# Burden of Unnecessary Qualifications for creche workers



## Leper (6 Jan 2015)

I note that creche workers are taking the protest route next month because of the need of further qualifications foisted on them.  These additional qualifications need to be paid for and in most cases the employers are not paying for such courses.  The cost is to the worker.  The worker is on minimum wage or perhaps a little over it.

There may be need for such qualifications in creches.  Should the employer pay?

Another thing, in general is the working population being "Qualified Out"?  There are jobs out there that the employer wants minimum of 3rd Level qualifications for low level jobs.  Some of these jobs can be done by somebody with the basest of education.  Is anybody going to cry halt?


----------



## moneybox (6 Jan 2015)

Leper said:


> basest of education


----------



## PolkaDot (6 Jan 2015)

I agree, it's a bit ridiculous. I think it was a knee jerk reaction to the Prime Time scandal. Many experienced childcare workers are now being forced back into part time education in the evenings at their own expense. They are already one of the lowest paid sectors.

I don't see similar requirements in the Financial Services industry? I know of QFAs who received their qualification based on experience and were not forced back into education to do the modern QFA exams.

If the government wants highly educated and qualified childcare workers, it needs to invest in the sector to ensure the pay is attractive enough. Currently it is not.

P.S. I'm not a childcare worker, I just have some knowledge of the sector.


----------



## Leo (6 Jan 2015)

moneybox said:


>



base
beɪs/
_adjective_
superlative adjective: *basest*


----------



## Steven Barrett (6 Jan 2015)

PolkaDot said:


> I agree, it's a bit ridiculous. I think it was a knee jerk reaction to the Prime Time scandal. Many experienced childcare workers are now being forced back into part time education in the evenings at their own expense. They are already one of the lowest paid sectors.
> 
> I don't see similar requirements in the Financial Services industry? *I know of QFAs who received their qualification based on experience and were not forced back into education to do the modern QFA exams.*
> 
> ...



QFA's have Continuous Professional Development each year to show that they are keeping up to date. 

The childcare industry is a mess in Ireland. The cost of putting a child into a creche is about €12,000 a year. New parents are crippled financially under these costs. Successive governments have done absolutely nothing to help out. 

After handing over €12,000 a year, the person actually minding the kids get paid a pittance. Most are qualified in childcare and they have an extremely difficult job in looking after other peoples kids for 8-10 hours a day. 

There's something not right there...


Steven


----------



## Monbretia (6 Jan 2015)

Mind you I don't think either the QFA or the CPD is much of a qualification either.  I flew through 7 or 8 of those CPD tests online in one evening and passed without even reading the lesson beforehand, you have to go through the lesson but you can quickly scroll and click through without taking any of it in.

I admire anyone who can mind kids all day and while they must be qualified good old common sense is gone out the window, I don't think the level of most qualifications these days is a patch on way back when but maybe that's just me being old and cranky.


----------



## PolkaDot (6 Jan 2015)

It's a good point Monbretia....a lot of the "qualifications" people have are not worth the paper they're written on. Some people naively believe that once someone has a qualification then they are fit to do the job.


----------



## Leper (6 Jan 2015)

Getting back to the performance of the qualified staff in Bungalow 3 in the Co Mayo Care-home, I'm sure each and every one of the now suspended participants (Care Workers and Nurses) were well worth their qualifications (well, at least from exam results!!).  This begs the question:- Are these qualifications being handed out willy-nilly? Is there a case for mass plagerism(wrong spelling, I know) in the sector?


----------



## Purple (7 Jan 2015)

Leper said:


> Getting back to the performance of the qualified staff in Bungalow 3 in the Co Mayo Care-home, I'm sure each and every one of the now suspended participants (Care Workers and Nurses) were well worth their qualifications (well, at least from exam results!!).  This begs the question:- Are these qualifications being handed out willy-nilly? Is there a case for mass plagerism(wrong spelling, I know) in the sector?


Good points. The solution to bad regulation and/or bad legislation is not more academia and/or qualifications.
You can't train an attitude.
It is my understanding that a major factor in the high cost of childcare is the insurance cost. If the system is properly regulated (but not necessarily highly regulated) then should there be a state insurance fund that crèches can use?


----------



## Marion (10 Jan 2015)

Childcare and Healthcare and Social care employees need a Level 5 Fetac qualification. This is equivalent to a Leaving-Certificate qualification.

I certainly would not consider this an over-qualification.

The courses cover a multitude  of different subjects that will help and enable them in their chosen occupation.

One of my students informed me just this week that the Course would greatly help her in dealing with families of clients who might have intimidated her previously. She (a special needs student) has achieved immensely by her participation in Fetac 5.

