Social Security's Regional Office in Chicago is losing its on-site daycare center. (Social Security provided the space to the provider. Parents pay the daycare charges.) Citing the agency's budget problems, Social Security is refusing to continue to give the daycare provider space in the building.
In one sense, I understand; the agency's budget is ridiculously tight. In another sense, I don't understand. What is Social Security going to do with the space? It's not like the agency needs the space for a growing workforce. Its workforce is declining. I'm sure many of the building's employees are already upset over the closure of this daycare center. How are they going to feel if that space sits vacant for years after the daycare center closes? Is Social Security planning to lease out space in the building?
I wonder whether this is a decision that might get reversed after Michael Astrue leaves office.
In one sense, I understand; the agency's budget is ridiculously tight. In another sense, I don't understand. What is Social Security going to do with the space? It's not like the agency needs the space for a growing workforce. Its workforce is declining. I'm sure many of the building's employees are already upset over the closure of this daycare center. How are they going to feel if that space sits vacant for years after the daycare center closes? Is Social Security planning to lease out space in the building?
I wonder whether this is a decision that might get reversed after Michael Astrue leaves office.
16 comments:
Government shouldn’t be in the daycare business anyway. Women should stay home and take care of their own children.
Makes sense if they plan on leasing out the space. Better yet, why not lease it to the day care providers who can run their business without SSA subsidizing them?
The stories are uninstructive as to how it is funded, if SS owns the building, etc. Even though parents pay (seperate prices for waddlers and toddlers ?!?) I guess that SS is somehow subsidising it.
Justin
Women should stay home and take care of their own children? And might I ask why anon 10:49am doesn't feel a Man (Father) should stay home.
Don't encourage them
"And might I ask why anon 10:49am doesn't feel a Man (Father) should stay home."
Since normally the father if in the picture, makes more than the mother. Plus mother is the caregiver, male hunter gather. Child breast feeding from father is going to be pretty hungry. LOL
SSA almost certainly rents the office space (including the daycare area) based upon square footage. Thus, by letting that space go, they will likely be reducing rent and utility outlays for that facility.
Public Law 107-217 signed 8/21/2002
I believe this is a GSA owned building, and GSA follows a federal policy regarding onsite daycare (see http://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/103652 and other pages). Some agencies other than GSA have authority to operate the buildings they occupy. Unclear if SSA is one of those. But often the space is rent free, per the law listed at the top of this.
Day care is not a right. Why should taxpayers subsidize federal employees? No space is really "rent free". Someone has to pay a bill, accept liability, provide for utilities, a secure environment, etc. There is a cost for all this. If you have a child, prepare for what is needed for the child even if it is not convenient. Accept personal responsibility and choose wisely.
I think GSA owns the building but SSA operates it. According to the story, about half the people using the day care are not federal employees. Certainly there are usually lines of expensive cars waiting to get into the few pickup spaces at the end of the day. Not many of the federal employees who use the facility are SSA employees. It's too expensive for most of us. Most of the employees in the building are teleservice and payment center employees.
As a parent with kids in this daycare, it is our understanding that GSA owns the building, and SSA rents space from GSA. Other than the physical space, there are no other subsidies from government parties. The cost of the tuition funds the operating costs. What is disturbing about this case, is that the SSA only gave parents 90 days’ notice of the closure. In Chicago, it is very difficult to secure childcare and pre-school (6 weeks to 5 years) with only 90 days’ notice. Another SSA childcare was closed in Baltimore and received a year notice.
From what we understand, SSA has no plans to lease out the space. In fact, there is vacant space near the daycare (in the same building) that used to be a cafeteria. It sits vacant and has for years.
It is heartless of the SSA for giving parents only 90 days to find other arrangements, especially since the this is the middle of the school year. They are effectively evicting 78 children on the street, in addition to 25 employees. With no real plans to utilize the space.
just a note to the john galt(s) posting above--
sometimes--and I realize this may be hard to get through your heads; I mean, you actually believe you and you alone control and have controlled your life (must have never seen unexpected illness or injury firsthand, lol)--it's cheaper to spend money on things that look like a bad use of money than to not spend it.
Here, sometimes a little daycare subsidization is a good investment. Many parents, especially single parents (and cry all you want to that people should be together/married, blah blah blah--it happened, they are single parents, there's no way to change what's happened already), would have to drop out of the workforce completely without daycare subsidies. That results in a family unit that is even more dependent on government money and good workers out of the workforce--two of the economic inefficiencies you free market folks hate so much, right? That results in the kids getting poorer socialization, etc. since they are at home with one parent rather than in an environment with care providers and other children--this has real effects on that kid's likelihood for success in the future. etc, etc.
You schmucks have no long view whatsoever and don't have any thought regarding investment and results. If you really hate government spending so much, it might be a good idea to spend a bit more upfront in some areas rather than pretend to be tough, cut funding for stuff like daycare, headstart, food stamps, etc., then have to pay a whole lot more down the road later due to the ill-effects those stupid decisions. You could say you'd stick to your guns and just keep not spending gov't money on these ill-effects, but they'd be so large you would have to (else the world would turn to Mad Max).
I get really sick of trying to explain to all you randians out there that: 1) all of us, including all powerful you, have so little control over lives it isn't funny, and you must be sheltered as all get out to not have realized that by now; 2) even the most galt-like person did not do it himself. white privilege never helped get you there? male privilege? wealthy family? access to education (thanks taxpayers or rich family!)? an economic system where you can own a business and pay your employees garbage with no benefits to reap big profits? many of the things you think you've done yourself have actually been largely accomplished thanks to things outside your control.
As a WCK parent, I can attest that there are no federal subsidies. The parents' tuition payments pay for the operation of the center. As far as SSA providing the space, well that is analogous to the government providing the experssways you drive upon or the sidewalks upon which you walk. Our tax dollars pay for government property, and no matter who you are or how mighty you think you are, you are availing yourself of government property every day.
I think these onsite centers are a good idea - the question is who pays? Federal employees are already more highly paid (pay and benefits) than their private sector counterparts so I don't think it is too much to ask them to pay the full cost of the child care, including the pro-rata cost of the space.
Anonymous 3:16 PM stated:
"As far as SSA providing the space, well that is analogous to the government providing the experssways you drive upon or the sidewalks upon which you walk. "
I think the difference if fairly obvious. Every taxpayer is entitled to use sidewalks and expressways but not every taxpayer is entitled to a government subsidized day care center.
I do think, however, that the parents should have been given more notice.
The government wastes money. If the space is empty, and not being rented out, the government is just continuing to waste money, as usual. In the office i just left, there are now six empty cubicles, in an office with 12 employees. One-third of the space is unused, but SSA still pays rent for it. The amount of waste in the government is beyond most people's comprehension, even many of you who read this and post here. People are fatalistic about it, which is why we have trillion-dollar deficits and the only response by most people is to call for more tax increases.
my business partner was wanting form name a few days ago and was informed about an excellent service with a ton of fillable forms . If others are searching for DA 31 also , here's a http://pdf.ac/1KAnDi
Post a Comment