I can see both sides. I probably wouldn't rock the boat simply because a good childcare provider who will work with you and your summer schedule is hard to find. If you have kept him at home every other school vacation day, I can see how she would assume he'd be stay with you all of your break.
My response to her would also depend on whether I had stuff scheduled during those break days or if I just wanted to get stuff done around the house or have some time to myself.
Post by EmilieMadison on Dec 19, 2014 12:30:06 GMT -5
No, this is not a fair arrangement. The deal was that you pay for your full time spot all school year, whether you use it or not, in exchange for not paying to hold his spot in the summer. NOT that you pay for a full time spot during the school year and you only get to use the full time spot when she has room during the school year.
I would push the issue on this. If you are paying for full time then she is obligated to provide full time care for your child during the school year.
Post by rachelberry on Dec 19, 2014 12:30:25 GMT -5
It doesn't seem fair. If you are paying for it, you should be able to take E there.
On the other hand, I get wanting to keep a good relationship with the provider. Maybe you can just deal with it this year, but get something in writing for next year (saying you can still bring him over the holiday break since you are paying)?
Post by sunshineluv on Dec 19, 2014 12:31:10 GMT -5
I am guessing when you orginally discussed that you would pay her while on the breaks, you didn't discuss if you would be bringing him in?
I can see both sides of this. She is holding your spot in the summer for the price of you paying during the other breaks? (So about 3 weeks a year?) When you look at it like that, the arrangement is pretty good for you.
I also see your side, that when you are paying you should be able to bring him, but I don't know that I would push the issue too much, if you are otherwise pleased with care.
I wouldn't consider finding another provider over this, but it does seem strange that you're paying for the week, but she might or might not provide care.
Yes, you agreed to pay every week whether or not you would use her. So you do have to pay. BUT she doesn't have much incentive to take your DS those days, since she's getting paid either way.
I think I'd let it go this time, but be specific when agreeing on next year's care that she will make a place for your DS when needed during the months you pay.
I don't understand how it could be full. Does she have more kids than available spots?
If this is the case, then even if she is willing to hold your spot in the summer, you should look for someone else. She can't charge you for full time care and then not be able to provide full time care.
ETA: The way she SHOULD be handling this is to ask all of the people who are paying for full time care if they plan to be there during the week. Then, any open spots should be offered to part time kids. She can't give your full time spot to a part time child when you are already paying for that spot.
I'm a big defender of home daycares but that's not fair. My kids are now both in school but utilize our home daycare on breaks when we have to work. She always gives priority to the full time paying children. If she's too full over break, my kids don't get to go regardless of whether I have to work or not.
Not fair, if I'm understanding correctly. I was with her on the vacation thing, but this is not cool. She can't pick random days to tell you E can't go and still take your money, just so she can get more money from extra people. Nope, nope.
Has she been under the impression all year that E would not be there? If you had originally told her that she wouldn't, and then she promised the spot to someone else, I can see why she isn't ok with you just picking a choosing a few days. And do you have a contract? What does it say?
Not fair, if I'm understanding correctly. I was with her on the vacation thing, but this is not cool. She can't pick random days to tell you E can't go and still take your money, just so she can get more money from extra people. Nope, nope.
this.
I understand if it was sometime during the summer when you said "Hey! Can I bring E this day that you didn't think E was coming?" and she said no. But if its a week you are paying for, for the whole week, how can she not let your child?
I understand filling "summer spots" with E's spot but not letting them come when you are paying is BS. Like really BS.
E goes to an in home daycare and I love the provider. Love her.
I'm a teacher and the DCP and I agreed that I would pay for every week of the school year regardless of school breaks and in return we don't need to pay for the summer when I am off (and she'll still hold the spot for E in the fall). We will probably switch to drop ins during the summer.
I'm reading this as "I agreed to pay her even over breaks with E wouldn't be there." So it is part of the agreement that you're paying for school breaks, even when you won't be using her. Otherwise, what's the benefit to her? She keeps your spot without paying for the summer, and you pay her for school breaks when E doesn't go. I think you not using her during school breaks, although paying her, was the anticipated result of the agreement. Am I misreading?
I'm reading this as "I agreed to pay her even over breaks with E wouldn't be there." So it is part of the agreement that you're paying for school breaks, even when you won't be using her. Otherwise, what's the benefit to her? She keeps your spot without paying for the summer, and you pay her for school breaks when E doesn't go. I think you not using her during school breaks, although paying her, was the anticipated result of the agreement. Am I misreading?
This is how I read it too.
If our reading is correct, then I think this is completely fair. Your benefit of the agreement is that you don't lose your spot but don't have to pay for not using her in the summer. Her benefit is that she doesn't have your kid over breaks but still receives income for it.
ETA: In other words, she's recouping some of the money that she's losing by holding open your spot in the summer.
