Question:
Alas: http://sanjose.bcentral.com/sanjose/stories/2000/09/18/daily22.html http://austin.bcentral.com/austin/stories/2001/03/05/focus4.html http://emc2.fr/news/in_the_news_archive/122000_top_employers.jsp http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/010227/phtu033.html http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/010205/il_life_ti.html http://www.globetrotter.com/globekids.shtml I had ~10 other articles that from corporate childcare webpages, but they expired and I didn’t save them as HTML. I’ve reqested of the parties I forwarded the pages to, if they saved the HTML, and if I get them back I will post. I found all the companies in just a few hours of searching — I bet if one went through the Dow cos., the S & P cos., and as many other "baskets of cos., one would find scores of cos. offering onsite childcare. Granted, the childcare would probably only be for wee ones. general http://www.interbiznet.com/bugler/bugler_00.10.26.html http://www.jobcircle.com/career/articles/158.html http://www.usnewswire.com/topnews/Current_Releases/0308-155.html Jim
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Dorothy, All, >OK Toto, is there anyone behind the curtain where you sit?… >Any idiot; any idiot employer, can figure out onsite childcare for 0 to >kindergarteners. Putting together a novel business plan is a little >work….financing….insurance……MANY companies have recently implemented >programs that, say, ten years ago, would have never been considered. Even >these can be tweaked and improved upon, but they are a welcome start. > LIke hell. Most businesses still do not provide any care for > children onsite or otherwise. Maybe it is somewhat easier to > figure out, but it is not being done. > AND, the care that is offered by third parties subsidized by > employers for children infants to 5 is often substandard. I know > of several and would absolutely *never* have had my own children > in this kind of care. >Now the hard part. Faint of heart and squeamish: turn away!! >It’s make up time. America’s Older Kids. Let me state that there are kids >who aren’t at risk, but the way I see things, they are ALL on the cusp and >deserve access to something besides the hobbled status quo. Or do they? > No one is saying they don’t deserve access to something, Jim, just > that your solution is a poorer one. Kids in vans and buses for a > much longer time after school is not a good solution. >Ironically (actually, just another G-D day), here’s a few letters to the >editor published in today’s Seattle Times — read ‘em and weep Toto: >Youth and Violence > Counter to that, however is the fact that the youth crime rate is > falling not rising. Instead of media hype, try reading the actual > statistics on youth crime. > Read this one, Jim > For Immediate Release > Justice Policy Institute > Contact: > Vincent Schiraldi > Jason Zeidenberg > (202) 737-7270 > New Justice Department Data: Youth Crime Rate Lowest in Recorded > History > Two-thirds of Public Believe Youth Crime is Increasing > Youth Crime Declines Continue as Polls Show Public Fear of Youth > Remains High > Washington, DC: As the Justice Department releases new juvenile > crime data for 1999 showing a decline in crime by youth for the > sixth straight year, a substantial majority of Americans continue to > feel that youth crime is increasing and that youth commit a higher > portion of crime than they actually do. > Early next week, at the annual conference for the department’s > juvenile branch-the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency > Prevention-researchers will release new youth arrest data for 1999, > the latest year available. While the new OJJDP report will confirm > the continuing decline of juvenile crime, researchers at the Justice > Policy Institute have documented the disconnect between declining > youth crime and the public’s fear of the > younger generation. > "The good news is, America’s kids are acting more responsibly, and > committing fewer crimes than they have in three decades," says > Vincent Schiraldi, director of the Justice Policy Institute, a > Washington, D.C.-based think tank. "The bad news is, this good news > does not seem to be making onto the front page, or into the public > consciousness." > Youth Crime vs. Public Opinion. > 1. Kids Commit Less Crime, but public fear remains. > In a poll of 2,000 adults conducted in 1998 by pollsters Beldon, > Russonello and Stewart for the Building Blocks for Youth Initiative, > 62% of respondents stated that they believed youth crime was on the > increase. The National Crime Victimization Survey conducted by the > US Census Bureau and released by the Justice Department’s Bureau of > Justice Statistics found that, in 1998, youth crime was at its > lowest rate in the 25 year history of that survey (started in > 1973). The youth crime data to be released next week will show more > than a two-thirds decline in youth homicides arrests between 1993 > and 1999. > Ironically, today’s youth are considerably less criminally inclined > than their parents. Yet opinion surveys show that those same parents > are apt to believe that their kids are more prone to delinquency > than they were. > 2. Adults think kids commit more crime than they actually do. > Sixty-percent of respondents to a 1996 