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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.