Public is paying for Trudeau Nannies

"pretend platform"?  Geeze Unionist, you usually have better arguments than that.  It was clearly in the real platform, and had been talked about for some time.  It was central to the campaign.

mark_alfred wrote:

Child care is a provincial responsibility.  So, the NDP offering to federally fund it by 60% is fabulous.  The argument that if they're not funding it by 100% then it's a fake promise is nonsense.  How much federal funding is there for other provincial responsibilities?  Like health care?  I'm willing to bet it's not as high as 60%.  The NDP promise on child care was fabulous.  I'm surprised you're spewing Liberal talking points.

The NDP said it would take 8 years to roll out and Quebec could opt out and Ontario wanted their current programs to be funded. It required the provincial governments to chip in when they are running deficits already. Coupled with the balanced budgets promises it was not fabulous.

mark_alfred wrote:

Pondering wrote:

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

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.

The responsibility is not the same. The daytime caregiver has more work to do.

The jobs you mentioned regularly require the people to get up and work. That is normally not the case with nannies.

As a day nanny that is also doing laundry or preparing meals or even just occupying the children I would expect to be better paid then the worker who gets watch TV or sleep.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

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.

Maybe so, but that doesn't make it good optics for the NDP. In another thread we were discussing how shallow much of the electorate is in terms of political knowledge. Ironically marketing has never been more significant in convincing voters that a leader or party is credible and authentic. It's not that the NDP shouldn't play politics, they should just make sure they do it well. Right now, they are not doing it well.

The general impression Mulcair is leaving is negative. What he does now makes no difference to the election in 2019. It will only have an impact if it becomes habitual.

Trudeau is "rising above" the "negativity" by ignoring criticism and simply moving forward on his agenda. By not defending himself he is positioning the criticisms as unimportant and/or without merit while maintaining his sunny ways and "lets all be friends" attitude. It makes the Conservatives and NDP look petty. If the criticism were substantial that approach wouldn't work but so far the criticisms have been insignificant. Trudeau and his team are excellent strategists.

pondering the issue isn't about cost to taxpayers it's about lying or hypocrisy and paying for their own nannies because the rich can afford to according to Justin himself.....

quizzical wrote:

 

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?

 

This is a good question and there is some credibility on the line. I think the public has a right to know how these contradictory statements co-exist on the public record.

I am not condemning without all the facts but we sure do deserve an answer don't we?

Pondering wrote:

 

Trudeau is "rising above" the "negativity" by ignoring criticism and simply moving forward on his agenda.

Spectacular. You call that "rising above."

I would call "ignoring criticism" as a practice to be supremely arrogant.

The NDP approaching this as a wage issue is not petty. I have gone after the NDP for being petty but hell no, not this time. The wage paid in the PM's household is a leadership issue. You saying it is a petty partisan complaint only exposes your attitude to the issue and exposes you to more valid questions about how progressive you are.

Now before answering with another massive flame -- consider that I would say this to anyone here.Consider that sometimes when you are accused of not being progressive there are good reasons for it. Rather than answer with anger, try reconsidering your position a bit.

Also consider that opposition parties (that you are not friendly towards and not part of) can hold positions and priorities that you do not share and that does not make them petty. These same opposition parties have a job to oppose and propose. The NDP is doing both on this issue -- proposing a national childcare program and opposing the elitism of tax-payers supporting a few people who claimed they did not need it and opposing the low rate being offered. Your response on this looks far more partisan than the NDP position.

I do not share the NDP's concern with the idea that a PM would have this paid for as I think a lot of demands go with the job that intrude in a very particular way on families. I do think that the role of PM is one that should not have a higher than needed cost on a family and I think that it is right that it be a coveted and desired position. I have no trouble with some luxury. But I still respect the NDP position on this as no petty. and I recognize that Trudeau brought some of this on himself by claiming he did not need state help and then accepting a fairly massive amount of it for the same issue.

When it comes to the wages, I would be sharply critical of the NDP if they did not make this a big deal. The NDP is a social justice and labour party -- or should be. To ignore any issue of fair wages, symbolic or otherwise would be a scandal as far as I am concerned.

