How to ask Nanny if she'd be willing to go part time

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, as a practical matter, I think you will want to have full time help when you are home on maternity leave with third kid.

In the mean time - 4 hours a day while kids in school - clean the kids rooms/do laundry/ make dinner for you and your family + then 3 afternoon hours

Emergency days where kids are sick.

Once you are on leave- the newborn will be sleeping much of day- while baby is sleeping you can go to the gym, go for a walk, get pedicure, do whatever you need to do, or take a nap, and you can be there when baby is awake. Or spend quality time with other kids.

If you are looking for another family, then indemnify that option to her - say you will pay her regardless of whether that family works out - that you will then bill the other family/etc.

Also- she may ask for a raise with 3 kids!

At this point, if you need to save funds, it might be cheaper to get an au pair.

Woah, what? Why would the other family pay a bill sent by the nanny's other/previous employer?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, as a practical matter, I think you will want to have full time help when you are home on maternity leave with third kid.

In the mean time - 4 hours a day while kids in school - clean the kids rooms/do laundry/ make dinner for you and your family + then 3 afternoon hours

Emergency days where kids are sick.

Once you are on leave- the newborn will be sleeping much of day- while baby is sleeping you can go to the gym, go for a walk, get pedicure, do whatever you need to do, or take a nap, and you can be there when baby is awake. Or spend quality time with other kids.

If you are looking for another family, then indemnify that option to her - say you will pay her regardless of whether that family works out - that you will then bill the other family/etc.

Also- she may ask for a raise with 3 kids!

At this point, if you need to save funds, it might be cheaper to get an au pair.

Woah, what? Why would the other family pay a bill sent by the nanny's other/previous employer?

The idea is to guarantee the nanny’s income. So if the other family flakes out and stiffs the nanny, the nanny doesn’t take the hit, OP does.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, as a practical matter, I think you will want to have full time help when you are home on maternity leave with third kid.

In the mean time - 4 hours a day while kids in school - clean the kids rooms/do laundry/ make dinner for you and your family + then 3 afternoon hours

Emergency days where kids are sick.

Once you are on leave- the newborn will be sleeping much of day- while baby is sleeping you can go to the gym, go for a walk, get pedicure, do whatever you need to do, or take a nap, and you can be there when baby is awake. Or spend quality time with other kids.

If you are looking for another family, then indemnify that option to her - say you will pay her regardless of whether that family works out - that you will then bill the other family/etc.

Also- she may ask for a raise with 3 kids!

At this point, if you need to save funds, it might be cheaper to get an au pair.

Woah, what? Why would the other family pay a bill sent by the nanny's other/previous employer?

The idea is to guarantee the nanny’s income. So if the other family flakes out and stiffs the nanny, the nanny doesn’t take the hit, OP does.

But pp (you?) said "You will then bill the other family." That makes no sense. Don't give OP any crazy ideas that she can do that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, as a practical matter, I think you will want to have full time help when you are home on maternity leave with third kid.

In the mean time - 4 hours a day while kids in school - clean the kids rooms/do laundry/ make dinner for you and your family + then 3 afternoon hours

Emergency days where kids are sick.

Once you are on leave- the newborn will be sleeping much of day- while baby is sleeping you can go to the gym, go for a walk, get pedicure, do whatever you need to do, or take a nap, and you can be there when baby is awake. Or spend quality time with other kids.

If you are looking for another family, then indemnify that option to her - say you will pay her regardless of whether that family works out - that you will then bill the other family/etc.

Also- she may ask for a raise with 3 kids!

At this point, if you need to save funds, it might be cheaper to get an au pair.

Woah, what? Why would the other family pay a bill sent by the nanny's other/previous employer?

The idea is to guarantee the nanny’s income. So if the other family flakes out and stiffs the nanny, the nanny doesn’t take the hit, OP does.

But pp (you?) said "You will then bill the other family." That makes no sense. Don't give OP any crazy ideas that she can do that.

I’m not the pp who proposed the idea. I’m the direct pp who was just trying to explain it.

I don’t think it’s crazy though. Like basically it’s just saying the nanny gets paid no matter what. If the OP finds the other family and is able to mitigate some of the loss via the other family, then that’s great for OP. But the idea is not to make it the nanny’s problem.

It’s pretty normal especially with long term Nannies to guarantee their income (ie-you pay them even when you’re traveling for a week or two and don’t use their services). I view this as like that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, as a practical matter, I think you will want to have full time help when you are home on maternity leave with third kid.

