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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.