Nanny or Daycare?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have an almost 4-month-old and I’m going back to work part-time. My MIL will be watching our baby until we hire a nanny or put him daycare at six months old. My hope was to go back part-time for the first year, but we are finding it hard to find a nanny willing to commit long-term working part-time. We are on the waitlist and have a spot opening up for us when my son will be six months old. The daycare is highly rated and close to us. There are pros and cons to both but I think having a nanny while young will be the best option. We would like to have a nanny but I will likely have to go back full-time. I’m really struggling with what to do.

Up your $ offer for a PT nanny. Or offer to help the nanny find another family who needs her when you don’t. When I worked for several regular families each week, I was very happy with my earnings. Best of all, I knew the children were getting more time with their families.

Please. A nanny is not going to be most or even remotely concerned that her piecing together multiple families is going to allow the kids to spend more time with their families. (I’m not really sure why that would be the case relative to part-time daycare, but that’s neither here nor there.)

She is going to care about her salary and other working conditions. She is not going to take something that wouldn’t meet her needs because doing so will allow Larlo to spend more time with his family and/or avoid daycare. Nor should she.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have an almost 4-month-old and I’m going back to work part-time. My MIL will be watching our baby until we hire a nanny or put him daycare at six months old. My hope was to go back part-time for the first year, but we are finding it hard to find a nanny willing to commit long-term working part-time. We are on the waitlist and have a spot opening up for us when my son will be six months old. The daycare is highly rated and close to us. There are pros and cons to both but I think having a nanny while young will be the best option. We would like to have a nanny but I will likely have to go back full-time. I’m really struggling with what to do.

Up your $ offer for a PT nanny. Or offer to help the nanny find another family who needs her when you don’t. When I worked for several regular families each week, I was very happy with my earnings. Best of all, I knew the children were getting more time with their families.

Please. A nanny is not going to be most or even remotely concerned that her piecing together multiple families is going to allow the kids to spend more time with their families. (I’m not really sure why that would be the case relative to part-time daycare, but that’s neither here nor there.)

She is going to care about her salary and other working conditions. She is not going to take something that wouldn’t meet her needs because doing so will allow Larlo to spend more time with his family and/or avoid daycare. Nor should she.

Speak for yourself. I aim to do what’s best for the child. A little sacrifice or inconvenience on my part isn’t a problem for me. I stand by my recommendations in OP’s situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have an almost 4-month-old and I’m going back to work part-time. My MIL will be watching our baby until we hire a nanny or put him daycare at six months old. My hope was to go back part-time for the first year, but we are finding it hard to find a nanny willing to commit long-term working part-time. We are on the waitlist and have a spot opening up for us when my son will be six months old. The daycare is highly rated and close to us. There are pros and cons to both but I think having a nanny while young will be the best option. We would like to have a nanny but I will likely have to go back full-time. I’m really struggling with what to do.

Up your $ offer for a PT nanny. Or offer to help the nanny find another family who needs her when you don’t. When I worked for several regular families each week, I was very happy with my earnings. Best of all, I knew the children were getting more time with their families.

Please. A nanny is not going to be most or even remotely concerned that her piecing together multiple families is going to allow the kids to spend more time with their families. (I’m not really sure why that would be the case relative to part-time daycare, but that’s neither here nor there.)

She is going to care about her salary and other working conditions. She is not going to take something that wouldn’t meet her needs because doing so will allow Larlo to spend more time with his family and/or avoid daycare. Nor should she.

Speak for yourself. I aim to do what’s best for the child. A little sacrifice or inconvenience on my part isn’t a problem for me. I stand by my recommendations in OP’s situation.

Well, then please make sure to invite me for your canonization.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have an almost 4-month-old and I’m going back to work part-time. My MIL will be watching our baby until we hire a nanny or put him daycare at six months old. My hope was to go back part-time for the first year, but we are finding it hard to find a nanny willing to commit long-term working part-time. We are on the waitlist and have a spot opening up for us when my son will be six months old. The daycare is highly rated and close to us. There are pros and cons to both but I think having a nanny while young will be the best option. We would like to have a nanny but I will likely have to go back full-time. I’m really struggling with what to do.

