Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Well, when no one qualified applies, they will have to lower their standards or up the salary.
+1
But why call it out here? It’s low but it’s not so low worth mentioning here. I see all sorts of ridiculous ads and don’t post about “idiots” here.
Anonymous wrote:Well, when no one qualified applies, they will have to lower their standards or up the salary.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:a person can easily have a second job with this, sounds reasonable to me
+1 I don’t see what the big deal is. It’s a part-time job.
it's well-known that you have to pay part-time nannies more per hour than full-time, because they are in short supply. most childcare workers are going to be looking for FT right now. I can also say that we paid more to our part-time nanny on the hill for only one older child with no expectations of lesson planning/learning. so yeah, expecting this person to get only $24/hr for THREE kids ranging from newborn to 4 years old with educational expectations, seems like a lot.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:a person can easily have a second job with this, sounds reasonable to me
+1 I don’t see what the big deal is. It’s a part-time job.
Anonymous wrote:a person can easily have a second job with this, sounds reasonable to me
Anonymous wrote:
I agree but it’s $21+3
Anonymous wrote:I am confused. They already have an au pair, so this doesn't sound like a nannying gig? And it sounds like their suggested schedule would mean the teacher would be with just one kid for most of the daily 3-hour session? Plus the real rate is $27/hr since they are adding $3/hr as a contribution toward health care or other benefits.
The biggest issue I see here is the expectation that the teacher will watch the infant at the same time. This just seems unrealistic and not really within the spirit of the arrangement they are seeking. I think the parents probably just recognize the baby will be sleeping a decent amount and are hoping the teacher would be okay having the baby sleep nearby so they can get the occasional break. It's hard to describe that in an ad like this and I think you would need it to be pretty clear up front what everyone is clear with.
But this sounds like a very specific and possibly beneficial set up for the right person. I don't think that rate sounds low UNLESS they are really expecting infant care and then it is both too low and also just an unrealistic position. But for 3 hrs/day of ECE for two pre-schoolers, one of which will be napping for most of the session? Seems okay.
I think you are reading the worst possible intentions here.
Anonymous wrote:I am confused. They already have an au pair, so this doesn't sound like a nannying gig? And it sounds like their suggested schedule would mean the teacher would be with just one kid for most of the daily 3-hour session? Plus the real rate is $27/hr since they are adding $3/hr as a contribution toward health care or other benefits.
The biggest issue I see here is the expectation that the teacher will watch the infant at the same time. This just seems unrealistic and not really within the spirit of the arrangement they are seeking. I think the parents probably just recognize the baby will be sleeping a decent amount and are hoping the teacher would be okay having the baby sleep nearby so they can get the occasional break. It's hard to describe that in an ad like this and I think you would need it to be pretty clear up front what everyone is clear with.
But this sounds like a very specific and possibly beneficial set up for the right person. I don't think that rate sounds low UNLESS they are really expecting infant care and then it is both too low and also just an unrealistic position. But for 3 hrs/day of ECE for two pre-schoolers, one of which will be napping for most of the session? Seems okay.
I think you are reading the worst possible intentions here.