Daycare pay demands are ludicrous
IN what lifetime is a childcare worker on par with a male engineer?
People who look after other people's kids are valuable in a society where increasingly both parents trot off to work, but should they be paid as much as men who design bridges and robots?
Yes, early childhood teachers, who have similar tertiary qualifications to primary teachers, should earn more than a starting salary of $52,000 or $72,000 after years on the job, but to demand $68,000 and $102,000 respectively - increases of up to 42 per cent - is ludicrous.
Wouldn't they be smarter to shoot for a reasonable figure with an improved chance of attaining it?
As it is, observers are now laughing at the idea, and with it, making light of the important work childhood educators do.
Quality childcare is about much more than changing nappies. It involves instruction, guidance, kindness, protection and, in a sense, proxy parenting.
This is crucial work because kids matter.
But you won't get too many quality candidates putting their hand up to join a profession which pays peanuts.
The Independent Education Union is trying to make the case, yet again, to the Fair Work Commission that this type of work is historically akin to "mothering" and therefore underpaid and undervalued.
I would support this premise - it's one reason so few men enter the profession.
But pushing for wage parity with engineers, who require higher tertiary entrance scores and spend more years at university studying far more difficult subjects, is poor strategy.
The commission previously has rejected a claim for a 35 per cent rise, yet the idiotic union is now demanding 42 per cent?
A little common sense please.