At issue is the recognition that the public should offer the PM some luxury and the PM personally is quite wealthy. How is it possible that he could offer anything less than a great wage in the PM's residence for childcare? And since the PM is a policy position, how does offering a low wage not reflect on the impression we have about his attitudes to working people in general, childcare workers in particular and childcare itself? As a young and very, very priveleged parent he should know better and offer a good example. No, not petty at all.

I have been measured about my criticisms of Trudeau since the election because I don't want to be seen as attacking automatically but there is a real issue here and if the public does not see it as such, then I think that is a sad reflection. I recognize that in the early days of a political honeymoon valid criticims such as this are liable to be ignored but they are still valid, the opposition bound to that role.

And, never, never, never should a leader be considered "rising above" by ignoring criticism. Perhaps insults, sure but nmot criticism. Criticism should be responded to -- especially on an issue like this.

Trudeau has an additional responsibility or compact if you like. He has portrayed himself as a man of the people even though he is wealthy. His understood compact with Canadians has to be to be more sensitive to issues of his personal wealth and privilege due to his status. Anytime he does not live up to this compact, he should be roundly criticized and he should always be expected to answer and explain.

I was unde rthe impression that there was a "housekeeping" budget paid to the PM's household, adn staff were paid from that - ie. the two women were Trudeau/Gregoire employees, not NCC employees. (Because yeah, NCC employees would need to be paid min wage or more.)

Quote:

Did you also understand that the federal NDP child care promise could not be implemented without agreements with provinces?

Child care is a provincial responsibility.  So, the NDP offering to federally fund it by 60% is fabulous.  The argument that if they're not funding it by 100% then it's a fake promise is nonsense.  How much federal funding is there for other provincial responsibilities?  Like health care?  I'm willing to bet it's not as high as 60%.  The NDP promise on child care was fabulous.  I'm surprised you're spewing Liberal talking points.

Pondering wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

Pondering wrote:

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

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.

The responsibility is not the same. The daytime caregiver has more work to do.

The jobs you mentioned regularly require the people to get up and work. That is normally not the case with nannies.

As a day nanny that is also doing laundry or preparing meals or even just occupying the children I would expect to be better paid then the worker who gets watch TV or sleep.

Yeah, but like I said (which you conveniantly ignored) your argument could also be put to other service workers such as police, security, nurses, or ambulance paramedics, yet it's not.  All these jobs are less busy in the late night early dawn when people are sleeping, yet you don't see salary differentation for these hours in these positions being promoted.  Suddenly when it's child care, the argument you're making rears it's ugly head.

swallow wrote:

I was unde rthe impression that there was a "housekeeping" budget paid to the PM's household, adn staff were paid from that - ie. the two women were Trudeau/Gregoire employees, not NCC employees. (Because yeah, NCC employees would need to be paid min wage or more.)

I was relying on Pondering information earlier in the thread (which she repeated several times) for the story that they are NCC employees. If that's incorrect (and I did say "IF" they are NCC employees), then I withdraw my comments about unionization. And I still can't grasp why Trudeau's nannies should be paid more than any others. Trudeau (and the provinces) should be listening to demands of the workers and other social movements and raising minimum wages in all jurisdictions. How he treats his employees (if indeed they are his employees...) is, I'm sad to say, of utterly no interest to me.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

quizzical wrote:

 

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?

 

This is a good question and there is some credibility on the line. I think the public has a right to know how these contradictory statements co-exist on the public record.

I am not condemning without all the facts but we sure do deserve an answer don't we?

Because she wasn't a nanny then and she isn't a nanny now. Now she is being designated an assistant, at the Trudeau household she was probably a mother's helper meaning doing dishes, cooking and laundry and helping with the kids. An extra two hands, not a nanny who looks after the kids while mommy is at work.

bs she sure is or they sure are. stop with the farications too many reports and pics indicating otherwise.

and they need to come clean on it r they're just lyin liars as per....

Unionist wrote:

swallow wrote:

I was unde rthe impression that there was a "housekeeping" budget paid to the PM's household, adn staff were paid from that - ie. the two women were Trudeau/Gregoire employees, not NCC employees. (Because yeah, NCC employees would need to be paid min wage or more.)

