mb can "ask" me anything she wants

[Anonymous]

You can both even sign any paper you want. Federal law makes both nanny and employer "at will". The only thing in the AGREEMENT that is legal, is that you get paid properly. All the other muck is for the nanny to FEEL obligated to perform unreasonable demands. The mb can fire you any minute she feels like it, and by the very same token, you can quit any minute you feel like it. No 2 weeks notice is "required", even if they put that in the papers. It's often endless intimidation by abusive Mbs who think nannies are stupid. Not every mb, but most of them.

[Anonymous]

That's why contracts don't make any sense. You are better off calling it a work agreement or expectations. I've never had a contract with a family in 10+ years nor did I think it was necessary being that a contract is not legally binding.

[Anonymous]

+1000

[Anonymous]

What is your point?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What is your point?

She's one of the abusers that's getting called out, maybe?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That's why contracts don't make any sense. You are better off calling it a work agreement or expectations. I've never had a contract with a family in 10+ years nor did I think it was necessary being that a contract is not legally binding.

Call it whatever you want, the point is to lay out expectations upfront. This is your chance to negotiate for better benefits, limited duties, your position on nanny cams and driving the children, and on and on. It's dumb not to have this arranged ahead of time, whether it's legally binding or not, because then what will you refer to when one party isn't meeting their obligations? Nothing. All you'll be able to do is say, "I'd really prefer it if..." which is much weaker than, "If you'll look back to our contract, we agreed that ______."

Duh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's why contracts don't make any sense. You are better off calling it a work agreement or expectations. I've never had a contract with a family in 10+ years nor did I think it was necessary being that a contract is not legally binding.

Call it whatever you want, the point is to lay out expectations upfront. This is your chance to negotiate for better benefits, limited duties, your position on nanny cams and driving the children, and on and on. It's dumb not to have this arranged ahead of time, whether it's legally binding or not, because then what will you refer to when one party isn't meeting their obligations? Nothing. All you'll be able to do is say, "I'd really prefer it if..." which is much weaker than, "If you'll look back to our contract, we agreed that ______."

Duh.

+1

[Anonymous]

OP, I believe the term you're looking for is "unenforceable".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's why contracts don't make any sense. You are better off calling it a work agreement or expectations. I've never had a contract with a family in 10+ years nor did I think it was necessary being that a contract is not legally binding.

Call it whatever you want, the point is to lay out expectations upfront. This is your chance to negotiate for better benefits, limited duties, your position on nanny cams and driving the children, and on and on. It's dumb not to have this arranged ahead of time, whether it's legally binding or not, because then what will you refer to when one party isn't meeting their obligations? Nothing. All you'll be able to do is say, "I'd really prefer it if..." which is much weaker than, "If you'll look back to our contract, we agreed that ______."

Duh.

You DC nannies are so immature.

I refer back to my emails with the families which is pretty much the same as a "contract" you all are so proud to have.

[Anonymous]

Who and where are you, 14:12?

[Anonymous]

I'm a nanny in a big city on the east coast but not in the DC area.

[Anonymous]

Wait. So you come on a DC area nanny forum, are not from the DC area, but then have the gall to make a sweeping insult toward all DC area nannies? We should all clearly listen to you......

[Anonymous]

Actually, if your contract is for a defined term of employment, why wouldn't it be enforceable? Everything I have ever read says "at will" employment is the default when there is no agreement. Granted most contracts may not be enforceable because they don't have a defined term of employment, but if they do have a term length, what law would void such an agreement? Honest question, because I have wondered about this.

[Anonymous]

"Call it whatever you want, the point is to lay out expectations upfront. This is your chance to negotiate for better benefits, limited duties, your position on nanny cams and driving the children, and on and on. It's dumb not to have this arranged ahead of time, whether it's legally binding or not, because then what will you refer to when one party isn't meeting their obligations? Nothing. All you'll be able to do is say, "I'd really prefer it if..." which is much weaker than, "If you'll look back to our contract, we agreed that ______." "

At least a few times each year I refer to the contract to remind myself of a provision or settle question that comes up with the nanny or the share family. ESPECIALLY if you are in a share, putting to paper the expectations and benefits is critical.

[Anonymous]

Don't most agreements state a term of one year?