Nanny Wants to socialize on weekends

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, I’m sorry you’re having to deal with this! Unfortunately, your nanny is a dud who doesn’t understand the concept of social distancing and shelter-in-place. And a fraudulent dud who wants to collect unemployment and get a cash job! I hope nobody will hire her. You have every right to deny her unemployment without feeling bad about it. She has a safe home, a steady job, and a car to go out in, and she wants to mess it up for a few extra dollars. Whatever.

I'm curious: Is that enough for you? A "safe" home in somebody else's house -- where they make the rules about who you can and cannot interact with on your ow time? A job -- that has gone from having defined hours to meaning that your supposedly "free" time is now restricted to meet the needs of your boss - 24/? A car to go out in -- except that she can't go anywhere that isn't pre-approved by her boss? You're harping on money - which, as I read it, is less of an issue than being able to have social interaction with people she knows who genuinely care about her well-being. As you say: Whatever. I'm sure that your life is absolutely nothing like what you're pushing for this young woman. I truly hope that things work out well for her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP sorry so many people, or one really bitter person, is bashing you. Under normal conditions, YES, of course it would be crazy to not allow someone out of the house to hang out with friends and then to return. But these aren't normal conditions.

Thank you
Yes it feels like one person just keeps repeating themselves

I disagree with you and I have only posted once before. I think there are a lot more people than you’d like to think who find your approach ridiculous and controlling. For the record, I am staying hone and only leaving for walks around the neighborhood and the grocery store. I would never expect a domestic employee to give up their entire life to serve my family. You want to control what the nanny does on her days off. She’s not your slave.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP: my son wants to go visit his girl friend in another state. I told him it is fine but he can't come back.

You did nothing wrong. The nanny is free to leave, but she can't come back.

All of these decisions are so hard for all of us
But I’m glad your son is safe and with you

Just found out the girlfriend's grand father is tested positive and her Dad is trying to figure out how to isolate himself from his family because he visited his Dad multiple times in the past week. The family is terrified and I feel terrible for them. I am so relieved that my son did not go there.

[Anonymous]

OP, what does your nanny’s off-duty time look like? Is she welcome to join you for dinner? Does she have the ability to make her own meal and a place to eat it if she’d rather eat by herself? Does she have an apartment-style living area or just a bedroom? Does she have privacy to make phone calls without you being able hear it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The bottom line is this: it is unsafe for the children, the parents and the nanny to socialize on weekends. Make sure zero difference if she’s live-in or live-out. No unnecessary contact with other people. Period. It has nothing to do with “owning” an employee. These are unprecedented times and it sucks for all of us.

This nanny is being stupid and childish. She is safe where she is no matter how hard it is to not be able to get away. But buck-the-F-up!
- a nanny

+1
The nanny has a right to want to socialize with friends on the weekends but doing so puts OP's family at risk. The OP has a right (and an obligation as a parent) to protect her family. Both the nanny and the OP's rights are valid but can not co-exist. No one to blame here but the outcome is that the nanny needs to leave permanently.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, I’m sorry you’re having to deal with this! Unfortunately, your nanny is a dud who doesn’t understand the concept of social distancing and shelter-in-place. And a fraudulent dud who wants to collect unemployment and get a cash job! I hope nobody will hire her. You have every right to deny her unemployment without feeling bad about it. She has a safe home, a steady job, and a car to go out in, and she wants to mess it up for a few extra dollars. Whatever.

I'm curious: Is that enough for you? A "safe" home in somebody else's house -- where they make the rules about who you can and cannot interact with on your ow time? A job -- that has gone from having defined hours to meaning that your supposedly "free" time is now restricted to meet the needs of your boss - 24/? A car to go out in -- except that she can't go anywhere that isn't pre-approved by her boss? You're harping on money - which, as I read it, is less of an issue than being able to have social interaction with people she knows who genuinely care about her well-being. As you say: Whatever. I'm sure that your life is absolutely nothing like what you're pushing for this young woman. I truly hope that things work out well for her.