I was relying on Pondering information earlier in the thread (which she repeated several times) for the story that they are NCC employees. If that's incorrect (and I did say "IF" they are NCC employees), then I withdraw my comments about unionization. And I still can't grasp why Trudeau's nannies should be paid more than any others. Trudeau (and the provinces) should be listening to demands of the workers and other social movements and raising minimum wages in all jurisdictions. How he treats his employees (if indeed they are his employees...) is, I'm sad to say, of utterly no interest to me.

I couldn't find my original reference...

This means the Trudeau caregivers are not additional full-time hires at the prime minister’s residence — news that seems to have deflated some of the criticism.

Aaron Wudrick, the federal director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, says he doesn’t think taxpayers need to be concerned if there is no additional cost.

“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, considered special assistants under the Official Residences Act, have been hired for $15 to $20 an hour during the day and $11 to $13 at night — a fee nanny associations say reflects the average rate.

They aren't nannies at all. They are special assistants.

Could Trudeau have said "please pay them both 30$ an hour? I doubt it because he isn't paying. We haven't actually been told what each woman is earning specifically. How would that work out? Today I am paying you 20$ an hour but next week it will be 15$. Each assistant must expect a specific wage.

The range given must be what is allowed under the Official Residences Act for special assistants. Why else would a range be given? Some bizarre guessing game?  There is probably a range for gardeners and chefs and some sort of set range for stipends for travelling as well. The Trudeau's aren't sitting down every week doling out their household budget. They are permitted to have household staff which is then paid by the National Capital Commission. The Chef probably has a line of credit at a grocery store which is also paid by the National Capital Commission as part of it's mandate to oversee the running of official residences. How else would that work? They can't just hand the Trudeaus a lump sum and tell them to decide how to divey it up.

So, why these are not unionized positions is a pertinent question. They are federal employees, probably part of the less than 1% of federal employees making less than 15$ an hour. I read that Harper's chef quit because he was asked to do other duties like gardening. That's an indication that another word for "household staff" is servants.

This is not an opportunity to bash Trudeau personally. It is an opportunity to illustrate why the NDP's 15$ federal minimum wage should still be passed even though they lost the election. Tearing down the Liberals or Trudeau may be satisfying but it won't do anything to improve the reputation of the NDP.

The NDP can't be Liberal lite anymore so they have to craft themselves a new image that casts them again as essentially different rather than almost the same. That doesn't mean going back to the 30s or 50s. It means re-evaluating who the NDP seeks to represent now and how best to do that. I'm biased towards the 99%.

mark_alfred wrote:

Pondering wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

Pondering wrote:

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

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.

The responsibility is not the same. The daytime caregiver has more work to do.

The jobs you mentioned regularly require the people to get up and work. That is normally not the case with nannies.

As a day nanny that is also doing laundry or preparing meals or even just occupying the children I would expect to be better paid then the worker who gets watch TV or sleep.

Yeah, but like I said (which you conveniantly ignored) your argument could also be put to other service workers such as police, security, nurses, or ambulance paramedics, yet it's not.  All these jobs are less busy in the late night early dawn when people are sleeping, yet you don't see salary differentation for these hours in these positions being promoted.  Suddenly when it's child care, the argument you're making rears it's ugly head.

I'm going to avoid the main debate because I don't understand it.

But, regarding night shift workers: this is a false comparison. Paramedics, nurses, policement etc are generally equally busy at night (at least in populated jurisdictions). There is presumably less work to be done, but there are also less workers because there is less work. For example, a nurse on an acute care floor might have 4 patients during the day, but at night have 7. This is because there might be 7 nurses working the floor (of 28 patients) during the day and only 4 nurses on the night shift. As a result, the night shift nurses work equally hard, despite there being less work in total (as individuals, there is the same amount of work).

If there was 28 children to be looked after, they would presumably have 6 workers during the day (I believe the requirement is 1 worker for every 5 children) and could do with less overnight (if overnight daycare was a thing, presumably regulations might allow 1 worker per 8 or 10 children for overnight shifts). In such a case, the overnight workers should be paid the same as the day workers because they are doing a comparable amount of work (they are watching over more children, but the children are mostly asleep). But when there is only 3 children involved, the amount of work required at night is strictly less than what is required during the day, in the same way as a nurse watching 3 patients at night would have less work than a nurse watching 3 patients during the day.