survey of Californians > (conducted by Fairbanks, Maslin, and Associates for the California > Wellness Foundation of 1,000 likely voters) reported that they > believed youths "committed most crime nowadays." In reality, 16.9% > of arrests in California in 1996 were of people under age 18, and > more than 8 of 10 arrests were of adult offenders. > 3. School crime seen on the rise, when America’s schools are the > safest places for kids to be. > In a 1999 NBC/Wall Street Journal poll of 1,004 interviewees, 71% of > respondents indicated that they thought it was "likely" that a > school shooting could happen in their community. Yet according to > the data tabulated by the National School Safety Center, in the > 1998/9 school year, there was a one in 2 million chance of being > killed in one of America’s schools. > 4. Public Perception of Crime Comes from the Media. > Seventy-six percent of respondents to a 1996 ABC news poll reported > that they form their opinions about crime based on the media, more > than three times the number who related that they form their > opinions about crime from personal experience (22%). > "In almost every crime category, except the notable exception of gun > crime, today’s youth are much better behaved than we baby-boomers > were at their age," Schiraldi said. He added, to the extent that gun > crime is has risen over the last three decades, this sad reality > probably has more to do with gun availability than any quantifiable > difference in today’s youth population. > The Justice Policy Institute is a non-profit research and public > policy organization based in Washington, DC. The compilation of > this data was funded by a grant from the Annie E. Casey Foundation. > For a full list of citations and credits for the above statistics, > please contact the Institute at (202) 737-7270. > Dorothy > There is no sound, no cry in all the world > that can be heard unless someone listens .. > source unknown
Response:
You might try contacting Merck in New Jersey. I remember that they were pioneers in on-site childcare, having done it since the 70s.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> But there were no threads I could find where people in > Usenet were explicitly talking about the pitfalls and > successes of onsite childcare. > Are there any related experiences or advice from this > vast audience? > Most of the child care providers here are home-based with a very small > handful from the center environment. As such, the majority of us — heck, > all of us — don’t have much experience with onsite child care, let alone > starting and managing one. > You might ask some of the chain centers (like Bright Horizons) who > specialize in onsite childcare for references to get an idea from them about > the ups and downs of onsite child care. > Good luck.
Response:
> At the factory I use to work in they were looking into onsite day care and > came to the conclusion that it was to costly (the employies all feel it was > more like, not enough profit in it for them, they are a big company here and > money always talks with them.)
If their business would otherwise be confiscated by the government it would be amazing how quickly and simply they could implement it. And how cheaply!! Steve
Response:
you are most assuredly right but for right now they are not required and it isn’t profitable enough for them.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> At the factory I use to work in they were looking into onsite day care and > came to the conclusion that it was to costly (the employies all feel it was > more like, not enough profit in it for them, they are a big company here and > money always talks with them.) > If their business would otherwise be confiscated by the government it > would be amazing how quickly and simply they could implement it. And how > cheaply!! > Steve
Response:
Steve, Well, if they, or we, as parents, remain blissfully oblivious we’ll end up capped anyway, Steve. BTW, genius, since this seems crystal clear to you, how about some answers, suggestions, etc. to follow your observation. Ya know constructive criticism vs. plain dumping? As an aside, a cool ramification of parents getting jailed for kids’ offenses would be hardened convicts’ notoriously low tolerance for child-abusers, of which these folks would be classed, and subjugated to prison justice. Jim
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Enact New Law– > When laws allow parents to be prosecuted for their children’s crimes, > juvenile crime will decrease. > Don Stern, Seattle > Nonsense, those kids and their younger siblings will then be left > without anyone. A generation raised in orphanages will REALLY want to > pop a cap in yo ass! > Steve
Response:
> Enact New Law– > When laws allow parents to be prosecuted for their children’s crimes, > juvenile crime will decrease. > Don Stern, Seattle
Nonsense, those kids and their younger siblings will then be left without anyone. A generation raised in orphanages will REALLY want to pop a cap in yo ass! Steve
Response:
At the factory I use to work in they were looking into onsite day care and came to the conclusion that it was to costly (the employies all feel it was more like, not enough profit in it for them, they are a big company here and money always talks with them.)