OP has said it was the nanny’s choice / preference to live in when she started working for them several years ago. OP’s only restriction is that the nanny follow the LAW which requires sheltering in place. Please explain why this is objectionable to you. Are employers not allowed to require their employees to follow the law?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP sorry so many people, or one really bitter person, is bashing you. Under normal conditions, YES, of course it would be crazy to not allow someone out of the house to hang out with friends and then to return. But these aren't normal conditions.

Thank you
Yes it feels like one person just keeps repeating themselves

I disagree with you and I have only posted once before. I think there are a lot more people than you’d like to think who find your approach ridiculous and controlling. For the record, I am staying hone and only leaving for walks around the neighborhood and the grocery store. I would never expect a domestic employee to give up their entire life to serve my family. You want to control what the nanny does on her days off. She’s not your slave.

+ seems like a lot of people on this board thinks slavery is legal. No amount of pay gives you the right to control people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, I’m sorry you’re having to deal with this! Unfortunately, your nanny is a dud who doesn’t understand the concept of social distancing and shelter-in-place. And a fraudulent dud who wants to collect unemployment and get a cash job! I hope nobody will hire her. You have every right to deny her unemployment without feeling bad about it. She has a safe home, a steady job, and a car to go out in, and she wants to mess it up for a few extra dollars. Whatever.

I'm curious: Is that enough for you? A "safe" home in somebody else's house -- where they make the rules about who you can and cannot interact with on your ow time? A job -- that has gone from having defined hours to meaning that your supposedly "free" time is now restricted to meet the needs of your boss - 24/? A car to go out in -- except that she can't go anywhere that isn't pre-approved by her boss? You're harping on money - which, as I read it, is less of an issue than being able to have social interaction with people she knows who genuinely care about her well-being. As you say: Whatever. I'm sure that your life is absolutely nothing like what you're pushing for this young woman. I truly hope that things work out well for her.

OP has said it was the nanny’s choice / preference to live in when she started working for them several years ago. OP’s only restriction is that the nanny follow the LAW which requires sheltering in place. Please explain why this is objectionable to you. Are employers not allowed to require their employees to follow the law?

If the consequence is being kicked out of your home, then maybe not. Nanny’s home is in the employer’s house. It’s part of her pay. I don’t know if landlords or people who provide housing g as part of compensation are allowed to kick people out for what the nanny has asked to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP sorry so many people, or one really bitter person, is bashing you. Under normal conditions, YES, of course it would be crazy to not allow someone out of the house to hang out with friends and then to return. But these aren't normal conditions.

Thank you
Yes it feels like one person just keeps repeating themselves [/quote

There are at least two of us - and likely many many more. It's not about bitterness -- it's about humanity, decency, fairness, things like that. If the OP had even voiced the tiniest concern about this young woman's well-being -- unable to have direct contact with her friends and family because the OP's well-being matters more -- it would be easier to view this more charitably. That people chime in viewing the young woman's needs as "selfish" vs "healthy" only serves to fan the flames.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, I’m sorry you’re having to deal with this! Unfortunately, your nanny is a dud who doesn’t understand the concept of social distancing and shelter-in-place. And a fraudulent dud who wants to collect unemployment and get a cash job! I hope nobody will hire her. You have every right to deny her unemployment without feeling bad about it. She has a safe home, a steady job, and a car to go out in, and she wants to mess it up for a few extra dollars. Whatever.

I'm curious: Is that enough for you? A "safe" home in somebody else's house -- where they make the rules about who you can and cannot interact with on your ow time? A job -- that has gone from having defined hours to meaning that your supposedly "free" time is now restricted to meet the needs of your boss - 24/? A car to go out in -- except that she can't go anywhere that isn't pre-approved by her boss? You're harping on money - which, as I read it, is less of an issue than being able to have social interaction with people she knows who genuinely care about her well-being. As you say: Whatever. I'm sure that your life is absolutely nothing like what you're pushing for this young woman. I truly hope that things work out well for her.

OP has said it was the nanny’s choice / preference to live in when she started working for them several years ago. OP’s only restriction is that the nanny follow the LAW which requires sheltering in place. Please explain why this is objectionable to you. Are employers not allowed to require their employees to follow the law?

