Anonymous wrote:


It’s amusing how OP thinks we don’t see right through her little game.


Stop pressuring DCUM families to give you more money for nothing. You’re just a lying thief.

Except most posters here think that what the daycare is doing is perfectly reasonable under the circumstances. Are we all secretly daycare owners trying to pressure our families?

It’s amusing how OP thinks we don’t see right through her little game.


Stop pressuring DCUM families to give you more money for nothing. You’re just a lying thief.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Is it though? The daycare is in a bind. It can't accommodate all its families. What is a fair way to allocate spots?

It sure seems the it would be reasonable for them to say that, as a thank you/tangible benefit, they would give spots to those who had been making voluntary payments all along. I don't think that is unfair. People who make all sorts of donations to causes/businesses get perks. I don't see why this is different.

Unfair and illegal are two different things, but I also don't see how that would be illegal. It seems a perfectly reasonable solution to deal with a perfectly imperfect situation.

Well, it's definitely very different from a situation where you know in advance that you have to keep paying to hold your spot, as opposed to being explicitly told "you don't need to pay, but we'd appreciate it if you can afford to contribute a little something" and then later on hearing "whoops, you were making hard decisions about your family's finances but it was secretly a test, and everyone who could comfortably afford to keep paying gets to stay!"

I would think if you have to cut families it's probably best to just do some kind of random number generator thing, luck of the draw. It still really, really sucks for the families who lose their spots, but at least it's not unfair and would result in less hard feelings.

I don't see the difference being as stark as you.

But, to address your surprise/unfairness concern, say that the daycare says that, in light of the current limited occupancy, families that paid in full will get priority. If anyone hasn't paid in full to date, they have the opportunity to make up the difference now and be included in the priority pot. If there are more families in the priority pot than we can handle, we will draw lots. If there are spots left after all priority spots are taken, we will draw lots from everyone else.

Therefore, every family will have a chance to get into the priority position by making the payment. I guess you could say that it would have been better for some families to know this all along so they could plan, but the daycare didn't know how reopen would work given that government rules hadn't been worked out.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Is it though? The daycare is in a bind. It can't accommodate all its families. What is a fair way to allocate spots?

It sure seems the it would be reasonable for them to say that, as a thank you/tangible benefit, they would give spots to those who had been making voluntary payments all along. I don't think that is unfair. People who make all sorts of donations to causes/businesses get perks. I don't see why this is different.

Unfair and illegal are two different things, but I also don't see how that would be illegal. It seems a perfectly reasonable solution to deal with a perfectly imperfect situation.

Well, it's definitely very different from a situation where you know in advance that you have to keep paying to hold your spot, as opposed to being explicitly told "you don't need to pay, but we'd appreciate it if you can afford to contribute a little something" and then later on hearing "whoops, you were making hard decisions about your family's finances but it was secretly a test, and everyone who could comfortably afford to keep paying gets to stay!"

I would think if you have to cut families it's probably best to just do some kind of random number generator thing, luck of the draw. It still really, really sucks for the families who lose their spots, but at least it's not unfair and would result in less hard feelings.

If you weren't able to piece together than paying for your slots would enhance your chances of getting a spot when everything opened up, you deserve to loose it. Come on, PP, this isn't rocket science.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Is it though? The daycare is in a bind. It can't accommodate all its families. What is a fair way to allocate spots?

It sure seems the it would be reasonable for them to say that, as a thank you/tangible benefit, they would give spots to those who had been making voluntary payments all along. I don't think that is unfair. People who make all sorts of donations to causes/businesses get perks. I don't see why this is different.

Unfair and illegal are two different things, but I also don't see how that would be illegal. It seems a perfectly reasonable solution to deal with a perfectly imperfect situation.

Well, it's definitely very different from a situation where you know in advance that you have to keep paying to hold your spot, as opposed to being explicitly told "you don't need to pay, but we'd appreciate it if you can afford to contribute a little something" and then later on hearing "whoops, you were making hard decisions about your family's finances but it was secretly a test, and everyone who could comfortably afford to keep paying gets to stay!"

I would think if you have to cut families it's probably best to just do some kind of random number generator thing, luck of the draw. It still really, really sucks for the families who lose their spots, but at least it's not unfair and would result in less hard feelings.

"Family A, I know you have been paying full cost for the last 4 months. We really appreciate it. But sorry, our random number generator selected Family B, who hasn't paid a dime in the past 4 months, for the final open spot we have. Sorry, we have to cut you loose - thanks for your donation!"

That isn't unfair?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Is it though? The daycare is in a bind. It can't accommodate all its families. What is a fair way to allocate spots?

It sure seems the it would be reasonable for them to say that, as a thank you/tangible benefit, they would give spots to those who had been making voluntary payments all along. I don't think that is unfair. People who make all sorts of donations to causes/businesses get perks. I don't see why this is different.

Unfair and illegal are two different things, but I also don't see how that would be illegal. It seems a perfectly reasonable solution to deal with a perfectly imperfect situation.

Well, it's definitely very different from a situation where you know in advance that you have to keep paying to hold your spot, as opposed to being explicitly told "you don't need to pay, but we'd appreciate it if you can afford to contribute a little something" and then later on hearing "whoops, you were making hard decisions about your family's finances but it was secretly a test, and everyone who could comfortably afford to keep paying gets to stay!"