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Dorothy, All, >OK Toto, is there anyone behind the curtain where you sit?… >Any idiot; any idiot employer, can figure out onsite childcare for 0 to >kindergarteners. Putting together a novel business plan is a little >work….financing….insurance……MANY companies have recently implemented >programs that, say, ten years ago, would have never been considered. Even >these can be tweaked and improved upon, but they are a welcome start. > LIke hell. Most businesses still do not provide any care for > children onsite or otherwise. Maybe it is somewhat easier to > figure out, but it is not being done. > AND, the care that is offered by third parties subsidized by > employers for children infants to 5 is often substandard. I know > of several and would absolutely *never* have had my own children > in this kind of care. >Now the hard part. Faint of heart and squeamish: turn away!! >It’s make up time. America’s Older Kids. Let me state that there are kids >who aren’t at risk, but the way I see things, they are ALL on the cusp and >deserve access to something besides the hobbled status quo. Or do they? > No one is saying they don’t deserve access to something, Jim, just > that your solution is a poorer one. Kids in vans and buses for a > much longer time after school is not a good solution. >Ironically (actually, just another G-D day), here’s a few letters to the >editor published in today’s Seattle Times — read ‘em and weep Toto: >Youth and Violence > Counter to that, however is the fact that the youth crime rate is > falling not rising. Instead of media hype, try reading the actual > statistics on youth crime. > Read this one, Jim > For Immediate Release > Justice Policy Institute > Contact: > Vincent Schiraldi > Jason Zeidenberg > (202) 737-7270 > New Justice Department Data: Youth Crime Rate Lowest in Recorded > History > Two-thirds of Public Believe Youth Crime is Increasing > Youth Crime Declines Continue as Polls Show Public Fear of Youth > Remains High > Washington, DC: As the Justice Department releases new juvenile > crime data for 1999 showing a decline in crime by youth for the > sixth straight year, a substantial majority of Americans continue to > feel that youth crime is increasing and that youth commit a higher > portion of crime than they actually do. > Early next week, at the annual conference for the department’s > juvenile branch-the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency > Prevention-researchers will release new youth arrest data for 1999, > the latest year available. While the new OJJDP report will confirm > the continuing decline of juvenile crime, researchers at the Justice > Policy Institute have documented the disconnect between declining > youth crime and the public’s fear of the > younger generation. > "The good news is, America’s kids are acting more responsibly, and > committing fewer crimes than they have in three decades," says > Vincent Schiraldi, director of the Justice Policy Institute, a > Washington, D.C.-based think tank. "The bad news is, this good news > does not seem to be making onto the front page, or into the public > consciousness." > Youth Crime vs. Public Opinion. > 1. Kids Commit Less Crime, but public fear remains. > In a poll of 2,000 adults conducted in 1998 by pollsters Beldon, > Russonello and Stewart for the Building Blocks for Youth Initiative, > 62% of respondents stated that they believed youth crime was on the > increase. The National Crime Victimization Survey conducted by the > US Census Bureau and released by the Justice Department’s Bureau of > Justice Statistics found that, in 1998, youth crime was at its > lowest rate in the 25 year history of that survey (started in > 1973). The youth crime data to be released next week will show more > than a two-thirds decline in youth homicides arrests between 1993 > and 1999. > Ironically, today’s youth are considerably less criminally inclined > than their parents. Yet opinion surveys show that those same parents > are apt to believe that their kids are more prone to delinquency > than they were. > 2. Adults think kids commit more crime than they actually do. > Sixty-percent of respondents to a 1996 survey of Californians > (conducted by Fairbanks, Maslin, and Associates for the California > Wellness Foundation of 1,000 likely voters) reported that they > believed youths "committed most crime nowadays." In reality, 16.9% > of arrests in California in 1996 were of people under age 18, and > more than 8 of 10 arrests were of adult offenders. > 3. School crime seen on the rise, when America’s schools are the > safest places for kids to be. > In a 1999 NBC/Wall Street Journal poll of 1,004 interviewees, 71% of > respondents indicated that they thought it was "likely" that a > school shooting could happen in their community. Yet according to > the data tabulated by the National School Safety Center, in the > 1998/9 school year, there was a one in 2 million chance of being > killed in one of America’s schools. > 4. Public Perception of Crime Comes from the Media. > Seventy-six percent of respondents to a 1996 ABC news poll reported > that they form their opinions about crime based on the media, more > than three times the number who related that they form their > opinions about crime from personal experience (22%). > "In almost every crime category, except the notable exception of gun > crime, today’s youth are much better behaved than we baby-boomers > were at their age," Schiraldi said. He added, to the extent that gun > crime is has risen over the last three decades, this sad reality > probably has more to do with gun availability than any quantifiable > difference in today’s youth population. > The Justice Policy Institute is a non-profit research and public > policy organization based in Washington, DC. The compilation of > this data was funded by a grant from the Annie E. Casey Foundation. > For a full list of citations and credits for the above statistics, > please contact the Institute at (202) 737-7270. > Dorothy > There is no sound, no cry in all the world > that can be heard unless someone listens .. > source unknown
Response:
> Social Work [with social work degrees, not what some people think social > work is!] On top of that we have flexible hours for most staff because the > counselors, case managers, case aides work at people’s homes, coming to the > office for meetings or paper work or phone work [about 1/8 to 1/2 of their > work time, depending on which program they work in. I might not see some > folks on my staff for several days in a row, especially with voice mail > remote retrieval and email remote retrieval. It works well for them. If > the kids are sick I often give permission to work at home and they juggle > what they were going to do that day as much as possible. some things, of > course, cannot be juggled, but we try hard. Our philosophy is that we take > care of our families and then we take care of work duties. It is amazing > how much work gets done, my staff are very productive and get mainly > positive reviews from clients.