In the mean time - 4 hours a day while kids in school - clean the kids rooms/do laundry/ make dinner for you and your family + then 3 afternoon hours

Emergency days where kids are sick.

Once you are on leave- the newborn will be sleeping much of day- while baby is sleeping you can go to the gym, go for a walk, get pedicure, do whatever you need to do, or take a nap, and you can be there when baby is awake. Or spend quality time with other kids.

If you are looking for another family, then indemnify that option to her - say you will pay her regardless of whether that family works out - that you will then bill the other family/etc.

Also- she may ask for a raise with 3 kids!

At this point, if you need to save funds, it might be cheaper to get an au pair.

Woah, what? Why would the other family pay a bill sent by the nanny's other/previous employer?

The idea is to guarantee the nanny’s income. So if the other family flakes out and stiffs the nanny, the nanny doesn’t take the hit, OP does.

But pp (you?) said "You will then bill the other family." That makes no sense. Don't give OP any crazy ideas that she can do that.

I’m not the pp who proposed the idea. I’m the direct pp who was just trying to explain it.

I don’t think it’s crazy though. Like basically it’s just saying the nanny gets paid no matter what. If the OP finds the other family and is able to mitigate some of the loss via the other family, then that’s great for OP. But the idea is not to make it the nanny’s problem.

It’s pretty normal especially with long term Nannies to guarantee their income (ie-you pay them even when you’re traveling for a week or two and don’t use their services). I view this as like that.

If OP's nanny works for another family and they don't pay her, the nanny needs to take them to court.

OP can choose to freely give any amount of money she chooses to her nanny, but she can't "bill" someone else for it.

It is definitely crazy to suggest that she could.

[Anonymous]

OP again. I think I’m just going to keep her full time til my due date. Then let her go. I still feel bad she will be sitting around doing nothing all day, but at least I’ll still be working so I can justify the help she will offer me in the afternoon, which I will need.

I still think this reaction is crazy, though. Families grow up. I can’t imagine it’s not a common occurrence for a family to need a nanny to drop down to part time. Meanwhile there must be a lot of stay at home moms (or moms who work part time) with babies not in school yet who would like to have a nanny in the mornings only. I don’t know why that’s so shocking of an idea to propose a type of nanny share where one nanny splits time between two families. But I guess it is. News to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Okay then, help me figure out how I would fill her time. Menu planning and grocery shopping takes what, two hours a week max? She does the kids laundry already, that's maybe another two-four hours. Running errands for me? The amount of time it would take me to think through the errands I have, describe them to her, then send her to do them is more work than just doing them on my own. Meanwhile, I'm home bored with a newborn and nothing to do, and not the one doing any tasks for the care and feeding of my own family.

I'm not trying to be cheap, I just truly don't understand how I would fill her time. And yes, MONEY DOES NOT GROW ON TREES. We are not filthy rich. We make a combined $250K or so. I can't believe everyone is assuming it's absolutely no big consideration to pay thousands and thousands of dollars for a service I do NOT NEED for a period of nearly 8 months.

Yes, I love her, yes, I realize how hard it is to find a new great nanny, no I don't want to have to do that to my kids if I can avoid it.

But are there literally no solutions here? What about having her only come to us maybe three days a week, and seeing if there's another family she could work for two days? I'm asking for help to consider all the options, and how to broach this with her, and it's amazing everyone is just focusing on how delusional, cheap and cruel I am to even ask.

Think about what you looking for -- another family that magically has 20ish hours of work for your nanny in a schedule that is the inverse of your needs, and that will then NOT NEED HER HELP starting in the spring. There is no other family on earch that will agree to this.

Not to mention the other family could never switch any hours around or ask for extra help if there is a sick kid at home or work travel. Everyone must magically align their schedules with OP’s needs because she doesn’t want to pay. What in the world would be to the nanny’s benefit in doing this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP again. I think I’m just going to keep her full time til my due date. Then let her go. I still feel bad she will be sitting around doing nothing all day, but at least I’ll still be working so I can justify the help she will offer me in the afternoon, which I will need.

I still think this reaction is crazy, though. Families grow up. I can’t imagine it’s not a common occurrence for a family to need a nanny to drop down to part time. Meanwhile there must be a lot of stay at home moms (or moms who work part time) with babies not in school yet who would like to have a nanny in the mornings only. I don’t know why that’s so shocking of an idea to propose a type of nanny share where one nanny splits time between two families. But I guess it is. News to me.