I'm reading this as "I agreed to pay her even over breaks with E wouldn't be there." So it is part of the agreement that you're paying for school breaks, even when you won't be using her. Otherwise, what's the benefit to her? She keeps your spot without paying for the summer, and you pay her for school breaks when E doesn't go. I think you not using her during school breaks, although paying her, was the anticipated result of the agreement. Am I misreading?
I can see how she may be thinking this way. Because I asked her if I would still need to pay for her care during my breaks- and that technically means I wouldn't be bringing E in. Otherwise I would have never asked that question. Right?
That's exactly what I would think if I was her. It stinks that you expected you could drop him off, but I think it's completely reasonable that she wasn't expecting that. Maybe next year discuss modifying the arrangement so that you can drop E off X# of days during break if you let her know X# of days ahead of time?
So in short, you are paying for services, the proposed service provider is taking your money but not guaranteeing that you will be allowed to use those services. Not fair.
Post by snipsnsnails on Dec 19, 2014 12:53:40 GMT -5
Based on what you've said here, I think her reasonable assumption would be that your DS would not be there during breaks, but she is still able to receive income. The alternate to this, of course, is her holding a spot for several months, while not receiving income. I actually think you come out ahead in this whole deal, just looking at the time and cost.
You are paying for a spot. If he is there or not, that spot is his. She basically wants to get your money and also the money from another child. I'd tell her on the days you can't bring him you won't be paying.
That's exactly what I would think if I was her. It stinks that you expected you could drop him off, but I think it's completely reasonable that she wasn't expecting that. Maybe next year discuss modifying the arrangement so that you can drop E off X# of days during break if you let her know X# of days ahead of time?
Yes, I now see how this happened. I feel better now. I'll ask her about modifying the agreement.
PS- do we sign contracts every year? This is our first year using daycare. Wondering when I should bring up the arrangement ideas.
I am significantly less helpful on this question because I don't have kids yet. But I'd really like to know the answer. You said she wants to re-write it after the new year? You could always mention it during drop off sometime that, no rush, but when she plans on beginning to draft it, you'd like to ask her about some things.
I would gently point out to her that it is not ethical for her to give priority to working parents over parents who are obligated to pay regardless of work status. First priority should go to those obligated to pay for the week. Then tell her you will willingly give up your spots to some other parent if they are willing to pay for it. If they are will to pay for your days of obligation, they can take your spot.
The DCP provider might see her failure in logic if you explain it to her this way.
No, I never discussed whether I'd bring E in during my breaks. I was always under the assumption that I would be able to bring him in. I feel like my reasons for bringing him in shouldn't matter- if I have an appointment or if I just want a break because I am paying for the care.
I have no idea how to respond to her. I'm thinking about saying something like, "I was actually under the assumption that I would still be able to bring E in for the weeks that I paid for".
But at the same time we are not paying in the summer, so...
But you're not using her in the summer, right?
I say this is bullshit. Depending on available care, I may make a stink about this. It almost feels like she is wanting to make more money by having your arrangement but also taking more kids in who will pay more than she normally makes.
If our reading is correct, then I think this is completely fair. Your benefit of the agreement is that you don't lose your spot but don't have to pay for not using her in the summer. Her benefit is that she doesn't have your kid over breaks but still receives income for it.
ETA: In other words, she's recouping some of the money that she's losing by holding open your spot in the summer.
This is where I'm at. If you pay for breaks and use them then she's just holding your spot for the summer and losing out on money. That's an unfair agreement IMO.
FWIW, my agreement with my provider is I pay all school year like all the parents do but I pull DD for the summer and don't pay as long as she can fill DD's spot with a school ager. Then DD's spot is still there for us in the fall. If she couldn't find a school ager to fill DD's summer spot then I would have to pay a 1/2 rate in the summer. But last summer and this summer she's found school agers to fill the spot. Maybe you want to talk about this as an agreement going ahead?
I would gently point out to her that it is not ethical for her to give priority to working parents over parents who are obligated to pay regardless of work status. First priority should go to those obligated to pay for the week. Then tell her you will willingly give up your spots to some other parent if they are willing to pay for it. If they are will to pay for your days of obligation, they can take your spot.
The DCP provider might see her failure in logic if you explain it to her this way.
But then DCP can say alright but you have to pay for summer or find someone to take your days. Which may or may not work depending on how helpful daycare lady is and how annoyed she is. It kind of sucks but is a fairly reasinable,trade off to not be obligated to pay over the summer.
Post by peachdragon on Dec 19, 2014 13:46:18 GMT -5
I'm glad others finally started saying it is fair for the DCP to do that, because it was my immediate thought, too. I assumed that Mekia wouldn't take E in on days off, too.
I work at an in-home daycare and we have this agreement with a few families where the parents are teachers. The premise is that you pay for 42 weeks of care during the school year, do not bring your child in during the breaks (comes to 4 weeks I think) and in return your child's spot will be held free of charge for the 10 weeks of summer vacation. My boss has checked with all the centers and some other in-home providers in the area and the other standard agreement is that you have to pay for the summer in order for your spot to be held. A lot of teachers like this because then they do have a spot for their child during the summer break when they need to drop off their child for one reason or another.