Neat! Chris
Response:
Dorothy, All, OK Toto, is there anyone behind the curtain where you sit?... Any idiot; any idiot employer, can figure out onsite childcare for 0 to kindergarteners. Putting together a novel business plan is a little work....financing....insurance......MANY companies have recently implemented programs that, say, ten years ago, would have never been considered. Even these can be tweaked and improved upon, but they are a welcome start. Now the hard part. Faint of heart and squeamish: turn away!! It's make up time. America's Older Kids. Let me state that there are kids who aren't at risk, but the way I see things, they are ALL on the cusp and deserve access to something besides the hobbled status quo. Or do they? Ironically (actually, just another G-D day), here's a few letters to the editor published in today's Seattle Times -- read 'em and weep Toto: Youth and Violence Check their profile-- Kids killing cops. Kids killing kids. Kids out of control. Parents, guardians, aunts and uncles of wayward youth, you've got a big problem, and I resent that your problems are becoming our problems. have you checked out the black fingernail polish on your 15-year-olds' hands? Have you noticed all the black clothing they wear on a warm day, not to mention the ill-fitting pants that drag on the pavement? Is there enough hardware in your kids' eyelid, lip or bellybutton to light up an airport metal detector? Are the tire chains around their neck possibly causing lower back strain? Do you know where your little hoodlum is right now? Do you even know your kid? I suggest you somehow begin to harness your little troublemakers, turn them in if you have to; walk 'em right down to the police station, or into the psychotherapist's office before we have to bear witness to one more senseless headline relating to an act of deadly foolishness. David Sisk, Kirkland Enact New Law-- When laws allow parents to be prosecuted for their children's crimes, juvenile crime will decrease. Don Stern, Seattle So I say, Toto, and all the others who claw at making the status quo remain de facto "ok": There's Nobody Behind The Curtain!!! Shame on you: the piddly suggestions below aren't in the realm of what I'm talking about. These older kids have to be yanked out of the fatal conditions they're in, and into a different paradigm. Yes, vehicles can be equipped with electronics (money is no object) besides DOOM, etc. Internet, Intranets, VR, straight lessons. The kids could sleep cozy for a few minutes. ....Yes, commuting home is too quality time, especially considering some of the wrenched alternatives. We should crosspost to alt.nihilism for some realistic feedback. More comments inline and at bottom...
- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text ->comments inline below >The entire premise of "onsite child care" is to unite the family. >This is aimed to foster something besides what our society has been >able do to date -- the status quo efforts are falling short in a big way. >Augmenting them with extraordinary efforts, ya, nevermind I guess >you're right, why bother. > I wanted to speak to just this single point because I believe you > are right that we don't help families much. > There are several things that could be done currently that would > help. If employers want to be part of the solution, certainly > onsite care for the younger children would help - especially if > the employer supported frequent breaks for breastfeeding mothers > and a place for the breastfeeding to happen.
Breastfeeding Breastfeeding Breastfeeding enough already. We all know it's a huge deal and want the little ones to get it. - Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text ->Such centers though > would need to have outdoor playgrounds attached and indoor > facilities that provided for both gross motor and fine motor > activities. The centers would need to be staffed with enough > caregivers so that the babies were safe and well taken care of. > Perhaps employers could allow parents to be called when their > baby needed them at flexible times rather than having the parent > have scheduled breaks. > Another way to help would be to provide enough time off for > parents to take into account sick children or children's school > activities. Perhaps employees should have some flex time. > Create their own schedules instead of being tied to a 9 to 5 day. > Perhaps more work at home jobs can be created with employees > coming in only one or two days a week and doing the rest of their > work from home. Perhaps, job sharing is a possibility for some > parents if a lot of the work must be done at the employers location.
The above paragraph has good ideas and could perhaps be kluged (sp?) w/onsite kidcare depending on employer support -- legislative support 'smells' farfetched, but the responsibility rests with our elected, too. Flex time and work at home exist, but the quality of work that the employer expects will suffer if the employee has to jam in their own childcare on their own. The employee will end up losing their job, losing their wrongful termination lawsuit, and voila, the family's back at square one -- but homeless. Capitalism still has teeth. The above paragraph is glaringly vacant of the childcare 'brasstacks' data that is paramount. What benefit do the kids get? Working from home (my experience) creates more of a scramble to get things done. Very much increased pressure, IMO. If there was a "job-share" situation (never seen it in action), wouldn't that create a lovely harmony, or massive disarray? Interesting idea. > Employers are only one part of this though. Families themselves > can realign their priorities. If family time is important, then > create it by becoming more efficient at getting chores done and > doing these together as a family too. Let the kids help with the > laundry, the dishes, the cooking and the cleaning. Make time spent > running errands count too. Scale back on *things* and spend time > doing simple activities that cost little together as a family. Yes, > it is hard, but it is *your* family and *your* choice.
Duh. > Dorothy > There is no sound, no cry in all the world > that can be heard unless someone listens .. > source unknown
THE OBJECTIVE WORLD SIMPLY IS, IT DOES NOT HAPPEN. ONLY TO THE GAZE OF MY CONSCIOUSNESS, CRAWLING UPWARD ALONG THE LIFE LINE OF MY BODY, DOES A SECTION OF THE WORLD COME TO LIFE AS A FLEETING IMAGE IN SPACE WHICH CONTINUALLY CHANGES IN TIME. --Hermann Weyl, Philosophy of Mathematics and Natural Science (1949) Now let's hear more feeble reasons why onsite childcare isn't worthwhile for older kids. Protect those comfort zones, everyone. Jim
Response:
> This isn't so much from an unwillingness to help families as it is from the > persistence of the expectation that workers not have family concerns > because there is an at-home parent (guess which gender) which looks after > all the family needs. > Until that changes, these changes won't happen.
