MD parents: You're going to want to do everything you can to keep your kid's spot

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The payment scam OP is describing is ILLEGAL.

OP is obviously an unethical daycare owner trying to get as much money out of people as possible.

For something to be illegal, it has to break a law. What law do you think is being broken, and why do you think it applies?

There is no guarantee of daycare spots in this country. Many families couldn't afford to pay anything, anyway, and they do without.

It is BRIBERY to select clients by what monies they paid to reserve spots while services were NOT offered, so that they could get services in the future.

This is very specific.

Daycares have already been sued for refusing to reimburse tuition for services not rendered.

They are going to get sued again if they try that little game.

DP. You do realize that using ALL CAPS doesn't actually make your point any more valid, right?

That is not remotely bribery. It is payment for a good or service -- in this case payment for a spot when it became available. That's not bribery.

Say a daycare had a spot before you wanted it or even before your kid was old enough to attend. Many parents paid for weeks or months to reserve the spot under these circumstances. That's not illegal.

In other contexts, a company with a very sought after product can change extra (or require you to pay to join a special group) to gain first access to the sought after product. Not illegal.

I really do love when we get broad, sweeping, authoritative legal pronouncements on DCUM from people who are obviously not lawyers.

Wrong comparison.

OP is talking about giving priority to families who paid more. It falls under bribery and extortion.

It’s very clear.

OP here. What are you talking about?!

This is a business. You get the service if you pay for it. They were very clear that if you do not pay, your kid’s spot will only be reserved for that month, and there were no guarantees beyond that.

I don’t get what your issue is. Why do you expect to be guaranteed a service if it’s in limited supply and you didn’t pay for it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is OP. I’m not a daycare owner; I’m simply a parent who received this guidance from the school and wanted to pass it along, because it’s the first I’d heard of this. I expect other schools will do the same because I frankly don’t know of any other way to prioritize families, when you’re in a position where you can’t accommodate everyone.

It absolutely sucks, but I honestly don’t know another way.

Did they say this when school closed? That if you paid in full you would get priority when they reopen? If so it makes sense. If not there’s going to be a major situation.

Yes, they said if you pay in full you will guarantee your spot. If you don’t pay, you only were guaranteed your spot for that month.

They’ve been very transparent about their process.

Then there’s no issue although ostensibly there might be if so many paid that they then couldn’t keep sizes small enough per recommendations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is OP. I’m not a daycare owner; I’m simply a parent who received this guidance from the school and wanted to pass it along, because it’s the first I’d heard of this. I expect other schools will do the same because I frankly don’t know of any other way to prioritize families, when you’re in a position where you can’t accommodate everyone.

It absolutely sucks, but I honestly don’t know another way.

Did they say this when school closed? That if you paid in full you would get priority when they reopen? If so it makes sense. If not there’s going to be a major situation.

DP but how would they have known this then?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The payment scam OP is describing is ILLEGAL.

OP is obviously an unethical daycare owner trying to get as much money out of people as possible.

For something to be illegal, it has to break a law. What law do you think is being broken, and why do you think it applies?

There is no guarantee of daycare spots in this country. Many families couldn't afford to pay anything, anyway, and they do without.

It is BRIBERY to select clients by what monies they paid to reserve spots while services were NOT offered, so that they could get services in the future.

This is very specific.

Daycares have already been sued for refusing to reimburse tuition for services not rendered.

They are going to get sued again if they try that little game.

DP. You do realize that using ALL CAPS doesn't actually make your point any more valid, right?

That is not remotely bribery. It is payment for a good or service -- in this case payment for a spot when it became available. That's not bribery.

Say a daycare had a spot before you wanted it or even before your kid was old enough to attend. Many parents paid for weeks or months to reserve the spot under these circumstances. That's not illegal.

In other contexts, a company with a very sought after product can change extra (or require you to pay to join a special group) to gain first access to the sought after product. Not illegal.

I really do love when we get broad, sweeping, authoritative legal pronouncements on DCUM from people who are obviously not lawyers.

Wrong comparison.

OP is talking about giving priority to families who paid more. It falls under bribery and extortion.

It’s very clear.

Repeating yourself does not make it true. There is nothing wrong with allocating a scarce resource based on who has paid more.

[Anonymous]

This would never happen. This is discrimination. You are basically saying those on vouchers, those that are low income, etc are not able to get a spot because they did not pay for daycare when the state was in a state of emergency and was not required to pay for daycare? I am not sure where OP goes but this is NOT what is being talked about at all. Daycares will operate by keeping students grouped to 10. This will look like; dividers within the classroom. Opening spots to part time if they have previously said fulltime only. Encouraging kids to wear mask. Temp checks daily. Allowing one family to enter for pick up and drop off at a time in the building.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is OP. I’m not a daycare owner; I’m simply a parent who received this guidance from the school and wanted to pass it along, because it’s the first I’d heard of this. I expect other schools will do the same because I frankly don’t know of any other way to prioritize families, when you’re in a position where you can’t accommodate everyone.