Please post the exact law and the exceptions to it -- and I'll be happy to respond to your concern. By the way, using caps doesn't really make your point any better. Screaming "LAW" "LAW" isn't rational, and doesn't address any of the points that I made. Your comments seem a bit unhinged, and resemble the arguments that have been used to support slavery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, I’m sorry you’re having to deal with this! Unfortunately, your nanny is a dud who doesn’t understand the concept of social distancing and shelter-in-place. And a fraudulent dud who wants to collect unemployment and get a cash job! I hope nobody will hire her. You have every right to deny her unemployment without feeling bad about it. She has a safe home, a steady job, and a car to go out in, and she wants to mess it up for a few extra dollars. Whatever.

I'm curious: Is that enough for you? A "safe" home in somebody else's house -- where they make the rules about who you can and cannot interact with on your ow time? A job -- that has gone from having defined hours to meaning that your supposedly "free" time is now restricted to meet the needs of your boss - 24/? A car to go out in -- except that she can't go anywhere that isn't pre-approved by her boss? You're harping on money - which, as I read it, is less of an issue than being able to have social interaction with people she knows who genuinely care about her well-being. As you say: Whatever. I'm sure that your life is absolutely nothing like what you're pushing for this young woman. I truly hope that things work out well for her.

OP has said it was the nanny’s choice / preference to live in when she started working for them several years ago. OP’s only restriction is that the nanny follow the LAW which requires sheltering in place. Please explain why this is objectionable to you. Are employers not allowed to require their employees to follow the law?

The NY orders don't prohibit people from changing residences, going to the store for necessities, seeing their loved ones or anything else like that.

Op seems to think that when the governor issued those orders that meant that the steel bars on the window and doors slammed into place. But that is not true. The nanny is just as allowed to attend to her own personal business as Op is.

Sorry, Op. You are really very wrong and pretty awful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, I’m sorry you’re having to deal with this! Unfortunately, your nanny is a dud who doesn’t understand the concept of social distancing and shelter-in-place. And a fraudulent dud who wants to collect unemployment and get a cash job! I hope nobody will hire her. You have every right to deny her unemployment without feeling bad about it. She has a safe home, a steady job, and a car to go out in, and she wants to mess it up for a few extra dollars. Whatever.

I'm curious: Is that enough for you? A "safe" home in somebody else's house -- where they make the rules about who you can and cannot interact with on your ow time? A job -- that has gone from having defined hours to meaning that your supposedly "free" time is now restricted to meet the needs of your boss - 24/? A car to go out in -- except that she can't go anywhere that isn't pre-approved by her boss? You're harping on money - which, as I read it, is less of an issue than being able to have social interaction with people she knows who genuinely care about her well-being. As you say: Whatever. I'm sure that your life is absolutely nothing like what you're pushing for this young woman. I truly hope that things work out well for her.

OP has said it was the nanny’s choice / preference to live in when she started working for them several years ago. OP’s only restriction is that the nanny follow the LAW which requires sheltering in place. Please explain why this is objectionable to you. Are employers not allowed to require their employees to follow the law?

If the consequence is being kicked out of your home, then maybe not. Nanny’s home is in the employer’s house. It’s part of her pay. I don’t know if landlords or people who provide housing g as part of compensation are allowed to kick people out for what the nanny has asked to do.

Lol - you keep changing the goalpost! Look, OP, when you live in you know that you’re subject to the rules of your employer/landlord. Eg Your employer may not allow you to have loud parties late at night, or to smoke or do drugs in the home, etc. OP’s requirement that her nanny follow the shelter in place LAW is perfectly reasonable. And it sounds like the nanny is happy to leave, to make a few extra bucks while illegally collecting unemployment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, I’m sorry you’re having to deal with this! Unfortunately, your nanny is a dud who doesn’t understand the concept of social distancing and shelter-in-place. And a fraudulent dud who wants to collect unemployment and get a cash job! I hope nobody will hire her. You have every right to deny her unemployment without feeling bad about it. She has a safe home, a steady job, and a car to go out in, and she wants to mess it up for a few extra dollars. Whatever.

I'm curious: Is that enough for you? A "safe" home in somebody else's house -- where they make the rules about who you can and cannot interact with on your ow time? A job -- that has gone from having defined hours to meaning that your supposedly "free" time is now restricted to meet the needs of your boss - 24/? A car to go out in -- except that she can't go anywhere that isn't pre-approved by her boss? You're harping on money - which, as I read it, is less of an issue than being able to have social interaction with people she knows who genuinely care about her well-being. As you say: Whatever. I'm sure that your life is absolutely nothing like what you're pushing for this young woman. I truly hope that things work out well for her.