I also teach a number of students with existing degrees taking these Level-5 qualifications to enable them to work in these areas.

Of course, as mentioned elsewhere, qualifications will not be of benefit to those unsuited to the occupation.

Marion


----------



## Purple (12 Jan 2015)

Fetac Level 5 doesn't seem to be an onerous level of qualification. I agree that lower than that would seem too low.


----------



## Leper (12 Jan 2015)

Marion said:


> Childcare and Healthcare and Social care employees need a Level 5 Fetac qualification. This is equivalent to a Leaving-Certificate qualification.
> 
> I certainly would not consider this an over-qualification.
> 
> ...


Nobody said it was an overqualification.  But, let's say FETAC Level 5 is acceptable now. Could there be another qualification level in the future for the same work e.g. let's say Fetac Level 6.  I understand Fetac Level 4 is not being accepted from this year even for people who for years in the industry.

Please correct me if I am wrong.  As far as I am concerned the Leaving Certificate is much different to any FETAC qualification.  How is it equivalent to a Leaving cert qualification?

Nobody ever said that the courses do not cover a multitude and will not help and enable people.

Experience alone would help deal with somebody who is intimidating.  I am not saying a FETAC course would not help against intimidation.

How do you know somebody is unsuited to the occupation?

Many of people working in the creche industry, for example are not unionised for various reasons.  Are the benefactors of those paying money to attend FETAC courses doing anything for the plight of the workers for higher wages (many are on minimum wage or just above it).  Are such qualifed workers being exploited?

How many new FETAC qualifications are being handed out yearly?

I am raising these points in line with recent demands for already qualified creche workers to attain higher qualifications (probably on somebody's whims and of course, vested interests in making more money.


----------



## PolkaDot (13 Jan 2015)

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe there may be requirements soon brought it in that will require childcare workers to obtain Fetac Level 6 and possibly Level 7 qualifications. I know of several childcare workers who are experienced, but have been forced back into education at night time (at their own expense) in order to obtain new qualifications, and I think it is higher than Fetac Level 5.

If they don't do it they risk being unemployable in the sector from next year I believe. I will try to obtain some better info from someone I know who works in the sector.

As a slight aside, the Association of Childcare Professionals are currently running a petition:
https://www.change.org/p/enda-kenny...dhood-education-and-care?expired_session=true

http://www.acpireland.com/uploads/1/5/3/7/15370432/acp_rally_petition_2015_pub.pdf


----------



## Sandals (13 Jan 2015)

There is funding for creche workers who need to upskill from whatever Fetac level theyv got...Learner Fund..but qualifying citeria was extremely tight.

Equally there is a misconception that creche owners and Montessori schools etc are making huge money...the large chains are but small independents arent,,,, rural owners are barely taking a wage.

Also the ECCE payment has being reduced, one can see places closing their services, mainly those who opened in the boom, huge private investments were undertaken.


----------



## Leo (13 Jan 2015)

Leper said:


> How do you know somebody is unsuited to the occupation?



Like most industries, no qualification will tell you that. Only through a proper interview process and application of probation/assessment can that be determined.


----------



## Marion (13 Jan 2015)

At the moment, as far as I'm aware, Level 6 Childcare is for those who wish to be supervisors within a childcare setting.

I stated that Fetac 5 is equivalent to the Leaving Certificate because that's how the national qualification body frames it. If a student gets 8 distinctions (a distinction is 80% or more) in Fetac 5 they receive 400 CAO points.




Marion


----------



## Leper (14 Jan 2015)

Leo said:


> Like most industries, no qualification will tell you that. Only through a proper interview process and application of probation/assessment can that be determined.


Hi Leo, with respect I am sure you posted this tongue-in-cheek.  I know you meant well, but the true answer, of course is we have no way of really assessing anybody fully.

Marion, thanks for your half reply (and perhaps I was somewhat cynical - not for the first time) posing my concerns.

The "creche" industry is one on a timebomb due to the lack of decent wages for most of the workers.  I would love to know the true attrition rate of such employees.   Furthermore, I would love to know the amount of "unregistered for Tax and Social Welfare" employees there. I would think the upcoming demonstration will only be the tip of the iceberg.


----------



## Leo (14 Jan 2015)

Leper said:


> Hi Leo, with respect I am sure you posted this tongue-in-cheek.  I know you meant well, but the true answer, of course is we have no way of really assessing anybody fully.



I didn't really. Where I work, we put quite a bit of effort into behavioural profiling during the interview process, and reject quite a few people who we deem not to be a fit for the work involved in the role, the team they will work with, or the organisation as a whole. There's plenty of research and guidance available into how to go about this.