There's some, but not nearly as many families are in this situation as there are families that need full time care or afternoon only care.
Also, you have the added complication of wanting your nanny to come back to you full time after several months, which would leave the morning-only family in a lurch.

[Anonymous]

The only shot you have at keeping her AND maintaining trust and goodwill is to change nothing about her hours or pay (unless she wants to adjust them) and have her fill her time with other duties such as school drop off, cleaning, baby care help, errands, or just pay her for retention (knowing if you choose not to return to work she keeps that money).

I sense that you don't actually want to hire her back FT, since you said you hope not to return to work FT yourself.

You should probably be honest with her about that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP again. I think I’m just going to keep her full time til my due date. Then let her go. I still feel bad she will be sitting around doing nothing all day, but at least I’ll still be working so I can justify the help she will offer me in the afternoon, which I will need.

I still think this reaction is crazy, though. Families grow up. I can’t imagine it’s not a common occurrence for a family to need a nanny to drop down to part time. Meanwhile there must be a lot of stay at home moms (or moms who work part time) with babies not in school yet who would like to have a nanny in the mornings only. I don’t know why that’s so shocking of an idea to propose a type of nanny share where one nanny splits time between two families. But I guess it is. News to me.

Tell her now so she can get another job. Most families want afternoon and evening. Preschools are often morning only. You can propose anything but plan for her to quit. Most stay at home moms don’t have Nannie’s.

[Anonymous]

What happens to her benefits? I assume you pay them now? Would you continue to do that at PT?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP again. I think I’m just going to keep her full time til my due date. Then let her go. I still feel bad she will be sitting around doing nothing all day, but at least I’ll still be working so I can justify the help she will offer me in the afternoon, which I will need.

I still think this reaction is crazy, though. Families grow up. I can’t imagine it’s not a common occurrence for a family to need a nanny to drop down to part time. Meanwhile there must be a lot of stay at home moms (or moms who work part time) with babies not in school yet who would like to have a nanny in the mornings only. I don’t know why that’s so shocking of an idea to propose a type of nanny share where one nanny splits time between two families. But I guess it is. News to me.

I think there is definitely a conversation to be had around how to unwind and change our relationships with Nannies as our families grow and change (especially if you’re not a super rich family who can just keep a nanny indefinitely without truly NEEDING them). I am going through this myself. We’ve had the same nanny for 5 years and I recently lost my job. We can’t afford her but she’s like a second mother to our 5 year old. But also, he’s going to kindergarten in the fall so we all knew changes would be happening. It’s hard to balance all the needs and priorities. We want to respect that our nanny must make a living, and if we can’t pay her for that then she’s got to be free to find other work. At the same time, she’s an essential part of our child’s life and we cannot just end our relationship with her without causing great sorrow to her and our child.

All that being said, the tone of your post just feels very focused on you and yourself and your schedule and your needs. I think that is a red flag to me that you may not be thinking through this in the loving and collaborative way that you should be if you’re keeping your Nanny’s best interest at heart.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP again. I think I’m just going to keep her full time til my due date. Then let her go. I still feel bad she will be sitting around doing nothing all day, but at least I’ll still be working so I can justify the help she will offer me in the afternoon, which I will need.

I still think this reaction is crazy, though. Families grow up. I can’t imagine it’s not a common occurrence for a family to need a nanny to drop down to part time. Meanwhile there must be a lot of stay at home moms (or moms who work part time) with babies not in school yet who would like to have a nanny in the mornings only. I don’t know why that’s so shocking of an idea to propose a type of nanny share where one nanny splits time between two families. But I guess it is. News to me.

As pps have explained to you, these type of split arrangements do exist but you need to be prepared to pay a lot more to account for the nanny‘s added hassle working for two different families as well as their extra time lost in commuting between residences. No sane nanny is going to choose a split shift like you describe over the convenience and stability of working for a single family unless the hourly wage is significantly higher. Moreover you seem to be bordering on magical thinking to envision that some conveniently located family seeking a part time nanny for the specific hours you don’t need and for ~8 months only is going to somehow materialize within months.