OP has said it was the nanny’s choice / preference to live in when she started working for them several years ago. OP’s only restriction is that the nanny follow the LAW which requires sheltering in place. Please explain why this is objectionable to you. Are employers not allowed to require their employees to follow the law?

Please post the exact law and the exceptions to it -- and I'll be happy to respond to your concern. By the way, using caps doesn't really make your point any better. Screaming "LAW" "LAW" isn't rational, and doesn't address any of the points that I made. Your comments seem a bit unhinged, and resemble the arguments that have been used to support slavery.

Different poster here but there is something really unnerving about the way that Op views her nanny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, I’m sorry you’re having to deal with this! Unfortunately, your nanny is a dud who doesn’t understand the concept of social distancing and shelter-in-place. And a fraudulent dud who wants to collect unemployment and get a cash job! I hope nobody will hire her. You have every right to deny her unemployment without feeling bad about it. She has a safe home, a steady job, and a car to go out in, and she wants to mess it up for a few extra dollars. Whatever.

I'm curious: Is that enough for you? A "safe" home in somebody else's house -- where they make the rules about who you can and cannot interact with on your ow time? A job -- that has gone from having defined hours to meaning that your supposedly "free" time is now restricted to meet the needs of your boss - 24/? A car to go out in -- except that she can't go anywhere that isn't pre-approved by her boss? You're harping on money - which, as I read it, is less of an issue than being able to have social interaction with people she knows who genuinely care about her well-being. As you say: Whatever. I'm sure that your life is absolutely nothing like what you're pushing for this young woman. I truly hope that things work out well for her.

OP has said it was the nanny’s choice / preference to live in when she started working for them several years ago. OP’s only restriction is that the nanny follow the LAW which requires sheltering in place. Please explain why this is objectionable to you. Are employers not allowed to require their employees to follow the law?

The NY orders don't prohibit people from changing residences, going to the store for necessities, seeing their loved ones or anything else like that.

Op seems to think that when the governor issued those orders that meant that the steel bars on the window and doors slammed into place. But that is not true. The nanny is just as allowed to attend to her own personal business as Op is.

Sorry, Op. You are really very wrong and pretty awful.

OP has said the nanny goes out for runs in the morning and uses her car in the evenings to go out. How exactly is that putting steel bars on the window?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, I’m sorry you’re having to deal with this! Unfortunately, your nanny is a dud who doesn’t understand the concept of social distancing and shelter-in-place. And a fraudulent dud who wants to collect unemployment and get a cash job! I hope nobody will hire her. You have every right to deny her unemployment without feeling bad about it. She has a safe home, a steady job, and a car to go out in, and she wants to mess it up for a few extra dollars. Whatever.

I'm curious: Is that enough for you? A "safe" home in somebody else's house -- where they make the rules about who you can and cannot interact with on your ow time? A job -- that has gone from having defined hours to meaning that your supposedly "free" time is now restricted to meet the needs of your boss - 24/? A car to go out in -- except that she can't go anywhere that isn't pre-approved by her boss? You're harping on money - which, as I read it, is less of an issue than being able to have social interaction with people she knows who genuinely care about her well-being. As you say: Whatever. I'm sure that your life is absolutely nothing like what you're pushing for this young woman. I truly hope that things work out well for her.

OP has said it was the nanny’s choice / preference to live in when she started working for them several years ago. OP’s only restriction is that the nanny follow the LAW which requires sheltering in place. Please explain why this is objectionable to you. Are employers not allowed to require their employees to follow the law?

Please post the exact law and the exceptions to it -- and I'll be happy to respond to your concern. By the way, using caps doesn't really make your point any better. Screaming "LAW" "LAW" isn't rational, and doesn't address any of the points that I made. Your comments seem a bit unhinged, and resemble the arguments that have been used to support slavery.

Different poster here but there is something really unnerving about the way that Op views her nanny.

Please post how wanting to socialize with friends is an exception to SIP?