance on universal childcare without nitpicking the different and special circumstances under which all Prime Ministers live.

bekayne

Stockholm wrote:

Sineed wrote:

But this thread assumes that childcare isn't a necessary part of running a household and instead comes under the category of a luxury that the rich guy should pay for himself. Not a very progressive stance IMV.

No, I fel that childcare is a necessary part of running a household...and i think that Trudeau should commit to providing FREE univeral child care for all canadian parents before he sticks his snout in the trough and takes it for himself while everyone else gets nothing.

Does that go for free universal chef care and free universal driver care as well?

Stockholm

During the recent election campaign - no party proposed free chef care or free driver care and was attacked for it by Trudeau. In the election campaign, Trudeau made a point of saying that wealthy Canadians should not get any UCCB cheques and did not require any government help with their child care. Having a chef and a driver were not election issues.

All that being said, since the PM gets paid $359,000/year - why not garnishee his wages to pay the salaries of the chef and driver and charge him rent for staying at 24 Sussex? there would still be plenty left over!

Unionist

Just listened to CBC Radio Noon in Montréal on this topic. Very happy to hear every single caller saying this is a phony issue, Conservative talking point, attack on child care, etc.

I guess that's what you get in a province that hates Harper more than any other, and has enjoyed universal affordable child care for almost a generation now.

 

Paladin1

Sineed wrote:

Well sure; that's an argument that can reasonably be made. But everyone is singling out childcare as the controversial luxury.

I'm just surprised it's not a facebook profile picture over-lay yet.  It'll be something new next week.  The thing with the conservatives, and in a way I respect them for it, when something like this would start to spool up they basically took a 'we don't fucking care' attitude.

 

Stockholm wrote:

All that being said, since the PM gets paid $359,000/year - why not garnishee his wages to pay the salaries of the chef and driver and charge him rent for staying at 24 Sussex? there would still be plenty left over!

This man is a good example.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Mujica

voice of the damned

Unionist wrote:

Just listened to CBC Radio Noon in Montréal on this topic. Very happy to hear every single caller saying this is a phony issue, Conservative talking point, attack on child care, etc.

I guess that's what you get in a province that hates Harper more than any other, and has enjoyed universal affordable child care for almost a generation now.

 

Are you sure Quebec hates Harper more than any other? A look at the 2015 electoral map kinda calls that into question, at least going by seat count.

And I'm not sure if I would interpret that sentiment as being pro-childcare, since special subsidies for the Prime Minister is hardly the same thing as a nationwide childcare policy.

EDIT: You're almost correct. Going by popular vote, Newfoundland hates Harper more than Quebec, though Nova Scotia is pretty close.

Unionist

voice of the damned wrote:

Are you sure Quebec hates Harper more than any other?

Yes. So much so that Quebecers massively voted NDP in 2011 - where only one person in history had ever been elected under the NDP banner in a general election - and without knowing the first thing about the NDP - just to get rid of Harper.

And then, when the ROC didn't get the message, they massively held their noses and voted for the Trudeau Liberals in 2015. Same reason, same motive. This time, it worked.

Quote:
And I'm not sure if I would interpret that sentiment as being pro-childcare, since special subsidies for the Prime Minister is hardly the same thing as a nationwide childcare policy.

I'm not interpreting any sentiment as being pro-childcare. I am telling you that more than one caller said, in essence - "oh yeah, the Conservatives hate child care, that's why they're attacking him on this".

And you haven't failed to notice that this entire "scandal" has been raised strictly by the Conservatives and the National Post. At least the NDP has had the principle and the decency to only blast Trudeau for paying poverty wages. If they question an employer providing child care, I will be reviewing my praise for them.

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

All this talk is probably why the Liberals are at 49%, the Conservatives are at 24%, and the NDP are at 16%.

voice of the damned

Unionist wrote:

voice of the damned wrote:

Are you sure Quebec hates Harper more than any other?

Yes. So much so that Quebecers massively voted NDP in 2011 - where only one person in history had ever been elected under the NDP in a general election - and without knowing the first thing about the NDP - just to get rid of Harper.

And then, when the ROC didn't get the message, they massively held their noses and voted for the Trudeau Liberals in 2015. Same reason, same motive. This time, it worked.