Up your $ offer for a PT nanny. Or offer to help the nanny find another family who needs her when you don’t. When I worked for several regular families each week, I was very happy with my earnings. Best of all, I knew the children were getting more time with their families.

Please. A nanny is not going to be most or even remotely concerned that her piecing together multiple families is going to allow the kids to spend more time with their families. (I’m not really sure why that would be the case relative to part-time daycare, but that’s neither here nor there.)

She is going to care about her salary and other working conditions. She is not going to take something that wouldn’t meet her needs because doing so will allow Larlo to spend more time with his family and/or avoid daycare. Nor should she.

Speak for yourself. I aim to do what’s best for the child. A little sacrifice or inconvenience on my part isn’t a problem for me. I stand by my recommendations in OP’s situation.

Well, then please make sure to invite me for your canonization.

Funny you should ask. People already have called me a saint. I just don’t feel it’s too much to put a child’s needs ahead of your own once in a while. More people should try it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have an almost 4-month-old and I’m going back to work part-time. My MIL will be watching our baby until we hire a nanny or put him daycare at six months old. My hope was to go back part-time for the first year, but we are finding it hard to find a nanny willing to commit long-term working part-time. We are on the waitlist and have a spot opening up for us when my son will be six months old. The daycare is highly rated and close to us. There are pros and cons to both but I think having a nanny while young will be the best option. We would like to have a nanny but I will likely have to go back full-time. I’m really struggling with what to do.

Up your $ offer for a PT nanny. Or offer to help the nanny find another family who needs her when you don’t. When I worked for several regular families each week, I was very happy with my earnings. Best of all, I knew the children were getting more time with their families.

Please. A nanny is not going to be most or even remotely concerned that her piecing together multiple families is going to allow the kids to spend more time with their families. (I’m not really sure why that would be the case relative to part-time daycare, but that’s neither here nor there.)

She is going to care about her salary and other working conditions. She is not going to take something that wouldn’t meet her needs because doing so will allow Larlo to spend more time with his family and/or avoid daycare. Nor should she.

Speak for yourself. I aim to do what’s best for the child. A little sacrifice or inconvenience on my part isn’t a problem for me. I stand by my recommendations in OP’s situation.

Well, then please make sure to invite me for your canonization.

Funny you should ask. People already have called me a saint. I just don’t feel it’s too much to put a child’s needs ahead of your own once in a while. More people should try it.

Of course they have.

[Anonymous]

More people should sometimes put a child's needs ahead of their own. Why not??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have an almost 4-month-old and I’m going back to work part-time. My MIL will be watching our baby until we hire a nanny or put him daycare at six months old. My hope was to go back part-time for the first year, but we are finding it hard to find a nanny willing to commit long-term working part-time. We are on the waitlist and have a spot opening up for us when my son will be six months old. The daycare is highly rated and close to us. There are pros and cons to both but I think having a nanny while young will be the best option. We would like to have a nanny but I will likely have to go back full-time. I’m really struggling with what to do.

Up your $ offer for a PT nanny. Or offer to help the nanny find another family who needs her when you don’t. When I worked for several regular families each week, I was very happy with my earnings. Best of all, I knew the children were getting more time with their families.

Please. A nanny is not going to be most or even remotely concerned that her piecing together multiple families is going to allow the kids to spend more time with their families. (I’m not really sure why that would be the case relative to part-time daycare, but that’s neither here nor there.)

She is going to care about her salary and other working conditions. She is not going to take something that wouldn’t meet her needs because doing so will allow Larlo to spend more time with his family and/or avoid daycare. Nor should she.

Speak for yourself. I aim to do what’s best for the child. A little sacrifice or inconvenience on my part isn’t a problem for me. I stand by my recommendations in OP’s situation.

Well, then please make sure to invite me for your canonization.

Funny you should ask. People already have called me a saint. I just don’t feel it’s too much to put a child’s needs ahead of your own once in a while. More people should try it.

Once in a while is a single instance every few weeks or months. You’re asking for a conscious decision that will last several months, possibly over a year. There’s also no guarantee that the child will actually spend more time with their family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:More people should sometimes put a child's needs ahead of their own. Why not??