Maybe that is why my employer is so understanding! We have about seven men to about 85 women at our work place! -Aula
Response:
> > This isn't so much from an unwillingness to help families as it is from > the > persistence of the expectation that workers not have family concerns > because there is an at-home parent (guess which gender) which looks after > all the family needs. > Until that changes, these changes won't happen. > Maybe that is why my employer is so understanding! We have about seven men > to about 85 women at our work place!
Wow. What kind of work do you do? Chris
Response:
- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -> > This isn't so much from an unwillingness to help families as it is from > the > > persistence of the expectation that workers not have family concerns > > because there is an at-home parent (guess which gender) which looks after > > all the family needs. > > Until that changes, these changes won't happen. > Maybe that is why my employer is so understanding! We have about seven men > to about 85 women at our work place! > Wow. What kind of work do you do?
Social Work [with social work degrees, not what some people think social work is!] On top of that we have flexible hours for most staff because the counselors, case managers, case aides work at people’s homes, coming to the office for meetings or paper work or phone work [about 1/8 to 1/2 of their work time, depending on which program they work in. I might not see some folks on my staff for several days in a row, especially with voice mail remote retrieval and email remote retrieval. It works well for them. If the kids are sick I often give permission to work at home and they juggle what they were going to do that day as much as possible. some things, of course, cannot be juggled, but we try hard. Our philosophy is that we take care of our families and then we take care of work duties. It is amazing how much work gets done, my staff are very productive and get mainly positive reviews from clients. -Aula
Response:
- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text - >Another way to help would be to provide enough time off for >parents to take into account sick children or children's school >activities. Perhaps employees should have some flex time. >Create their own schedules instead of being tied to a 9 to 5 day. >Perhaps more work at home jobs can be created with employees >coming in only one or two days a week and doing the rest of their >work from home. Perhaps, job sharing is a possibility for some >parents if a lot of the work must be done at the employers location. >Employers are only one part of this though. Families themselves >can realign their priorities. If family time is important, then >create it by becoming more efficient at getting chores done and >doing these together as a family too. Let the kids help with the >laundry, the dishes, the cooking and the cleaning. Make time spent >running errands count too. Scale back on *things* and spend time >doing simple activities that cost little together as a family. Yes, >it is hard, but it is *your* family and *your* choice. >Dorothy
This isn't so much from an unwillingness to help families as it is from the persistence of the expectation that workers not have family concerns because there is an at-home parent (guess which gender) which looks after all the family needs. Until that changes, these changes won't happen. Banty
Response:
just me said... >I had lobbied for my current employer to consider adding the service back in >the mid-90's. Despite having a high percentage of female employees, many >with children or at least of childbearing age, the employer chose not to. I >know of no employers in this area which do provide this service, despite >having some very large local employers. This service is not exactly wide >spread from what I have seen, at least in the US.
My university had onsite daycare for ONE semester -- then they shut it down. I've yet to uncover why, but given the state of child care in Maryland, I would presume it had to do with finding qualified staff who were willing to work extended hours for substandard wages. -- Mariann Visit Baby K -- http://babykosub.cjb.net CCDC - http://www.cloverleafcdc.com
Response:
comments inline beow...btw alias changed to "netability" (my mom's suggestion)
- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -> Um, I did not say that care was necessarily something we should not > think about. Just that employer onsite care is fairly impractical > for older children whose parents may work far from where the kids > go to school. > More practical - care at the school site or care at a local > organization in the town where the child goes to school. > My own center provides before and after school care for kids who > are in K through 5th grade. It includes bus transportation from the > schools to the center which is located in a former Parochial > School and affiliated with the local YMCA. > Now, if many of the children of employees of a particular plant > attend a single school or several schools within the same town > that the plant is located in, then onsite care might also be > practical, but in my town where the parents work in the city > and the kids go to school locally, I don't think that an employer > would want to pick kids up, drive them to the city depending on > the suburb you are speaking of this could be an hour or more drive > and then try to provide care. The kids would be spending more time > en route than at the center. > We would have the same problem in our area. Although many people in this > county work in county, the county is 90 miles long. People working at the > Space Center are *miles* from *any* school. The benefit would be for > pre-school age kids and sick kids [if anyone would care for them!].