Well, I agree with you that Quebec is very anti-Harper, if that's what you basically meant to say. But if you're sticking to the literal "...more than any other", then I'm afraid you are wrong. See the edit to my last post.

And sure, the Cons and the Post are playing this for their own agenda. Doesn't change the fact that Trudeau gave them the opening in the first place, by opposing child-care benefits for the rich, and then accepting them himself.

Sean in Ottawa

I think it is too bad that the issue is who is paying -- this is not an unreasonable thing for a PM to get.

I much prefer the focus on why are these care-givers getting so little for what ought to be a great job showing leadership on the value of childcare.

 

quizzical

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
quizzical wrote:
btw these nannies were NOT hired by Trudreau and Gregiore prior to them being elected. they were hired after.

It does not look like you are right about that. At least one was with Trudeau ever since he became leader. The other is less clear but it seems to predate the election of the party. They were hired by the government but previously they were hired by Trudeau.

">http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/trudeau-hires-his-childrens-forme...

 

i was going by the article i read this morning:

Quote:
During Trudeau’s early years as Papineau MP, and even after he became Liberal leader in April, 2013, childcare was apparently kept within the family.

“I don’t have a nanny but both grandmothers are helping out,” said Grégoire-Trudeau in a 2013 interview with a parenting blog. As recently as October, the Globe and Mail was reporting that the couple “doesn’t keep a nanny.”

and  i know this is off topic a bit.... but wtf are people thinking refering to Ms Gregiore as Canada's first lady?

we don't have a first lady. we don't need a first lady. especially not one wearing thousand dollar hats to replicate the British royals.

the hats alone could pay their childcare costs along with their UCC.

i'm not waivering on the position tax payers shoud NOT be payng their child care costs after his statements on the campaign trail.. if the rest of Canadians don't get it based on Justin's opinion then they don't need or get it either.  it's sickening hypocrisy.

the nannie's exploitation by the low wages they're being paid is another completely different topic and obviously they're TFW or they and one of the nannie's former employer would not be refusing to comment on it. from your link.

Quote:
Ottawa lawyer Kirsten Crain, who had previously employed Trayvilla, declined to say whether she was hired through the special government program that gives temporary work visas to foreign child care workers brought to Canada.

 

swallow swallow's picture

We might get into the gendered and raced aspects of low-wage labour here - like so many nannies, these are both Filipina-Canadian women. And we know that poverty has a colour - and it ain't white. 

But the focus on the Trudeaus and child care? I dunno, reminds me of "celebrity couple" stuff in reverse. And it definitely has the undertone of "women shoud stay at home and care for their kids." I'd be more presuaded if the call was "let's have free child care for all," but it isn't. Instead, it's "they should pay for their own child care." 

Pondering

I never suggested anyone get paid "student rates" for anything. Whatever the "official" word on nannies it doesn't transcribe to real life for most "nannies". By the way, any adult who looks after children is now called a "nanny". It has become a word for adult caregiver. You don't have to have a single childcare course to be a nanny although some nannies do have formal credentials.

My daughter "nannies" on the side and has looked after children for an entire weekend. She gives a flat rate. She did not stay awake the entire weekend. She "nannied" fulltime for a year when she was just out of school working for a principal dancer at the Royal Ballet. When I was growing up the job designation was "mother's helper" not "nanny".  Nannies were women with formal training who looked after rich people's children. Now everyone who babysits is a nanny.

I take care of newborns from when they are released from hospital on an informal volunteer basis for mothers and babies with specific special needs (withdrawal from prescription drugs for the babies and resumption of full dosages for the mothers). I've done it with 3 infants so far and I continue until 6 -12 months. Prior to that I helped out with the babies of family members so while not an expert I do have some direct experience taking care of a lot of babies.

Hadrien is around a year and a half old. That means he is sleeping 12 to 14 hours a day, 10 to 12 hours at night. Nobody is staying up all night watching him. It would be weird. I'd bet a month's income on it.

The issue here is not the different hourly wage depending on day or night. The duties do differ.

Looking after children when they are asleep, whether or not you sleeping is way easier than during the day. There is no paper work to be done. Nobody has you doing the vacumning or doing laundry at 2 in the morning.