In a temporary way that have no lasting detrimental effect on the adult, it’s absolutely a good idea to put a child’s needs first. However, piecing together several jobs raises the likelihood that there will not be enough pay. There definitely won’t be any overtime.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More people should sometimes put a child's needs ahead of their own. Why not??

In a temporary way that have no lasting detrimental effect on the adult, it’s absolutely a good idea to put a child’s needs first. However, piecing together several jobs raises the likelihood that there will not be enough pay. There definitely won’t be any overtime.

I actually significantly increased my income when I accepted several PT families. Consistent PT care is hard to find. But, if the price is right you can find almost anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More people should sometimes put a child's needs ahead of their own. Why not??

In a temporary way that have no lasting detrimental effect on the adult, it’s absolutely a good idea to put a child’s needs first. However, piecing together several jobs raises the likelihood that there will not be enough pay. There definitely won’t be any overtime.

I actually significantly increased my income when I accepted several PT families. Consistent PT care is hard to find. But, if the price is right you can find almost anything.

But the whole point is that OP is unwilling to pay above-market hourly rates for a nanny! I agree that she could find someone if she were willing to pay extra...but she's not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More people should sometimes put a child's needs ahead of their own. Why not??

In a temporary way that have no lasting detrimental effect on the adult, it’s absolutely a good idea to put a child’s needs first. However, piecing together several jobs raises the likelihood that there will not be enough pay. There definitely won’t be any overtime.

I actually significantly increased my income when I accepted several PT families. Consistent PT care is hard to find. But, if the price is right you can find almost anything.

But then that’s not you putting the child’s needs ahead of your needs. The PP (maybe you maybe not) was claiming that she was willing to sacrifice her personal interests by taking a less optimal employment situation to benefit the child. That’s very different.

I think it is quite unreasonable to expect a nanny to take a subpar job, however that is defined for the nanny, to provide some added benefit to the kid. Very few but our apparent saintly PP would do that, nor would most other employees.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More people should sometimes put a child's needs ahead of their own. Why not??

In a temporary way that have no lasting detrimental effect on the adult, it’s absolutely a good idea to put a child’s needs first. However, piecing together several jobs raises the likelihood that there will not be enough pay. There definitely won’t be any overtime.

I actually significantly increased my income when I accepted several PT families. Consistent PT care is hard to find. But, if the price is right you can find almost anything.

But then that’s not you putting the child’s needs ahead of your needs. The PP (maybe you maybe not) was claiming that she was willing to sacrifice her personal interests by taking a less optimal employment situation to benefit the child. That’s very different.

I think it is quite unreasonable to expect a nanny to take a subpar job, however that is defined for the nanny, to provide some added benefit to the kid. Very few but our apparent saintly PP would do that, nor would most other employees.

Why not try the win-win-win model for a change? You might like it. Children might get more stable childcare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More people should sometimes put a child's needs ahead of their own. Why not??

In a temporary way that have no lasting detrimental effect on the adult, it’s absolutely a good idea to put a child’s needs first. However, piecing together several jobs raises the likelihood that there will not be enough pay. There definitely won’t be any overtime.

I actually significantly increased my income when I accepted several PT families. Consistent PT care is hard to find. But, if the price is right you can find almost anything.

But then that’s not you putting the child’s needs ahead of your needs. The PP (maybe you maybe not) was claiming that she was willing to sacrifice her personal interests by taking a less optimal employment situation to benefit the child. That’s very different.

I think it is quite unreasonable to expect a nanny to take a subpar job, however that is defined for the nanny, to provide some added benefit to the kid. Very few but our apparent saintly PP would do that, nor would most other employees.

Why not try the win-win-win model for a change? You might like it. Children might get more stable childcare.

You do realize the "win-win" isn't going to be possible in many cases, right? For example, OP's situation demonstrates that because she is not willing or able to pay the premium rate that might allow a nanny to benefit enough to make part-time gigs worth while.

More fundamentally, I disagree that it is a nanny's job to make sacrifices to her employment situation just to benefit a child, just as I would not expect any other employee to agree to subpar working conditions to benefit their employer.

An employee should take the job that works best for her, whether because of salary, hours, working conditions, or any combination of these or other factors.