BINGO! With Bluetooth/wireless, etc. the parents can be in touch. The parents come back to the office before going home? Hairy weather would monkeywrench this scenario vis a vis really long drive times — but the majority of people don’t have to deal with such encumberences. I’m also assuming a business model that would include a RN/infimiry. > Further, most of our staff are on the road daily, often not coming anywhere > near our offices all day. Day Care at the school site is more practical. > But, sick child care at the place of employment would still be a great > benefit and reduce lost work hours significantly in many work places. > -Aula
Thanks, Jiim
Response:
comments inline below
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->All: >"Well, in our country," said Alice, panting a little, >"you’d generally get somewhere else — if you ran very >fast for a long time, as we’ve been doing." >"A slow sort of country!" said the Queen. "Now here, >you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep >in the same place." > –Through the Looking Glass, by Lewis Carroll. >1. How about remote monitoring for parents concerned about kids’ potential >abuse and/or neglect? >2. Older kids may occasionally be preoccupied, but just to leave them as >latch-key in "free-time" has shortcomings, no? Transportation is academic >compared to the benefits of the mentoring or tutoring or sheer attention to >their needs they might receive in lieu of the boob toob or a bong or the >neighbors gun, etc. I see a pandemic. Do I eat the poison and wait for >them to die? >Jim > Um, I did not say that care was necessarily something we should not > think about. Just that employer onsite care is fairly impractical > for older children whose parents may work far from where the kids > go to school.
I’m missing something. It is practical for the parents to wheel wherever, but for some reason impractical to shuttle kids likewise? The trip home with the folks alone would generate quality time. I guess I could see your point if the parents have a horrendous 100+ miles commute or something, otherwise… vans can be equipped with all kids of interactive electronics, etc. I have limited confidence in the "Y" from both personal and anecdotal experience. It’s more like a kennel. The entire premise of "onsite child care" is to unite the family. This is aimed to foster something besides what our society has been able do to date — the status quo efforts are falling short in a big way. Augmenting them with extraordinary efforts, ya, nevermind I guess you’re right, why bother. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> More practical – care at the school site or care at a local > organization in the town where the child goes to school. > My own center provides before and after school care for kids who > are in K through 5th grade. It includes bus transportation from the > schools to the center which is located in a former Parochial > School and affiliated with the local YMCA. > Now, if many of the children of employees of a particular plant > attend a single school or several schools within the same town > that the plant is located in, then onsite care might also be > practical, but in my town where the parents work in the city > and the kids go to school locally, I don’t think that an employer > would want to pick kids up, drive them to the city depending on > the suburb you are speaking of this could be an hour or more drive > and then try to provide care. The kids would be spending more time > en route than at the center.
No big deal, commuting. If the employee and employer buy-in to the concept as superior to the alternative, it is academic. > Dorothy > There is no sound, no cry in all the world > that can be heard unless someone listens .. > source unknown
Quote from "Nature" magazine": Illusion "We live in two worlds — perceptions of experience alongside conceptions of understanding — both based on knowledge and assumptions that may be wrong." Thanks, Jim
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Um, I did not say that care was necessarily something we should not > think about. Just that employer onsite care is fairly impractical > for older children whose parents may work far from where the kids > go to school. > More practical – care at the school site or care at a local > organization in the town where the child goes to school. > My own center provides before and after school care for kids who > are in K through 5th grade. It includes bus transportation from the > schools to the center which is located in a former Parochial > School and affiliated with the local YMCA. > Now, if many of the children of employees of a particular plant > attend a single school or several schools within the same town > that the plant is located in, then onsite care might also be > practical, but in my town where the parents work in the city > and the kids go to school locally, I don’t think that an employer > would want to pick kids up, drive them to the city depending on > the suburb you are speaking of this could be an hour or more drive > and then try to provide care. The kids would be spending more time > en route than at the center.
We would have the same problem in our area. Although many people in this county work in county, the county is 90 miles long. People working at the Space Center are *miles* from *any* school. The benefit would be for pre-school age kids and sick kids [if anyone would care for them!]. Further, most of our staff are on the road daily, often not coming anywhere near our offices all day. Day Care at the school site is more practical. But, sick child care at the place of employment would still be a great benefit and reduce lost work hours significantly in many work places. -Aula
Response:
All: "Well, in our country," said Alice, panting a little, "you’d generally get somewhere else — if you ran very fast for a long time, as we’ve been doing." "A slow sort of country!" said the Queen. "Now here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place." –Through the Looking Glass, by Lewis Carroll. 1. How about remote monitoring for parents concerned about kids’ potential abuse and/or neglect? 2. Older kids may occasionally be preoccupied, but just to leave them as latch-key in "free-time" has shortcomings, no? Transportation is academic compared to the benefits of the mentoring or tutoring or sheer attention to their needs they might receive in lieu of the boob toob or a bong or the neighbors gun, etc. I see a pandemic. Do I eat the poison and wait for them to die? Jim