That being said, while I have no issue with the day nanny making more (for more work), I do believe the degree of difference in the rates is too high. Not that I have the degree of emotional investment that many here seem to...

(I edited out a sentence in the preamble that would just distract).

I've worked two jobs ona  night shift. At one, it was casual factory-floor labour, and paid the same as the day rate. In the other, it was being present in case of emergencies, and paid less than day shift because it involved less work and required less skills training (in emergencies, call someone who ahs the skills to address the crisis). There can't be hard and fast rules. 

Cody - as an aside, I think the guardian to child ratio in childcare facilities varies by child age, and by province. Older kids in Quebec child care centres are not at 1:5, sadly, and the private in-home daycares are often at especially high de facto ratios. Younger kids require more care, diaper changes etc. (This is one reason that private daycare under capitalism in most of Canada creates an incentive to give spots to 3 and 4 year olds and makes it hard to find spots for 1 and 2 year olds - who are charged the same but take spots that could be filled by 2 or 3 older kids.) 

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Cody87 wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

Pondering wrote:

mark_alfred wrote:

Pondering wrote:

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

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.

The responsibility is not the same. The daytime caregiver has more work to do.

The jobs you mentioned regularly require the people to get up and work. That is normally not the case with nannies.

As a day nanny that is also doing laundry or preparing meals or even just occupying the children I would expect to be better paid then the worker who gets watch TV or sleep.

Yeah, but like I said (which you conveniantly ignored) your argument could also be put to other service workers such as police, security, nurses, or ambulance paramedics, yet it's not.  All these jobs are less busy in the late night early dawn when people are sleeping, yet you don't see salary differentation for these hours in these positions being promoted.  Suddenly when it's child care, the argument you're making rears it's ugly head.

I'm going to avoid the main debate because I don't understand it.

But, regarding night shift workers: this is a false comparison. Paramedics, nurses, policement etc are generally equally busy at night (at least in populated jurisdictions). There is presumably less work to be done, but there are also less workers because there is less work. For example, a nurse on an acute care floor might have 4 patients during the day, but at night have 7. This is because there might be 7 nurses working the floor (of 28 patients) during the day and only 4 nurses on the night shift. As a result, the night shift nurses work equally hard, despite there being less work in total (as individuals, there is the same amount of work).

If there was 28 children to be looked after, they would presumably have 6 workers during the day (I believe the requirement is 1 worker for every 5 children) and could do with less overnight (if overnight daycare was a thing, presumably regulations might allow 1 worker per 8 or 10 children for overnight shifts). In such a case, the overnight workers should be paid the same as the day workers because they are doing a comparable amount of work (they are watching over more children, but the children are mostly asleep). But when there is only 3 children involved, the amount of work required at night is strictly less than what is required during the day, in the same way as a nurse watching 3 patients at night would have less work than a nurse watching 3 patients during the day.

That being said, while I have no issue with the day nanny making more (for more work), I do believe the degree of difference in the rates is too high. Not that I have the degree of emotional investment that many here seem to...

(I edited out a sentence in the preamble that would just distract).

The idea of different pays based on time is not accepted as reasonable in the pay scale averages presented here. Some do it but it is frowned on for good reason. The idea that some work time is paid less becuase there are busier times defies logic. How many other jobs are like that with busier times? It averages out with a single rate of pay in other jobs why not this one? Should retail workers get paid less in the mornming becuase there is less to do? What about restaurant workers outside of meal times? We presume busier times and harder times in lots of work places. But when you have a responsibility to an employer, when you cannot leave or set your time to do whatever you want -- you are on. And you get paid a rate that averages the work, responsibility etc. The rates of pay for this job include this as we have seen in this thread -- look at the lilnks I provided.