It absolutely sucks, but I honestly don’t know another way.

Did they say this when school closed? That if you paid in full you would get priority when they reopen? If so it makes sense. If not there’s going to be a major situation.

DP but how would they have known this then?

What they said is that paying full tuition would ensure your spot when they reopen. I don’t think SO many people paid full tuition that this wasn’t a reasonable statement.

There is a $0 tuition option, but they were very clear that this only reserved your spot for that month. Nothing else was guaranteed.

Then there are intermediary tuition options that give you access to various distance learning options. These people are prioritized, but lower than essential personnel and full-tuition paying families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The payment scam OP is describing is ILLEGAL.

OP is obviously an unethical daycare owner trying to get as much money out of people as possible.

For something to be illegal, it has to break a law. What law do you think is being broken, and why do you think it applies?

There is no guarantee of daycare spots in this country. Many families couldn't afford to pay anything, anyway, and they do without.

It is BRIBERY to select clients by what monies they paid to reserve spots while services were NOT offered, so that they could get services in the future.

This is very specific.

Daycares have already been sued for refusing to reimburse tuition for services not rendered.

They are going to get sued again if they try that little game.

DP. You do realize that using ALL CAPS doesn't actually make your point any more valid, right?

That is not remotely bribery. It is payment for a good or service -- in this case payment for a spot when it became available. That's not bribery.

Say a daycare had a spot before you wanted it or even before your kid was old enough to attend. Many parents paid for weeks or months to reserve the spot under these circumstances. That's not illegal.

In other contexts, a company with a very sought after product can change extra (or require you to pay to join a special group) to gain first access to the sought after product. Not illegal.

I really do love when we get broad, sweeping, authoritative legal pronouncements on DCUM from people who are obviously not lawyers.

Wrong comparison.

OP is talking about giving priority to families who paid more. It falls under bribery and extortion.

It’s very clear.

One of the examples I gave expressly dealt with people paying more to get priority. That was very clear.

Your doubling down that it is now extortion, and not only bribery, makes you sound even more ridiculous.

I'd like to think you are a troll, but it seems a very odd thing to troll about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is OP. I’m not a daycare owner; I’m simply a parent who received this guidance from the school and wanted to pass it along, because it’s the first I’d heard of this. I expect other schools will do the same because I frankly don’t know of any other way to prioritize families, when you’re in a position where you can’t accommodate everyone.

It absolutely sucks, but I honestly don’t know another way.

Did they say this when school closed? That if you paid in full you would get priority when they reopen? If so it makes sense. If not there’s going to be a major situation.

DP but how would they have known this then?

How would they have known that people who pay in full get priority? What do you mean? It’s a policy they set.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This would never happen. This is discrimination. You are basically saying those on vouchers, those that are low income, etc are not able to get a spot because they did not pay for daycare when the state was in a state of emergency and was not required to pay for daycare? I am not sure where OP goes but this is NOT what is being talked about at all. Daycares will operate by keeping students grouped to 10. This will look like; dividers within the classroom. Opening spots to part time if they have previously said fulltime only. Encouraging kids to wear mask. Temp checks daily. Allowing one family to enter for pick up and drop off at a time in the building.

Np But my kids preschool said something very similar. The more you pay the more priority you get when they re-open if there is a shortage of spots.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is OP. I’m not a daycare owner; I’m simply a parent who received this guidance from the school and wanted to pass it along, because it’s the first I’d heard of this. I expect other schools will do the same because I frankly don’t know of any other way to prioritize families, when you’re in a position where you can’t accommodate everyone.

It absolutely sucks, but I honestly don’t know another way.

Did they say this when school closed? That if you paid in full you would get priority when they reopen? If so it makes sense. If not there’s going to be a major situation.

DP but how would they have known this then?

How would they have known that people who pay in full get priority? What do you mean? It’s a policy they set.

I think what PP means is they didn’t know what capacity they would be limited to back in March when they had to close. That’s true. They made a gamble when telling full tuition families they’d have a spot because if, say, they had been forced to operate at 20% capacity, it’s very possible they’d have no spots for full tuition families because they would only be able to accommodate essential personnel families (which they say take up about 20% of their capacity).

You all need to remember that the daycares are dealing with ever-changing, impossible to anticipate policies, just like everyone else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The payment scam OP is describing is ILLEGAL.

OP is obviously an unethical daycare owner trying to get as much money out of people as possible.

For something to be illegal, it has to break a law. What law do you think is being broken, and why do you think it applies?

There is no guarantee of daycare spots in this country. Many families couldn't afford to pay anything, anyway, and they do without.

It is BRIBERY to select clients by what monies they paid to reserve spots while services were NOT offered, so that they could get services in the future.

This is very specific.

Daycares have already been sued for refusing to reimburse tuition for services not rendered.

They are going to get sued again if they try that little game.