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Hello All: >I’ve browsed the Internet and saw many companies, from staunch Dow Jones >types to dot coms, who now provide onsite daycare as a subsidized, or >partially subsidized benefit, for improved employee retention and moral. >Then I lurked and scanned: >alt.adoption.adoptive.parenting >alt.adoptive.parenting >alt.childcare >alt.parenting.solutions >alt.support.single-parents >misc.kids >misc.kids.computers >misc.kids.consumers >misc.kids.health >misc.kids.moderated >soc.culture.jewish.parenting >… looking for references or threads to onsite childcare, but did not find >anything. A couple of things that I did notice of relevance pertained to: >1. Sick children >Parents are going to have to tend to their offspring whether the child is >across town or down the hall. Megadoses of over the counter medications >aren’t the answer. An infirmary and RN might be a stop-gap? >2. What about older kids? >Could onsite childcare help our older kids who seem (…I seem to where >remember in "Romeo and Juliet"…) to be suffering from problems of their >own making — or maybe caused by parental/community apathy? >But there were no threads I could find where people in Usenet were >explicitly talking about the pitfalls and successes of onsite childcare. >Are there any related experiences or advice from this vast audience? >Thank you all in advance. >Jim > If by onsite childcare you mean at the employers site, I suspect > that this would not work for most older children. Children of > school age are involved with their friends and acitivities after > school and there would have to be transportation to the office > site perhaps from several schools in many different locations. > Doesn’t seem very practical to me. > It does work well for younger children if quality care is provided > and if access to the youngest children is allowed when moms need to > breastfeed or just during lunch hours and breaks. > There is a model company in my hometown (unfortunately, out of > business now since the owners died), but one which kept its turnover > low by providing good quality care onsite at subsidized prices. > Dorothy > There is no sound, no cry in all the world > that can be heard unless someone listens .. > source unknown
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> This is quite the issue up here in VT. Not to put family homes out of > business (or us small centers), but there is a great need for financial > support. With an almost completed masters degree and 4.5 years of > experience the median wage for me is about 8-9 dollars an hour until I hit > the public school system. The hope is that if the grassroots effort of > child care providers talks to businesses they will recognize what a valuable > resource is in town already and help to support us as providers and parents. > Some of the places that we’ve had luck finding out about on-site care is > calling the local child care resource and referral office or large companies > in town. Also talk to enrolled children’s parents (if you have a center) > and ask if there employer offered care and why they chose you.
An aside from thread topic: Hi to Vermonter from a Vermonter living in Florida! You guys have had quite the winter, according to my parents, who remain in your snow country! Hope Mud Season goes reasonably well for you and you don’t get bogged down. Is sap running yet? -Aula, in sunny [and far too dry] Florida
Response:
This is quite the issue up here in VT. Not to put family homes out of business (or us small centers), but there is a great need for financial support. With an almost completed masters degree and 4.5 years of experience the median wage for me is about 8-9 dollars an hour until I hit the public school system. The hope is that if the grassroots effort of child care providers talks to businesses they will recognize what a valuable resource is in town already and help to support us as providers and parents. Some of the places that we’ve had luck finding out about on-site care is calling the local child care resource and referral office or large companies in town. Also talk to enrolled children’s parents (if you have a center) and ask if there employer offered care and why they chose you. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >Thanks for the response, Mariann. >I have a brother who works at Microsoft and he forwarded me info regarding >Bright Horizons’ offering at MS: >"Backup Child Care offers Microsoft employees child care when the caregiver >(nanny, partner, or relative) is not available due to circumstances such as >illness, jury duty, vacation, or an emergency. >Microsoft has coordinated with Bright Horizons Family Solutions to offer >backup care at three of The Learning Garden facilities. >The program is open to children ages 6 weeks to 5 years old (children not >yet enrolled in Kindergarten) of Microsoft employees and interns in the >Puget Sound area. >Disclaimer >MICROSOFT MAKES NO WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED >TO ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR >PURPOSE, AND SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS LIABILITY FOR ANY AND ALL DAMAGES >ARISING OUT OF THE USE OF THE SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE VENDOR. Microsoft is >not the agent of the vendor listed herein or is any person or entity listed >herein the agent of Microsoft. In selecting the services of this vendor, >Microsoft urges you to conduct a thorough independent review of the vendor’s >ability, skills and experience to determine whether the vendor can fulfill >your particular needs. " >As you can see, the service is not very inclusive — especially compared to >many other corporations. [ The disclaimer is fairly standard.] That is not >to say Bright Horizons does not have something more complete in their >spectrum of offerings. I have a call into Bright Horizons’ East Coast >Regional Manager (Marilyn Crone: are you out there) but she has not >responded to me. ><message snip> >Regards, >Jim
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I started hearing of on-site childcare at least fifteen years ago. You know > what, I have yet to work for a company which provides it. My sister did, > about 12 years ago. That was a nursing home and she was a CNA. Because of > this service she was able to continue to exclusively breastfeed her infant > with little difficulty due to employment full time outside the home. > I had lobbied for my current employer to consider adding the service back in > the mid-90’s. Despite having a high percentage of female employees, many > with children or at least of childbearing age, the employer chose not to. I > know of no employers in this area which do provide this service, despite > having some very large local employers. This service is not exactly wide > spread from what I have seen, at least in the US.
