Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Also, know that background and credit checks are routine for most jobs these days.
Not for other "unskilled" jobs. The credit and background check requirements are for people whose work require a certain amount of responsibility and ethical sense. In faft, I did not undergo a background or credit check for my office job which puts me in one on one relatively unsupervised contact with children.
Any skilled or unskilled workers in a medium-large company usually gets a background check. Your company is potentially exposing themselves to risk by not performing them, but of course that's their choice.
This really isn't true. My teenaged brother didn't go through a background check to work at McDonalds or Target. I also never did when I worked those types of jobs. Those are the actual unskilled labor jobs. To compare being a nanny to those jobs is ridiculous, which was kind of the point.
If they were considered the same, you'd be making minimum wage. So no, they aren't the same. Nor are the paid the same.
According to this definition, nannying would be a semi-skilled job.
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/unskilled-work-semi-skilled-work-skilled-work-social-security-disability.html
There are lots of parents attempting to pay less than that! So the fact that I not personally making minimum wage doesn't change the fact that so many in our society and on this board consider nannies unskilled insignificant workers.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Also, know that background and credit checks are routine for most jobs these days.
Not for other "unskilled" jobs. The credit and background check requirements are for people whose work require a certain amount of responsibility and ethical sense. In faft, I did not undergo a background or credit check for my office job which puts me in one on one relatively unsupervised contact with children.
Any skilled or unskilled workers in a medium-large company usually gets a background check. Your company is potentially exposing themselves to risk by not performing them, but of course that's their choice.
This really isn't true. My teenaged brother didn't go through a background check to work at McDonalds or Target. I also never did when I worked those types of jobs. Those are the actual unskilled labor jobs. To compare being a nanny to those jobs is ridiculous, which was kind of the point.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Also, know that background and credit checks are routine for most jobs these days.
Not for other "unskilled" jobs. The credit and background check requirements are for people whose work require a certain amount of responsibility and ethical sense. In faft, I did not undergo a background or credit check for my office job which puts me in one on one relatively unsupervised contact with children.
Any skilled or unskilled workers in a medium-large company usually gets a background check. Your company is potentially exposing themselves to risk by not performing them, but of course that's their choice.
This really isn't true. My teenaged brother didn't go through a background check to work at McDonalds or Target. I also never did when I worked those types of jobs. Those are the actual unskilled labor jobs. To compare being a nanny to those jobs is ridiculous, which was kind of the point.
If they were considered the same, you'd be making minimum wage. So no, they aren't the same. Nor are the paid the same.
According to this definition, nannying would be a semi-skilled job.
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/unskilled-work-semi-skilled-work-skilled-work-social-security-disability.html
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Also, know that background and credit checks are routine for most jobs these days.
Not for other "unskilled" jobs. The credit and background check requirements are for people whose work require a certain amount of responsibility and ethical sense. In faft, I did not undergo a background or credit check for my office job which puts me in one on one relatively unsupervised contact with children.
Any skilled or unskilled workers in a medium-large company usually gets a background check. Your company is potentially exposing themselves to risk by not performing them, but of course that's their choice.
This really isn't true. My teenaged brother didn't go through a background check to work at McDonalds or Target. I also never did when I worked those types of jobs. Those are the actual unskilled labor jobs. To compare being a nanny to those jobs is ridiculous, which was kind of the point.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:There is lots of important and valuable work that doesn't earn a lot of money. Not sure why you think the two are so linked.
Do you think hedge fund managers do valuable work? Are they "worth" the millions they make every year?
Does a kindergarten teacher do valuable work?
Why is that though, and how do you as an employer reconcile the two ideas and perhaps being personally responsible for perpetuating it?
To answer your questions, yes I do think a kindergarten teacher does incredibly important work, but I think their salary versus the hendge fund manager's salary show the value our society places on their work. Any work that is traditionally female and relating to the care of children is always undervalued.
Because it's the world I live in. I am an MB, and my salary is based upon my market value, not my value to society. Which is why, when selecting a career, I paid a lot of attention to the market value of careers and why I am not a nanny or teacher. Life is unfair, for sure. As for perpetuating it, how often do you pay more for your services than you are charged? Do you hand out $$ to your local police officers or paramedics to make sure they are well paid? What about your kids teachers- do you give them a few thousand because of their value to society?
I think there's a big difference between paying more than you're charge for something vs. being the employer that sets the actual salary. I do try to vote with my wallet and spend money at business that I know treat their employees well, and avoid those that don't, even if it means playing more for the product or service. I also support unions that fight for the best possible treatment for those professions that you mentioned, as well as legislation that will better protect childcare workers. Instead of saying life is unfair and contributing to the issues, I do my damnedest to be a part of the solution.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Also, know that background and credit checks are routine for most jobs these days.
Not for other "unskilled" jobs. The credit and background check requirements are for people whose work require a certain amount of responsibility and ethical sense. In faft, I did not undergo a background or credit check for my office job which puts me in one on one relatively unsupervised contact with children.
Any skilled or unskilled workers in a medium-large company usually gets a background check. Your company is potentially exposing themselves to risk by not performing them, but of course that's their choice.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:There is lots of important and valuable work that doesn't earn a lot of money. Not sure why you think the two are so linked.
Do you think hedge fund managers do valuable work? Are they "worth" the millions they make every year?
Does a kindergarten teacher do valuable work?
Why is that though, and how do you as an employer reconcile the two ideas and perhaps being personally responsible for perpetuating it?
To answer your questions, yes I do think a kindergarten teacher does incredibly important work, but I think their salary versus the hendge fund manager's salary show the value our society places on their work. Any work that is traditionally female and relating to the care of children is always undervalued.
Because it's the world I live in. I am an MB, and my salary is based upon my market value, not my value to society. Which is why, when selecting a career, I paid a lot of attention to the market value of careers and why I am not a nanny or teacher. Life is unfair, for sure. As for perpetuating it, how often do you pay more for your services than you are charged? Do you hand out $$ to your local police officers or paramedics to make sure they are well paid? What about your kids teachers- do you give them a few thousand because of their value to society?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Also, know that background and credit checks are routine for most jobs these days.
Not for other "unskilled" jobs. The credit and background check requirements are for people whose work require a certain amount of responsibility and ethical sense. In faft, I did not undergo a background or credit check for my office job which puts me in one on one relatively unsupervised contact with children.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:There is lots of important and valuable work that doesn't earn a lot of money. Not sure why you think the two are so linked.
Do you think hedge fund managers do valuable work? Are they "worth" the millions they make every year?
Does a kindergarten teacher do valuable work?
Why is that though, and how do you as an employer reconcile the two ideas and perhaps being personally responsible for perpetuating it?
To answer your questions, yes I do think a kindergarten teacher does incredibly important work, but I think their salary versus the hendge fund manager's salary show the value our society places on their work. Any work that is traditionally female and relating to the care of children is always undervalued.
Anonymous wrote:Also, know that background and credit checks are routine for most jobs these days.
Anonymous wrote:There is lots of important and valuable work that doesn't earn a lot of money. Not sure why you think the two are so linked.
Do you think hedge fund managers do valuable work? Are they "worth" the millions they make every year?
Does a kindergarten teacher do valuable work?