Eh, not really. When looking for our first nanny, it didn’t occur to us that she’d have an issue with a pet rabbit who lived outside and she had no responsibility for. |
It's too bad OP doesn't understand that the nanny did her a huge favor by being really upfront and direct. The nanny has provided vital information that will help OP find a nanny! Now OP knows this "one thing" might be an issue for other nannies and she can either adjust her expectations or change her offered rate, or simply make sure any future candidates know about this issue upfront so as to not go through multiple rounds of interviews with someone for whom this is a dealbreaker.
I mean, I wasn't there so maybe the nanny was kind of up abrupt or unpleasant in the way she reacted, and that's what made it feel so awkward for OP. But even then, I'd rather err on the side of honest and direct. Sometimes it's hard to do it in a way that is gentle or cushions the blow -- it depends on how open the other person is to hearing it. But kudos to this nanny for being so willing to just say what needed to be said. I wish this was more common. |
That's the sort of thing you wouldn't want or have to hide in telling the tale, though. |
Except the reason you have no problem sharing that anecdote is that you understand that this is the kind of thing some people might be bothered by (some people don't like animals, or might have allergies, or may just have some objection to pets) and others would think was no big deal. OP is refusing to share the "one thing" because she's pretty sure we'd all be like "nanny was right, that's unreasonable." |
+1 Better than the nanny quitting, then you having to find a new one. She saved you, OP. She was professional, and she did the right thing. Send her our way! |
x1000000 OP knows that OP is unreasonable. |
A lot of things parents ask for are unreasonable but I would still hold my tongue and decline in writing later. Happens all the time. It’s not my job to educate them on why I’m taking myself out of consideration and telling them in person leads to a discussion I have no interest in having. |
This. |
PP, you have a reading comprehension issue. It doesn’t matter what the “one thing” was. The issue that OP has was that the nanny didn’t wait until the job offer email or phone call to decline the job. THAT is what offended her. It’s not about why the nanny decline the job; it’s HOW she did it. OP is nuts. |
+100000000000 The people thinking the nanny did them a favor aren’t nannies. I have no time or patience explaining in person why I’m no longer interested in your position. I smile, finish fast, and decline by text the next day with no explanation. |
I actually think the nanny is nuts. The nanny opened herself up to a discussion on why. |
Disagree. “Thank you so much for meeting with me. This isn’t going to be match for me. Best wishes to you.” Then walk out. No one has to have a conversation. |
Man, I really want OP to come defend whatever this one thing was. Must have been a doozy |
At least she gave you back your baby. I wonder whether the OP was insulted by the refusal from someone who was holding her child and took the rejection as a rejection of her child while stating another reason. Reminds me of a Seinfeld episode about friends who had a new baby. |
This is rare DCUM consensus. Or near consensus.
We all must know, what was the “one thing”? This is anonymous board nobody will know who you are come on, spill beans! |