and let me add: we do not, have never, and do not ever intend to use any form of day care for our child. We use parent care, having chosen to work hours such that a parent is home at any given time. This works for us. It would not necessarily work for any other specific family. I lobbied for child care by my employer due to the number of parents working for me, particularly single parents who had little back up when their small provider was unable to care for their child. -Aula
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Hello All: > I’ve browsed the Internet and saw many companies, from staunch Dow Jones > types to dot coms, who now provide onsite daycare as a subsidized, or > partially subsidized benefit, for improved employee retention and moral. > Then I lurked and scanned: > alt.adoption.adoptive.parenting > alt.adoptive.parenting > alt.childcare > alt.parenting.solutions > alt.support.single-parents > misc.kids > misc.kids.computers > misc.kids.consumers > misc.kids.health > misc.kids.moderated > soc.culture.jewish.parenting > … looking for references or threads to onsite childcare, but did not find > anything. A couple of things that I did notice of relevance pertained to: > 1. Sick children > Parents are going to have to tend to their offspring whether the child is > across town or down the hall. Megadoses of over the counter medications > aren’t the answer. An infirmary and RN might be a stop-gap? > 2. What about older kids? > Could onsite childcare help our older kids who seem (…I seem to where > remember in "Romeo and Juliet"…) to be suffering from problems of their > own making — or maybe caused by parental/community apathy? > But there were no threads I could find where people in Usenet were > explicitly talking about the pitfalls and successes of onsite childcare. > Are there any related experiences or advice from this vast audience? > Thank you all in advance.
I started hearing of on-site childcare at least fifteen years ago. You know what, I have yet to work for a company which provides it. My sister did, about 12 years ago. That was a nursing home and she was a CNA. Because of this service she was able to continue to exclusively breastfeed her infant with little difficulty due to employment full time outside the home. I had lobbied for my current employer to consider adding the service back in the mid-90’s. Despite having a high percentage of female employees, many with children or at least of childbearing age, the employer chose not to. I know of no employers in this area which do provide this service, despite having some very large local employers. This service is not exactly wide spread from what I have seen, at least in the US. -Aula
Response:
> But there were no threads I could find where people in > Usenet were explicitly talking about the pitfalls and > successes of onsite childcare. > Are there any related experiences or advice from this > vast audience?
Most of the child care providers here are home-based with a very small handful from the center environment. As such, the majority of us — heck, all of us — don’t have much experience with onsite child care, let alone starting and managing one. You might ask some of the chain centers (like Bright Horizons) who specialize in onsite childcare for references to get an idea from them about the ups and downs of onsite child care. Good luck.
Response:
Thanks for the response, Mariann. I have a brother who works at Microsoft and he forwarded me info regarding Bright Horizons’ offering at MS: "Backup Child Care offers Microsoft employees child care when the caregiver (nanny, partner, or relative) is not available due to circumstances such as illness, jury duty, vacation, or an emergency. Microsoft has coordinated with Bright Horizons Family Solutions to offer backup care at three of The Learning Garden facilities. The program is open to children ages 6 weeks to 5 years old (children not yet enrolled in Kindergarten) of Microsoft employees and interns in the Puget Sound area. Disclaimer MICROSOFT MAKES NO WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, AND SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS LIABILITY FOR ANY AND ALL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE USE OF THE SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE VENDOR. Microsoft is not the agent of the vendor listed herein or is any person or entity listed herein the agent of Microsoft. In selecting the services of this vendor, Microsoft urges you to conduct a thorough independent review of the vendor’s ability, skills and experience to determine whether the vendor can fulfill your particular needs. " As you can see, the service is not very inclusive — especially compared to many other corporations. [ The disclaimer is fairly standard.] That is not to say Bright Horizons does not have something more complete in their spectrum of offerings. I have a call into Bright Horizons’ East Coast Regional Manager (Marilyn Crone: are you out there) but she has not responded to me. <message snip> Regards, Jim
Response:
Hello All: I’ve browsed the Internet and saw many companies, from staunch Dow Jones types to dot coms, who now provide onsite daycare as a subsidized, or partially subsidized benefit, for improved employee retention and moral. Then I lurked and scanned: alt.adoption.adoptive.parenting alt.adoptive.parenting alt.childcare alt.parenting.solutions alt.support.single-parents misc.kids misc.kids.computers misc.kids.consumers misc.kids.health misc.kids.moderated soc.culture.jewish.parenting … looking for references or threads to onsite childcare, but did not find anything. A couple of things that I did notice of relevance pertained to: 1. Sick children Parents are going to have to tend to their offspring whether the child is across town or down the hall. Megadoses of over the counter medications aren’t the answer. An infirmary and RN might be a stop-gap? 2. What about older kids? Could onsite childcare help our older kids who seem (…I seem to where remember in "Romeo and Juliet"…) to be suffering from problems of their own making — or maybe caused by parental/community apathy? But there were no threads I could find where people in Usenet were explicitly talking about the pitfalls and successes of onsite childcare. Are there any related experiences or advice from this vast audience? Thank you all in advance. Jim
If you like this post and would like to receive updates from this blog, please subscribe our feed.