That of course isn't 100% effective, so we then rely on the probation process to establish whether a new-hire really is a fit. Documented plans are produced and shared with the new-hires. Formal reviews take place at pre-defined intervals, and if new-hires are falling short, probation is either extended or they are let go. If you can't tell within 6-9 months whether someone is suited to a role, you're not paying enough attention.

The trouble is, to do all that properly takes a lot of time and effort. Many organisations, particularly smaller ones, aren't prepared or simply can't afford to put in the time/effort.


----------



## Leper (14 Jan 2015)

Leo said:


> I didn't really. Where I work, we put quite a bit of effort into behavioural profiling during the interview process, and reject quite a few people who we deem not to be a fit for the work involved in the role, the team they will work with, or the organisation as a whole. There's plenty of research and guidance available into how to go about this.
> 
> That of course isn't 100% effective, so we then rely on the probation process to establish whether a new-hire really is a fit. Documented plans are produced and shared with the new-hires. Formal reviews take place at pre-defined intervals, and if new-hires are falling short, probation is either extended or they are let go. If you can't tell within 6-9 months whether someone is suited to a role, you're not paying enough attention.
> 
> The trouble is, to do all that properly takes a lot of time and effort. Many organisations, particularly smaller ones, aren't prepared or simply can't afford to put in the time/effort.



Now Leo, you're employing somebody to work in a creche on less than €8.00 per hour.  So you are now informing her (it's usually a her) we are putting you on probation (let's say nine months . . .) and then you inform her that reviews will take place at pre-defined intervals where she could be let go if underperforming etc.  

You put a lot of time/effort into the less-than-€8.00-an-hour employee.  You seem like a guy who knows his stuff (compliment from me); how long do you think the new employee will last?


----------



## Leo (15 Jan 2015)

No one should fear probation. If they do, chances are they're not up to the job and know it. In the vast majority of cases, the regular probation reviews serve as formal recognition from the company/employer that the employee is meeting expectations. This positive reinforcement assures new employees and keeps motivation levels up. If feeds into the higher levels of Mazlow's hierarchy of needs, the sense of achievement and fitting are much stronger motivators than money.

A formal probation process doesn't affect the statutory protections, or lack thereof for new hires, and I think should be welcomed by employees because it sets expectations out clearly and in writing from the start. 

I think regardless of the rate of pay, it's a manager's responsibility to give candid feedback to their employees on a regular basis. The majority of people want to do a good job, and will welcome being told they are doing so when that is the case. Anyone who isn't performing as expected would probably like to know that sooner than later too so that they can address the shortcoming.


----------



## Purple (15 Jan 2015)

Leper said:


> You put a lot of time/effort into the less-than-€8.00-an-hour employee.


You've said that a number of times. How do employers manage to pay their employees less than the minimum wage?

With respect, the solution isn't marches for higher wages. It's proper regulation and structures. 
We've the highest proportion of households in Europe with no or very low earned incomes. That's a direct result of the extremely high minimum wage we have. It's a poverty trap; people whose labour is worth less than €8.60 are unemployable. increasing the minimum wage more won't mean they get paid more, it will ensure they get paid nothing.


----------



## Leper (16 Jan 2015)

Purple, (with respect) your post is naive at best.  History has shown us that if you let the employer class loose on the wages issue they will pay as little as possible thereby increasing their own profits.  They pay as little as they can because they can.


----------



## Purple (16 Jan 2015)

Leper said:


> Purple, (with respect) your post is naive at best.  History has shown us that if you let the employer class loose on the wages issue they will pay as little as possible thereby increasing their own profits.  They pay as little as they can because they can.


It is sound business practice not to pay more than you need to for any service or for the purchase of labour but it is against the law to pay less than the minimum wage. How are they doing payroll and making returns which show they are breaking the law?
There is no such thing as an employer class. This is a republic, we don't have classes. Some people stupidly refer to working class and middle class etc. whereas the vast majority of people who work are working class and the vast majority of people who claim to be working class don't work. That shows how stupid, outdated and in many way offensive such classifications are.
Employers are no more or less ethical than any other group of people in this country. To suggest otherwise is also offensive.


----------



## Leo (16 Jan 2015)

Purple said:


> Some people stupidly refer to working class and middle class etc. whereas the vast majority of people who work are working class and the vast majority of people who claim to be working class don't work. That shows how stupid, outdated and in many way offensive such classifications are.



You just reminded me of the program John Prescott made a few years back investigating the class system in the UK. This is my particular highlight, and points out how futile it is to try impose a class structure.


----------



## Purple (19 Jan 2015)

Leo said:


> You just reminded me of the program John Prescott made a few years back investigating the class system in the UK. This is my particular highlight, and points out how futile it is to try impose a class structure.


Excellent!


----------