I would think if you have to cut families it's probably best to just do some kind of random number generator thing, luck of the draw. It still really, really sucks for the families who lose their spots, but at least it's not unfair and would result in less hard feelings.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the two of three people who complain about this being unfair, or even illegal (!!), consider this scenario.

Daycare with capacity of 20 kids. They have been allowed to remain open to care for children of essential workers; there are 4 of them.

They receive notice that they can reopen, but are limited to a capacity of 10. So there are now six open slots, but sixteen former customers.

How do they chose among the 16 former customers?

Consider further, of those sixteen, 5 had been paying full tuition, and the other 11 had been paying less than that. You really think it's unreasonable or illegal to offer the slots first to the families that had paid full tuition?

This is how I am choosing:

I am choosing to dump PITA parents (it's always the parents, never the kids), parents who are constantly late (you know who you are!), parents to medicate in the am to cover up sicknesses (we always know, just can't prove). Basically, I am going to only have parents who I like working for, people who are kind and people who are on time.

If one of those PITA parents has been paying full boat all this time, you'd better keep them as well. Or be prepared to return their money.

Nobody has for me. But I know some people are prepared to refund money rather than keep pita parents. Many people are cleaning house now.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the two of three people who complain about this being unfair, or even illegal (!!), consider this scenario.

Daycare with capacity of 20 kids. They have been allowed to remain open to care for children of essential workers; there are 4 of them.

They receive notice that they can reopen, but are limited to a capacity of 10. So there are now six open slots, but sixteen former customers.

How do they chose among the 16 former customers?

Consider further, of those sixteen, 5 had been paying full tuition, and the other 11 had been paying less than that. You really think it's unreasonable or illegal to offer the slots first to the families that had paid full tuition?

The WORSE option is to extort parents into full tuition to hold their spots.
It’s grossly unethical.

I would select based on direst need for childcare.

And how would a daycare owner objectively determine "direst need for childcare"? Also, do you plan on responding to any of the posts asking you to explain -- rather than just declare -- how this is extortion?

Anonymous wrote:For the two of three people who complain about this being unfair, or even illegal (!!), consider this scenario.

Daycare with capacity of 20 kids. They have been allowed to remain open to care for children of essential workers; there are 4 of them.

They receive notice that they can reopen, but are limited to a capacity of 10. So there are now six open slots, but sixteen former customers.

How do they chose among the 16 former customers?

Consider further, of those sixteen, 5 had been paying full tuition, and the other 11 had been paying less than that. You really think it's unreasonable or illegal to offer the slots first to the families that had paid full tuition?

The WORSE option is to extort parents into full tuition to hold their spots.
It’s grossly unethical.

I would select based on direst need for childcare.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the two of three people who complain about this being unfair, or even illegal (!!), consider this scenario.

Daycare with capacity of 20 kids. They have been allowed to remain open to care for children of essential workers; there are 4 of them.

They receive notice that they can reopen, but are limited to a capacity of 10. So there are now six open slots, but sixteen former customers.

How do they chose among the 16 former customers?

Consider further, of those sixteen, 5 had been paying full tuition, and the other 11 had been paying less than that. You really think it's unreasonable or illegal to offer the slots first to the families that had paid full tuition?

This is how I am choosing:

I am choosing to dump PITA parents (it's always the parents, never the kids), parents who are constantly late (you know who you are!), parents to medicate in the am to cover up sicknesses (we always know, just can't prove). Basically, I am going to only have parents who I like working for, people who are kind and people who are on time.

If one of those PITA parents has been paying full boat all this time, you'd better keep them as well. Or be prepared to return their money.

Anonymous wrote:For the two of three people who complain about this being unfair, or even illegal (!!), consider this scenario.

Daycare with capacity of 20 kids. They have been allowed to remain open to care for children of essential workers; there are 4 of them.

They receive notice that they can reopen, but are limited to a capacity of 10. So there are now six open slots, but sixteen former customers.

How do they chose among the 16 former customers?

Consider further, of those sixteen, 5 had been paying full tuition, and the other 11 had been paying less than that. You really think it's unreasonable or illegal to offer the slots first to the families that had paid full tuition?

This is how I am choosing:

I am choosing to dump PITA parents (it's always the parents, never the kids), parents who are constantly late (you know who you are!), parents to medicate in the am to cover up sicknesses (we always know, just can't prove). Basically, I am going to only have parents who I like working for, people who are kind and people who are on time.

For the two of three people who complain about this being unfair, or even illegal (!!), consider this scenario.

Daycare with capacity of 20 kids. They have been allowed to remain open to care for children of essential workers; there are 4 of them.

They receive notice that they can reopen, but are limited to a capacity of 10. So there are now six open slots, but sixteen former customers.

How do they chose among the 16 former customers?

Consider further, of those sixteen, 5 had been paying full tuition, and the other 11 had been paying less than that. You really think it's unreasonable or illegal to offer the slots first to the families that had paid full tuition?

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Is it though? The daycare is in a bind. It can't accommodate all its families. What is a fair way to allocate spots?

It sure seems the it would be reasonable for them to say that, as a thank you/tangible benefit, they would give spots to those who had been making voluntary payments all along. I don't think that is unfair. People who make all sorts of donations to causes/businesses get perks. I don't see why this is different.

Unfair and illegal are two different things, but I also don't see how that would be illegal. It seems a perfectly reasonable solution to deal with a perfectly imperfect situation.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oh no. They’ve made it clear what the ramifications are of not paying.

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.

What law does it violate?