DP. You do realize that using ALL CAPS doesn't actually make your point any more valid, right?

That is not remotely bribery. It is payment for a good or service -- in this case payment for a spot when it became available. That's not bribery.

Say a daycare had a spot before you wanted it or even before your kid was old enough to attend. Many parents paid for weeks or months to reserve the spot under these circumstances. That's not illegal.

In other contexts, a company with a very sought after product can change extra (or require you to pay to join a special group) to gain first access to the sought after product. Not illegal.

I really do love when we get broad, sweeping, authoritative legal pronouncements on DCUM from people who are obviously not lawyers.

Wrong comparison.

OP is talking about giving priority to families who paid more. It falls under bribery and extortion.

It’s very clear.

Here is the relevant part of the MD extortion statute. Now you tell me what provision applies and why. § 3-701. Extortion generally.

(b) Obtaining or attempting to obtain property prohibited.- A person may not obtain, attempt to obtain, or conspire to obtain money, property, labor, services, or anything of value from another person with the person's consent, if the consent is induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened:

(1) force or violence;

(2) economic injury; or

(3) destruction, concealment, removal, confiscation, or possession of any immigration or government identification document with intent to harm the immigration status of another person.

[Anonymous]

Sort of like what we all did when we were waiting for a spot when we first had kids. If a spot came open, you paid to hold it. And kind of like what nursing homes do. If you leave, even for the hospital, you pay a fee to hold the bed. No surprise that day cares are going to prioritize re-entry to those who paid to hold their spot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The payment scam OP is describing is ILLEGAL.

OP is obviously an unethical daycare owner trying to get as much money out of people as possible.

For something to be illegal, it has to break a law. What law do you think is being broken, and why do you think it applies?

There is no guarantee of daycare spots in this country. Many families couldn't afford to pay anything, anyway, and they do without.

It is BRIBERY to select clients by what monies they paid to reserve spots while services were NOT offered, so that they could get services in the future.

This is very specific.

Daycares have already been sued for refusing to reimburse tuition for services not rendered.

They are going to get sued again if they try that little game.

DP. You do realize that using ALL CAPS doesn't actually make your point any more valid, right?

That is not remotely bribery. It is payment for a good or service -- in this case payment for a spot when it became available. That's not bribery.

Say a daycare had a spot before you wanted it or even before your kid was old enough to attend. Many parents paid for weeks or months to reserve the spot under these circumstances. That's not illegal.

In other contexts, a company with a very sought after product can change extra (or require you to pay to join a special group) to gain first access to the sought after product. Not illegal.

I really do love when we get broad, sweeping, authoritative legal pronouncements on DCUM from people who are obviously not lawyers.

Wrong comparison.

OP is talking about giving priority to families who paid more. It falls under bribery and extortion.

It’s very clear.

Okay, so cite the law you think is being violated. If you actually look at it -- or if you get assistance in that endeavor here -- I think you will see why what law you think applies and is being violated, in in fact not.

Just allcapping that I THINK SO over and over does not magically make it true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This would never happen. This is discrimination. You are basically saying those on vouchers, those that are low income, etc are not able to get a spot because they did not pay for daycare when the state was in a state of emergency and was not required to pay for daycare? I am not sure where OP goes but this is NOT what is being talked about at all. Daycares will operate by keeping students grouped to 10. This will look like; dividers within the classroom. Opening spots to part time if they have previously said fulltime only. Encouraging kids to wear mask. Temp checks daily. Allowing one family to enter for pick up and drop off at a time in the building.

Wait -- do you think that everyone here is guaranteed daycare for their kids, regardless of their ability to pay?

You do know that there are a lot of people who can't get daycare, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is OP. I’m not a daycare owner; I’m simply a parent who received this guidance from the school and wanted to pass it along, because it’s the first I’d heard of this. I expect other schools will do the same because I frankly don’t know of any other way to prioritize families, when you’re in a position where you can’t accommodate everyone.

It absolutely sucks, but I honestly don’t know another way.

Did they say this when school closed? That if you paid in full you would get priority when they reopen? If so it makes sense. If not there’s going to be a major situation.

DP but how would they have known this then?

What they said is that paying full tuition would ensure your spot when they reopen. I don’t think SO many people paid full tuition that this wasn’t a reasonable statement.

There is a $0 tuition option, but they were very clear that this only reserved your spot for that month. Nothing else was guaranteed.

Then there are intermediary tuition options that give you access to various distance learning options. These people are prioritized, but lower than essential personnel and full-tuition paying families.

Okay, so that's very clear. At first it sounded like you were at one of the places where they stopped charging but then asked people to voluntarily donate their monthly fees in whole or in part if they could. If one of those places then says "Hey, we're in a bind trying to figure out who gets to come back, so we're going to give it to the people who chose to donate the most to us while we were closed, even though they were never asked to pay to hold their spot or told that they amount they paid has anything to do with who gets a spot," that's a different story.