Given that with a 250k HHI the cost of a full time nanny is likely ~1/3 or more of your take home pay it’s certainly understandable that you’re reluctant to pay for hours not needed. However that’s also why most people at similar income levels recognize that a nanny is an impractical luxury and opt for more affordable childcare options.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, as a practical matter, I think you will want to have full time help when you are home on maternity leave with third kid.

In the mean time - 4 hours a day while kids in school - clean the kids rooms/do laundry/ make dinner for you and your family + then 3 afternoon hours

Emergency days where kids are sick.

Once you are on leave- the newborn will be sleeping much of day- while baby is sleeping you can go to the gym, go for a walk, get pedicure, do whatever you need to do, or take a nap, and you can be there when baby is awake. Or spend quality time with other kids.

If you are looking for another family, then indemnify that option to her - say you will pay her regardless of whether that family works out - that you will then bill the other family/etc.

Also- she may ask for a raise with 3 kids!

At this point, if you need to save funds, it might be cheaper to get an au pair.

Woah, what? Why would the other family pay a bill sent by the nanny's other/previous employer?

The idea is to guarantee the nanny’s income. So if the other family flakes out and stiffs the nanny, the nanny doesn’t take the hit, OP does.

But pp (you?) said "You will then bill the other family." That makes no sense. Don't give OP any crazy ideas that she can do that.

I’m not the pp who proposed the idea. I’m the direct pp who was just trying to explain it.

I don’t think it’s crazy though. Like basically it’s just saying the nanny gets paid no matter what. If the OP finds the other family and is able to mitigate some of the loss via the other family, then that’s great for OP. But the idea is not to make it the nanny’s problem.

It’s pretty normal especially with long term Nannies to guarantee their income (ie-you pay them even when you’re traveling for a week or two and don’t use their services). I view this as like that.

If OP's nanny works for another family and they don't pay her, the nanny needs to take them to court.

OP can choose to freely give any amount of money she chooses to her nanny, but she can't "bill" someone else for it.

It is definitely crazy to suggest that she could.

I guess we just have to agree to disagree. I don’t think it’s crazy when viewed through the lens of guaranteed income for a nanny, which is how you should be paying your nanny if you’re doing it in an ethical way (especially for a long term nanny). The point is you’re not putting the burden on the nanny of going to court if the other family stiffs her. Op would have to work it out with the other family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, as a practical matter, I think you will want to have full time help when you are home on maternity leave with third kid.

In the mean time - 4 hours a day while kids in school - clean the kids rooms/do laundry/ make dinner for you and your family + then 3 afternoon hours

Emergency days where kids are sick.

Once you are on leave- the newborn will be sleeping much of day- while baby is sleeping you can go to the gym, go for a walk, get pedicure, do whatever you need to do, or take a nap, and you can be there when baby is awake. Or spend quality time with other kids.

If you are looking for another family, then indemnify that option to her - say you will pay her regardless of whether that family works out - that you will then bill the other family/etc.

Also- she may ask for a raise with 3 kids!

At this point, if you need to save funds, it might be cheaper to get an au pair.

Woah, what? Why would the other family pay a bill sent by the nanny's other/previous employer?

The idea is to guarantee the nanny’s income. So if the other family flakes out and stiffs the nanny, the nanny doesn’t take the hit, OP does.

But pp (you?) said "You will then bill the other family." That makes no sense. Don't give OP any crazy ideas that she can do that.

I’m not the pp who proposed the idea. I’m the direct pp who was just trying to explain it.

I don’t think it’s crazy though. Like basically it’s just saying the nanny gets paid no matter what. If the OP finds the other family and is able to mitigate some of the loss via the other family, then that’s great for OP. But the idea is not to make it the nanny’s problem.

It’s pretty normal especially with long term Nannies to guarantee their income (ie-you pay them even when you’re traveling for a week or two and don’t use their services). I view this as like that.

If OP's nanny works for another family and they don't pay her, the nanny needs to take them to court.

OP can choose to freely give any amount of money she chooses to her nanny, but she can't "bill" someone else for it.

It is definitely crazy to suggest that she could.

I guess we just have to agree to disagree. I don’t think it’s crazy when viewed through the lens of guaranteed income for a nanny, which is how you should be paying your nanny if you’re doing it in an ethical way (especially for a long term nanny). The point is you’re not putting the burden on the nanny of going to court if the other family stiffs her. Op would have to work it out with the other family.

The courts would disagree with you too. No judge is going to tell someone to pay a bill issued by some random that never did any business with them.