It has been clarified that caregiving is only a part of the job not all of it. They are part of the household staff. During the day a "mother's helper" or caregiver/launderer does more work whereas at night, even in the evening, it is more like baby-sitting. No other duties.

I do consider it a problem that they are being paid "market-rates" when this is a non-union job ghetto for women because our time and work is undervalued. I would like to know how much the gardeners are paid too.

I volunteer my time because I adore infants and I love watching them become conscious and emerge as individuals. Minimum wage would not come close to covering the value of my work. I may not have any formal training but I am skilled at infant care.

15$ should be the minimum paid to government support staff and government should serve as an example for best labour practices.

The right has successfully framed unions as entitites which hold the public hostage in order to gain unfair advantage forcing workers with no such benefits, even minimum wage earners, to pay for cushy union jobs they have no chance of getting.

This framing of unions makes it seem like exploitative labour practices are the natural norm with the free market determining the real value of the work being done. Under that definition unions are distorting the "real value" of the work being done by holding employers hostage. By that definition "market rates" are appropriate.

Neoliberalism won by creating a series of narratives that define what is natural and what is moral and "common sense". They defined "freedom" as minimal government intervention beyond security and the government as a bloated useless bureaucracy full of corruption and fat cats living off the public dime. Progressives unwittingly helped by also condemning government.

 

Pondering

swallow wrote:

We might get into the gendered and raced aspects of low-wage labour here - like so many nannies, these are both Filipina-Canadian women. And we know that poverty has a colour - and it ain't white. 

But the focus on the Trudeaus and child care? I dunno, reminds me of "celebrity couple" stuff in reverse. And it definitely has the undertone of "women shoud stay at home and care for their kids." I'd be more presuaded if the call was "let's have free child care for all," but it isn't. Instead, it's "they should pay for their own child care." 

Yup, and if the NDP stays on the same track for the next four years we will continue hearing about how the NDP agrees with the Conservatives.

The Conservatives and the NDP dissed Trudeau on ruling out the F35s.

The Conservatives and the NDP agree that balanced budgets are a top priority.

The Conservatives and the NDP both have a problem with paying for household staff for the Prime Minister that has child care duties.

The Conservatives and the NDP both want the Senate abolished.

 

swallow swallow's picture

This isn't about the NDP. 

Sean in Ottawa

Pondering wrote:

swallow wrote:

We might get into the gendered and raced aspects of low-wage labour here - like so many nannies, these are both Filipina-Canadian women. And we know that poverty has a colour - and it ain't white. 

But the focus on the Trudeaus and child care? I dunno, reminds me of "celebrity couple" stuff in reverse. And it definitely has the undertone of "women shoud stay at home and care for their kids." I'd be more presuaded if the call was "let's have free child care for all," but it isn't. Instead, it's "they should pay for their own child care." 

Yup, and if the NDP stays on the same track for the next four years we will continue hearing about how the NDP agrees with the Conservatives.

The Conservatives and the NDP dissed Trudeau on ruling out the F35s.

The Conservatives and the NDP agree that balanced budgets are a top priority.

The Conservatives and the NDP both have a problem with paying for household staff for the Prime Minister that has child care duties.

The Conservatives and the NDP both want the Senate abolished.

 

The Conservatives and the NDP are both opposition parties. Opposition parties often agree on criticisms of the government. In fact any two parties largely agree about criticisms of the third.

Sean in Ottawa

quizzical wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
quizzical wrote:
btw these nannies were NOT hired by Trudreau and Gregiore prior to them being elected. they were hired after.

It does not look like you are right about that. At least one was with Trudeau ever since he became leader. The other is less clear but it seems to predate the election of the party. They were hired by the government but previously they were hired by Trudeau.

">http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/trudeau-hires-his-childrens-forme...

 

i was going by the article i read this morning:

Quote:
During Trudeau’s early years as Papineau MP, and even after he became Liberal leader in April, 2013, childcare was apparently kept within the family.

