CAN someone please explain to me how a child care centre can charge customers for caring for the children booked into care, when they are not open and not available to offer a care service.
Please correct me if I misunderstand this, but I know of no other industry where a business can charge its customers for a service that they do not provide and when they are not even open for business.
I can fully understand that customers have to pay a child care centre for full-day or 12-hour blocks of care to make budgeting, rostering easier and to avoid the centre being over the allowable carer-child ratios.
However, when they are not open and do not offer a service how can they charge for a service they do not provide?
In family day care the child care educator charges only for the hours booked by the customer. If the parent books four hours, then they pay for four hours.
They cannot charge if they are not available for their customers to bring their children in for care.
If a family day care educator is not available on a public holiday or any other day then they cannot charge for a service they do not provide or offer but a child care centre can. Why is there this difference?
CONGRATULATIONS, B. Barry (NM, 16/11), for putting together a brilliant analogy on David Batt's decision to keep his councillor's job while running for state parliament.
The comparison between business and local government rings very true.
He should have been required to resign from the council, not take leave of absence.
Once again it shows that there is one rule for us and a different one for politicians.
Of course he wants a each way bet so no matter what happens he does not lose anything, income included, it also proves that loyalty has an unknown meaning to him.
Mr Batt's response (NM, 17/11) to the analogy was pathetic.
He did not answer criticism of his actions instead he decided to bore us all to tears by pumping up his ego about his life and times in Bundaberg, that, according to him is the important issue here, not the two-way bet of self-income protection.
As a ratepayer myself, I just hope that the ratepayers of Division 8 wake up to these antics and put him last on the ballot form.
Voters of other divisions are more than welcome to join in this action of rejection.
That course of action stops us from having to fork out for a by-election and follow that up with throwing him out at the next local government elections because he does not really want to be representing you, his actions shows he wants the bigger bucks gained by being a state member.
That indicates that it is all about money and the job security that comes with it.
The outside business world would not accept his disloyalty and would have showed him the door, as they rightly so, do not tolerate the "keep your cake and eat it too” attitude by employees.
RE: B BARRY (NM, 16/11), Mr Barry has failed to research his attack on the candidate for Bundaberg in the coming state elections.
His analogy comparison between candidate David Batt and the modern-day employment standards is ridiculous, notwithstanding the fact that the candidate has taken leave without salary from the council, he is not permitted to use council facilities including phone, computer and vehicle to run his electoral campaign.
David Batt has served the Bundaberg community for many years now, as a distinguished police officer, councillor and deputy mayor. This is not a political statement but a statement of fact.
I expect every employee of any worth seeks to better themselves and in this instance Mr Batt has made his intentions known; that is, to provide a greater service to the people of Bundaberg if elected in the coming elections.
We need people of quality in state and federal parliament. He has at least proven his worth at a local level and deserves an opportunity to prove his worth at a higher level.
Mr Barry needs to stop being so negative and we all should congratulate Mr Batt for his continued service to the Bundaberg community.
THE unprecedented personal attacks on member for Bundaberg, Leanne Donaldson, orchestrated by the biased media and the previous incumbent should be seen by the voters for what they are and, hopefully for the democratic process, Leanne should be returned to continue the good work she has been doing for the people in the electorate.