I have already said I believe the difference is too much in this case, but I agree with there being a difference in the pay. A morning shift retail employee works just as hard as an afternoon retail employee - either it's a large store and there are more employees in the evening (so each employee is going to help 30 customers an hour for example, regardless of time of day), or it's a small store and the morning shift has additional responsibilities like cleaning, sweeping, and restocking, etc. Same with restaurant and fast food employees. None of these scenarios are comparable to a night shift nanny vs a day shift nanny. A day shift nanny has vastly more responsibilities and requires far more work than a night shift nanny. The day shift nanny needs to feed, entertain, and play with the kids. Considering it's the Trudeau's they probably have a big focus on teaching their children languages, cultures, and both practical (eg. cooking) and recreational (eg. piano) skills so there may also be an education factor in there too. The night nanny just needs to make sure the kids go to bed (and go to sleep) and maybe change a diaper if the youngest (who should be well past the stage where he's up half the night) wakes up in the middle of the night. Maybe make breakfast assuming the chef only does lunch and dinner (or just dinner). This doesn't even get into the fact that, as was mentioned by another poster earlier in this thread, a typical day shift nanny would be expected to do household chores with any free time. In this case probably the cook takes care of the kitchen and they have someone for the laundry and other chores but in general a night shift nanny has a far less tiring/easier job than a day shift nanny. Why shouldn't the day shift nanny make more, relatively speaking, for doing the more demanding, tiring job?

the trudeau's need to pay their own childcare costs and only because  Justin's remark on the campaign trail. if they don't then the reality is they're privileged lying liars and Canadians are going to get slapped hard because people out east were stupid enough AGAIN to support the Liberals.

there was a more credible 3rd choice....and i'm not. there are plenty of quotes flying arund these forums

and i happen to think childcare is a huge issue. but i see the mens here don't think so.......

So does that mean night workers shouldn't be paid more because that would be unfair to the day workers?

quizzical wrote:

there was a more credible 3rd choice....and i'm not. there are plenty of quotes flying arund these forums

and i happen to think childcare is a huge issue. but i see the mens here don't think so.......

I happen to think Mulcair wouldn't have succeeded in creating a national childcare plan - certainly not with a minority mandate. Whether it's important or not, we weren't getting it. The only difference between childcare and some other important issues like guaranteed income for example is that this one got lip service which the human rights of palestinians didn't.

And Mulcair has no credibility, not by the end of the election and certainly not now.

Cody87 wrote:

quizzical wrote:

there was a more credible 3rd choice....and i'm not. there are plenty of quotes flying arund these forums

and i happen to think childcare is a huge issue. but i see the mens here don't think so.......

I happen to think Mulcair wouldn't have succeeded in creating a national childcare plan - certainly not with a minority mandate. Whether it's important or not, we weren't getting it. The only difference between childcare and some other important issues like guaranteed income for example is that this one got lip service which the human rights of palestinians didn't.

And Mulcair has no credibility, not by the end of the election and certainly not now.

I'm curious what it is that the Liberal posters here have against child care.  Odd.  The Liberal Party itself did promise to fund child care spaces, so really shouldn't the Liberal posters here be in favour?  Anyway, the Liberal Party promised to fund child care as part of their "social infrastructure".  The exact amounts and the number of spaces were never fleshed out, but that's true of almost everything in the Liberal platform (democratic reform, the environment, etc.)  The platform isn't specific, but the policy resolutions do make reference to bringing back Dryden's deal from years past, which promised a billion payment a year over five years (if I remember correctly).  Anyway, this is from their platform:

Liberal Platform wrote wrote:

We will develop a child care framework that meets the needs of Canadian families, wherever they live.

Child care needs vary from family to family, and provinces and territories have responded to these needs in different ways. A one-size-fits all national program – particularly one that imposes pre-determined costs on other orders of government – is impractical and unfair.

We will meet with provinces, territories, and Indigenous communities to begin work on a new National Early Learning and Child Care Framework, to deliver affordable, high-quality, flexible, and fully inclusive child care for Canadian families. This work will begin in the first 100 days of a Liberal government and will be funded through our investments in social infrastructure.

The framework we design together will be administered in collaboration with, and in respect of, provincial jurisdictions.

The argument from some Liberal partisans here, who say that it's wrong for Mulcair to express disappointment in the fact that the Liberals didn't mention child care in their Throne Speech, is just bizarre.  From their platform, the Libs promised action in the first 100 days.  And even if the Liberals had not promised it, it's still a good thing to push for.  Why be against advocating for government funding for child care?  Some Liberals supporters here are just bizarre.  Seems they're even less progressive than their own party.

thorin_bane wrote:

You are still a huge asshole.