[Vision2020] Panel Rejects Day-Care Rules

Wed Feb 28 13:29:03 PST 2007

My kids are grown. This was a huge problem for us when they were growing. 
Frankly, I think that having significant adults available for and working 
with the children is critical. People can stay at home or use day care. If 
your home job takes time away from the kids. They are better off in day 
care. Being low income and loosing half of your income to day care is also 
problem for some. So there is a balance that everyone with children has to 
work out. The bottom line is that day cares exist and they must serve the 
children’s needs or our whole society pays a price.
Recently at the Moscow  climate change discussion. Jamie Nekich indicated we 
should use less overall. Part of that theme included needing less and also 
working less. I agree with that. For those of us that are serious about the 
climate change issue, as we reign our activities in more locally. This sort 
of issue could simply resolve itself if we quit working full blast.
Dave

>I just want to add a couple of comments that Tom kind of touches on . . .
>
>I think when we discuss the benefits of at-home jobs, there's a tendency to
>think more about jobs that tend to be more -- for lack of a better word --
>professional/technical telecommuting kinds of things.
>
>However, there are HUGE groups of at-home workers who *don't* fit into that
>picture of at-home workers.  As Tom mentions, at-home child care providers
>are part of that.  If any of you know folks who provide this vital service,
>you know that's it's not an easy occupation.
>
>And, there are lots of other at-home workers who fall into that category.
>As I wrote to another who questioned my comment that at-home work can have 
>a
>negative impact on quality of life for workers and their families:
>
>It's been quite awhile since I looked into it, but one of the strong points
>made was that many at-home workers tend to have increased job-related 
>stress
>because they can never really get away from work when they work from home.
>At-home workers, too, tended to work more uncompensated hours -- I believe
>that was specific to hourly at-home workers rather than those who were
>salaried, but I can't recall the specifics.  There was also a study that
>looked at women who do phone jobs from home (calling for charities, 
>customer
>service "call centers" and the like), and that work eroded the time
>available for families because workers were routinely expected to cover
>times they weren't scheduled.  Other problems cited included the isolation
>from others, decreased collective problem-solving, decreased successful
>collective bargaining on issues such as wages, work hours, job 
>descriptions,
>health-care and other benefits, etc.  There's also the illusion that when
>one works from home, one doesn't need childcare.  Now, while perhaps that
>works for some families (like yours), it definitely isn't true for lots of
>at-home workers.  I can speak specifically (although not personally) about
>workers who provide telephone customer service from home -- trying to
>provide home phone-based customer service while also caring for a
>child/children is a recipe for disaster and incredibly stressful for 
>parents
>who try to balance work and child-care.
>
>And, of course, there were lots of problems discussed about cost-shifting,
>but those issues don't directly relate to the quality of life issues I
>mentioned.
>
>I think -- but I'm not sure -- that there is a tendency these days to think
>about at-home workers in term of more professional or skilled telecommuters
>(look at the brief list Dan Carscallan mentioned) .  What that is a valid
>group of at-home workers, it's only one group, and I suspect it's a smaller
>group than those who do things like run at-home daycares, do telemarketing
>or other phone-based (unskilled) jobs, do sewing, ironing, medical billing
>(I've several friends who do that, and what a thankless job and perhaps one
>of the worst at eroding family time), etc.
>
>But, as I said, it's been a long time since I spent any time researching 
>the
>issues.
>_____
>
>I think some at-home jobs can be a really good thing that works well for
>those involved.
>
>However, I think we need to use care to not lump all at-home jobs together
>and think of them as some sort of panacea.
>
>
>JMHO,
>Saundra Lund
>Moscow, ID
>
>The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do
>nothing.
>- Edmund Burke
>
>***** Original material contained herein is Copyright 2006, Saundra Lund.
>Do not copy, forward, excerpt, or reproduce outside the Vision 2020 forum
>without the express written permission of the author.*****
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com]
>On Behalf Of Tom Hansen
>Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 11:32 AM
>To: lfalen at turbonet.com; deco at moscow.com; vision2020 at moscow.com
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Panel Rejects Day-Care Rules
>
>Roger Falen stated:
>
>"Working from hone is great and would be a plus for everyone."
>
>And just what work-at-home opportunities are there here in Vandalville,
>Roger?
>
>I mean other than opening a day care center.
>
>Tom Hansen
>
>
> >From: lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com>
> >Reply-To: lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com>
> >To: "Art Deco" <deco at moscow.com>, "Vision 2020" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> >Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Panel Rejects Day-Care Rules
> >Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 10:16:25 -0800
> >
> >Wayne
> >Working from hone is great and would be a plus for everyone.
> >
> >Roger
> >-----Original message-----
> >From: "Art Deco" deco at moscow.com
> >Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 11:03:21 -0800
> >To: "Vision 2020" vision2020 at moscow.com
> >Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Panel Rejects Day-Care Rules
> >
> > > Roger writes:
> > >
> > > "The statements by some Republicans that the voted against the day
> > > care bill, because mothers should stay at home is ridiculous. In an
> > > ideal
> >world
> > > that would be desirable."
> > >
> > > Why in an ideal world, it is the just the mothers that stay home?
> > > Why
> >not
> > > let the families choose, if they can afford to live on one salary,
> > > which parent stays home?
> > >
> > > Why not make it a national/state/local policy to promote much
> > > broader
> >use of
> > > the work from home concept?  We now have the hardware and software
> > > technology that would allow parts of many jobs to be done at home.
> >Besides
> > > allowing more time for parents to spend with their families, such a
> > > workforce shift would save gasoline, etc.
> > >
> > > W.
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "lfalen" <lfalen at turbonet.com>
> > > To: "Ellen Roskovich" <gussie443 at hotmail.com>; <thansen at moscow.com>;
> > > <suehovey at moscow.com>; <graylex at yahoo.com>; <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 9:12 AM
> > > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Panel Rejects Day-Care Rules
> > >
> > >
> > > >I am glad you brought up on site day care.  This is something I
> > > >have thought was a good idea for a long time for those companies
> > > >that are
> >big
> > > >enough to do it. Obviously small companies can not. The statements
> > > >by
> >some
> > > >Republicans that the voted against the day care bill, because
> > > >mothers should stay at home is ridiculous. In an ideal world that
> > > >would be desirable. There are many circumstances where that is not
>feasible.
> >Single
> > > >working mothers are only one example. Day care is needed and they
> > > >need
> >to
> > > >be safe. Some allowances should be made for babysitter, but
> >professional
> > > >day care centers at least need some minimal rules to insure the
> > > >kids
> >are
> > > >not put in harms way.
> > > >
> > > > Roger
> > > >

_________________________________________________________________
With tax season right around the corner, make sure to follow these few 
simple tips. 
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Taxes/PreparationTips/PreparationTips.aspx?icid=HMFebtagline