“I don’t have a nanny but both grandmothers are helping out,” said Grégoire-Trudeau in a 2013 interview with a parenting blog. As recently as October, the Globe and Mail was reporting that the couple “doesn’t keep a nanny.”

and  i know this is off topic a bit.... but wtf are people thinking refering to Ms Gregiore as Canada's first lady?

we don't have a first lady. we don't need a first lady. especially not one wearing thousand dollar hats to replicate the British royals.

the hats alone could pay their childcare costs along with their UCC.

i'm not waivering on the position tax payers shoud NOT be payng their child care costs after his statements on the campaign trail.. if the rest of Canadians don't get it based on Justin's opinion then they don't need or get it either.  it's sickening hypocrisy.

the nannie's exploitation by the low wages they're being paid is another completely different topic and obviously they're TFW or they and one of the nannie's former employer would not be refusing to comment on it. from your link.

Quote:
Ottawa lawyer Kirsten Crain, who had previously employed Trayvilla, declined to say whether she was hired through the special government program that gives temporary work visas to foreign child care workers brought to Canada.

 

Sorry but it is being reported that they are both Canadian citizens.

It would seem based on your quote that they do not ahve a nanny that a report -- is untrue. Not sure if this is becuase someone did not tell the truth or this is misreported. It was reported that one of these nannies has been with them since 2012.

Slumberjack

They should be paid more actually.  There's a lot of responsibility in nurturing a dynasty in the making.  This is not your average surburban gig after all.  Of course it would only be fair to both caregivers that a different rate might apply for a busier day shift than a quiet night shift, especially if the night provides an opportunity to doze off.  If shift changes are possible that would be fair as well.  In a rotation both workers would have equal access to the higher paying shift.

Pondering

swallow wrote:

This isn't about the NDP. 

It's about the Conservatives and the NDP using this as an excuse to attack Trudeau and apparently it is how it is coming across to citizens.

I just read that the NDP focus has been the wages being paid which I agree with but it is over the top partisan. The NDP is stunned and saddened.

The more appropriate response should be to ask who determines the pay and benefits for household staff and a suggestion that the government should serve as an example and encourage the staff to join a union.

mark_alfred

Pondering wrote:

The issue here is not the different hourly wage depending on day or night. The duties do differ.

Looking after children when they are asleep, whether or not you sleeping is way easier than during the day. There is no paper work to be done. Nobody has you doing the vacumning or doing laundry at 2 in the morning.

According to that logic, it could be argued that jobs like policing, security, or paramedics could be paid less too during the night-time.  Given that a large number of the population is asleep, it follows that service workers will be less busy with people.  Less people committing crimes, less people getting into fights, less people stealing, less people falling and having heart attacks.  Thus, one could argue that cops, security guards, or paramedics working the late night early dawn sleeping shift should be paid less.  No one does argue this, however (at least, I hope they don't.)  However, when it's caring for infants/children, suddenly it's open to calls for paying less. 

If the responsibility is the same, the pay should be too.  If the health circumstances of the work cause greater stress to the worker, which in working a night shift they do (IE, going against one's natural biological rhythm), then a shift premium on top of the salary should also be considered.

mark_alfred

The Globe and Mail had an editorial on this:  The PM’s nannies: In politics, people remember the little things

Quote:
After saying in the last election campaign that upper-income people like him should pay their own freight when it comes to child care, and after winning on a platform of bulking up taxpayer assistance for middle-class parents while slimming it down for the wealthy, it emerges that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has hired two government-paid nannies.

If something feels like hypocrisy, that may be because it is.

Had he not staked so limpid a position on child care and exploited it for considerable gain, Mr. Trudeau could have more easily argued that the singular function he occupies justifies his hiring taxpayer-supported nannies.

There's another article here that questions why Trudeau feels he needs not just one, but two nannies paid for by us:  Two nannies? That’s a little rich, Mr. Prime Minister

Slumberjack

Well that is the real issue isn't it, public perception?  It doesn't bode well so early in the going to get hung up on past statements.

quizzical

mark_alfred wrote:
The Globe and Mail had an editorial on this:  The PM’s nannies: In politics, people remember the little things

Quote:
After saying in the last election campaign that upper-income people like him should pay their own freight when it comes to child care, and after winning on a platform of bulking up taxpayer assistance for middle-class parents while slimming it down for the wealthy, it emerges that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has hired two government-paid nannies.

If something feels like hypocrisy, that may be because it is.

Had he not staked so limpid a position on child care and exploited it for considerable gain, Mr. Trudeau could have more easily argued that the singular function he occupies justifies his hiring taxpayer-supported nannies.