I would gently point out to her that it is not ethical for her to give priority to working parents over parents who are obligated to pay regardless of work status. First priority should go to those obligated to pay for the week. Then tell her you will willingly give up your spots to some other parent if they are willing to pay for it. If they are will to pay for your days of obligation, they can take your spot.
The DCP provider might see her failure in logic if you explain it to her this way.
I think the DCP is giving Mekia a pretty big break by not taking payment over the summer but still holding their spot though.
I mean, yeah your argument makes sense, but then the DCP has every right to tell Mekia she either needs to pay during summer or she loses the spot.
I actually totally agree with you. As a matter of fact, I had a similar flexible arrangement with my daycare person and paid for days we did not use as a premium for her flexibility. But she never told me I couldn't come on one of my "normally scheduled" days.
I think it's worth GENTLY explaining the OP's side one more time because it sounds like the DCP is just having a failure of logic. If the DCP still fails to understand, then the OP needs to do whatever it takes to preserve the relationship because she does have a pretty good deal going.
I think the DCP is giving Mekia a pretty big break by not taking payment over the summer but still holding their spot though.
I mean, yeah your argument makes sense, but then the DCP has every right to tell Mekia she either needs to pay during summer or she loses the spot.
I actually totally agree with you. As a matter of fact, I had a similar flexible arrangement with my daycare person and paid for days we did not use as a premium for her flexibility. But she never told me I couldn't come on one of my "normally scheduled" days.
I think it's worth GENTLY explaining the OP's side one more time because it sounds like the DCP is just having a failure of logic. If the DCP still fails to understand, then the OP needs to do whatever it takes to preserve the relationship because she does have a pretty good deal going.
Can you explain to me where that failure is? The give and take is that she holds the spot without payment and IN TURN she gets paid on weeks when E doesn't come in. Where's the missing logic?
I actually totally agree with you. As a matter of fact, I had a similar flexible arrangement with my daycare person and paid for days we did not use as a premium for her flexibility. But she never told me I couldn't come on one of my "normally scheduled" days.
I think it's worth GENTLY explaining the OP's side one more time because it sounds like the DCP is just having a failure of logic. If the DCP still fails to understand, then the OP needs to do whatever it takes to preserve the relationship because she does have a pretty good deal going.
Can you explain to me where that failure is? The give and take is that she holds the spot without payment and IN TURN she gets paid on weeks when E doesn't come in. Where's the missing logic?
I agree with the part about paying for every day of the school year regardless of whether he is there or not, that's the agreement. I just don't think it's ethical for the DCP to then deny service that has already been paid for. The agreement has two sides to it---th DCP gets payment for every day of the school year. But the flip side is, she also needs to be able to provide service every day of the school year, other than agreed upon days off. Agreed upon days off means when the daycare is shut down for vacation or illness. Not when the DCP decides to give priority to other kids over the ones who have already paid. That's just not right.
But I also said the OP shouldn't go in with guns blazing. In the end, she needs to save the relationship. I totally agree that the smart thing for OP to do is just pay for the days and let it go. But that's doesn't make this situation stink any less.
Can you explain to me where that failure is? The give and take is that she holds the spot without payment and IN TURN she gets paid on weeks when E doesn't come in. Where's the missing logic?
I agree with the part about paying for every day of the school year regardless of whether he is there or not, that's the agreement. I just don't think it's ethical for the DCP to then deny service that has already been paid for. The agreement has two sides to it---th DCP gets payment for every day of the school year. But the flip side is, she also needs to be able to provide service every day of the school year, other than agreed upon days off. Agreed upon days off means when the daycare is shut down for vacation or illness. Not when the DCP decides to give priority to other kids over the ones who have already paid. That's just not right.
But I also said the OP shouldn't go in with guns blazing. In the end, she needs to save the relationship. I totally agree that the smart thing for OP to do is just pay for the days and let it go. But that's doesn't make this situation stink any less.
But that's not the agreement. I don't know why this isn't clear to you. She came to her saying "Do I still have to pay you for breaks when I'm not working?" Which at WORST provides the IMPLICATION that she will not be bringing her kid in. I don't know why you're not seeing that this would be a super shitty deal for the DCP if it was the way you read it. She did not agree to provide care during the breaks. She gets paid for "days off" during breaks as a trade off for NOT getting paid and holding an empty spot in the summer.
Let's put it this way. Let's pretend school is 185 days a year, and summer is 180. I know that's not accurate, it doesn't matter. That would be like her saying "OK, here's the deal. I pay you for all 185 days, and you provide care ANY DAY within that 185 days, and then for 180, I don't pay you at all and don't bring him in, but I need you to save her spot and therefore lose income from one child for 180 days. DEAL?" Who would agree to that?
For clarity: Wouldn't it make much more sense that it was "OK, I pay you for all 185 days, but there are 20 days of breaks. So I don't pay you for the 180 days of summer, but I paid you for the 20 days of breaks, so that's a trade off."