There's another article here that questions why Trudeau feels he needs not just one, but two nannies paid for by us:  Two nannies? That’s a little rich, Mr. Prime Minister

this says it all and is line with my comments on people who think this is ok after Justin dennouncing childcare benefits for the rich during the election campaign.

Quote:
The Trudeaus are the one per cent elite – there is no question about it. Those in that position of privilege commonly have one full-time nanny or more, sure

But the unacceptable difference: The Trudeaus are asking Canadians to pay.

cut back on clothes and hats Sophie and pay your own child care costs.

quizzical

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
quizzical wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
quizzical wrote:
btw these nannies were NOT hired by Trudreau and Gregiore prior to them being elected. they were hired after.

It does not look like you are right about that. At least one was with Trudeau ever since he became leader. The other is less clear but it seems to predate the election of the party. They were hired by the government but previously they were hired by Trudeau.

">http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/trudeau-hires-his-childrens-forme...

 

i was going by the article i read this morning:

Quote:
During Trudeau’s early years as Papineau MP, and even after he became Liberal leader in April, 2013, childcare was apparently kept within the family.

“I don’t have a nanny but both grandmothers are helping out,” said Grégoire-Trudeau in a 2013 interview with a parenting blog. As recently as October, the Globe and Mail was reporting that the couple “doesn’t keep a nanny.”

and  i know this is off topic a bit.... but wtf are people thinking refering to Ms Gregiore as Canada's first lady?

we don't have a first lady. we don't need a first lady. especially not one wearing thousand dollar hats to replicate the British royals.

the hats alone could pay their childcare costs along with their UCC.

i'm not waivering on the position tax payers shoud NOT be payng their child care costs after his statements on the campaign trail.. if the rest of Canadians don't get it based on Justin's opinion then they don't need or get it either.  it's sickening hypocrisy.

the nannie's exploitation by the low wages they're being paid is another completely different topic and obviously they're TFW or they and one of the nannie's former employer would not be refusing to comment on it. from your link.

Quote:
Ottawa lawyer Kirsten Crain, who had previously employed Trayvilla, declined to say whether she was hired through the special government program that gives temporary work visas to foreign child care workers brought to Canada.

Sorry but it is being reported that they are both Canadian citizens.

It would seem based on your quote that they do not ahve a nanny that a report -- is untrue. Not sure if this is becuase someone did not tell the truth or this is misreported. It was reported that one of these nannies has been with them since 2012.

if one had been with them since 2012 why would Gregoire report they had no nannies in 2013 when being interviewed on a parenting blog?

whose telling the truth? the news report, Gregoire? did the Globe and Mail say in October they had no nannies?

the whole damn thing is bs from them wanting taxpayers to pay for their nannies after playing all apologetic for being rich before elected to under paying, to having no transparency as to whether their TWF's or not.

Pondering

Aaron Wudrick, the federal director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, told The Canadian Press that if there is no extra cost, taxpayers shouldn't concern themselves with the issue.

"If they're prepared to shift ... some of the other uses of the staff, to give that up in exchange for child care services so taxpayers are not out any additional money, I don't see that as a problem," Wudrick said.

The nannies, who are classified as special assistants under the Official Residences Act, are being paid $15 to $20 an hour during the day and $11 to $13 at night. Nanny associations say the wage reflects the average rate.

"He will be adapting the staff complement to suit his family requirements, given that he is the proud father of three young children," she in a statement.

Purchase added that it is an ongoing process that will be finalized in the “coming days,” and the prime minister "will not expand the household staff."

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/trudeau-put-himself-in-a-bad-spot-with-ta...

 

NorthReport

Bingo!

Trudeau's nannies are trivial compared to scandal of corporate tax cuts

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/karl-nerenberg/2015/12/trudeaus-nannies-...

mark_alfred

Pondering wrote:

Aaron Wudrick, the federal director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, told The Canadian Press that if there is no extra cost, taxpayers shouldn't concern themselves with the issue. ..

Uh huh.  So when is the jerk going to declare, "Okay, I was wrong.  I got two nannies on the public dime.  But don't be mad.  I feel child care should be for both the rich and the poor.  So I'm going to steal the NDP's platform promise now and bring affordable universal child care to everyone."

Pages