Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think if things get bad we will just lay her her off with the understanding she will go on unemployment until this temporary issue resolves itself. We will then re-hire her later. Thanks everyone for such idiotic responses, I figured it out myself.

You must be amazing to work for!

I give out bonuses, raises and forward paychecks when requested. I also have paid car insurance repairs etc.... I also am happy to do taxes, paper work, etc... for no charge at all.

I am fair and generous but am not going to put my family at risk or be homeless.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think if things get bad we will just lay her her off with the understanding she will go on unemployment until this temporary issue resolves itself. We will then re-hire her later. Thanks everyone for such idiotic responses, I figured it out myself.

You must be amazing to work for!

+100

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, you can't afford to have a nanny. You can't. That's OK -- a lot of people can't. You just need to admit that you are not able to have a "staff" and make other accommodations.

Business 101, if money isn't coming in, you stop money from going out. Even if someone had reserve money to "afford staff" nothing says you need to pay them when your situation changes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment

No one is arguing the legality of this. What I'm saying is that your financial circumstances don't allow you to continuously employ house staff. That's OK. But you should find other arrangements.

And if you are a nanny who can't go a couple of weeks without a paycheck, perhaps you need to look into ways you can become a more qualified (i.e higher earning nanny) or find another career where you can make more money. Or you need to look at your budget and figure out where you over overspending. - signed, not a nanny employer but thinks the double standard for employers/nannies is kind of crazy.

I may be outing myself as a bleeding heart liberal, but I think those of us who have more money should make greater sacrifices than those who make less. I don't have any household employees, but I will not fire my cleaning lady willy-nilly because of this shutdown. (I am not federal but likely to experience shutdown effects.) I suppose you think the cleaning lady should be socking away the big bucks for a rainy day or training for a more lucrative career.

If federal workers get back pay for all this nonsense and therefore got a "free" vacation, that is the cost we all have to bear for putting them through the wringer. I doubt that nannies, even in the DC area, are doing a whole lot of "overspending."

Completely agree.

Anonymous wrote:People fail to understand that the employer is not running a charity. Just because there are some emotional attachments due to the children doesn't absolve it from being a business relationship. No one's employer would run a business like this heck the GOVERNMENT has NOT MONEY and is not paying their workers right now. Why should it be any different for any other business arrangement?

It shouldn't but the OP seems to expect that the nanny will sit around and wait to be called back to work. That is ridiculous -- of COURSE she should go look for stable employment!

Anonymous wrote:I think if things get bad we will just lay her her off with the understanding she will go on unemployment until this temporary issue resolves itself. We will then re-hire her later. Thanks everyone for such idiotic responses, I figured it out myself.

You must be amazing to work for!

Anonymous wrote:People fail to understand that the employer is not running a charity. Just because there are some emotional attachments due to the children doesn't absolve it from being a business relationship. No one's employer would run a business like this heck the GOVERNMENT has NOT MONEY and is not paying their workers right now. Why should it be any different for any other business arrangement?

NO MONEY not NON MONEY

People fail to understand that the employer is not running a charity. Just because there are some emotional attachments due to the children doesn't absolve it from being a business relationship. No one's employer would run a business like this heck the GOVERNMENT has NOT MONEY and is not paying their workers right now. Why should it be any different for any other business arrangement?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, you can't afford to have a nanny. You can't. That's OK -- a lot of people can't. You just need to admit that you are not able to have a "staff" and make other accommodations.

Business 101, if money isn't coming in, you stop money from going out. Even if someone had reserve money to "afford staff" nothing says you need to pay them when your situation changes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment

No one is arguing the legality of this. What I'm saying is that your financial circumstances don't allow you to continuously employ house staff. That's OK. But you should find other arrangements.

And if you are a nanny who can't go a couple of weeks without a paycheck, perhaps you need to look into ways you can become a more qualified (i.e higher earning nanny) or find another career where you can make more money. Or you need to look at your budget and figure out where you over overspending. - signed, not a nanny employer but thinks the double standard for employers/nannies is kind of crazy.

I may be outing myself as a bleeding heart liberal, but I think those of us who have more money should make greater sacrifices than those who make less. I don't have any household employees, but I will not fire my cleaning lady willy-nilly because of this shutdown. (I am not federal but likely to experience shutdown effects.) I suppose you think the cleaning lady should be socking away the big bucks for a rainy day or training for a more lucrative career.

If federal workers get back pay for all this nonsense and therefore got a "free" vacation, that is the cost we all have to bear for putting them through the wringer. I doubt that nannies, even in the DC area, are doing a whole lot of "overspending."

Anonymous wrote:OP is a moron and the person who keeps defending his/her actions is a moron as well. I have no doubt they are the same person. Go away sockpuppet.

I can guarantee you there is no sockpuppetting. I would bet that there are nannies or a nanny on here replying who have no idea what employers are going through right now.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nanny here- If you furloughed me, I'd look for another job immediately. If I didn't find one, and you wanted me back I'd go work for you... Until I found another job. No nanny would put up with that, and you'll be the one who gets screwed in the end. Not her.

Terrible. After all the time the employer helped you out the one time in need and you disappear. You give nannies a bad name.

Nannies have bills to pay too. They need stability just like you. If you as a family can't provide her stable employment, the nanny is absolutely justified in finding another family that can.

BUT BUT BUT...shouldn't nannies have savings so they can survive if they lose their jobs?! I mean, if they can't survive for a little without a paycheck, they are obviously living above their means. Or does that only apply to their bosses? And no, I'm not an MB or DB.

Everyone who can manage it should try to have some sort of emergency fund, but someone making 300K is going to be much more capable of saving than someone making 30-40K. I have an emergency fund too but I sure as heck don't want to use it if I don't have to. Many Feds I know are sick of the constant uncertainty with their jobs--sequestration, furloughs, pay freezes, so they're starting to look elsewhere. If you put your nanny in a similar situation, it's only natural that she would also consider moving on. Is that what you want for your kids?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, you can't afford to have a nanny. You can't. That's OK -- a lot of people can't. You just need to admit that you are not able to have a "staff" and make other accommodations.

Business 101, if money isn't coming in, you stop money from going out. Even if someone had reserve money to "afford staff" nothing says you need to pay them when your situation changes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment

No one is arguing the legality of this. What I'm saying is that your financial circumstances don't allow you to continuously employ house staff. That's OK. But you should find other arrangements.

And if you are a nanny who can't go a couple of weeks without a paycheck, perhaps you need to look into ways you can become a more qualified (i.e higher earning nanny) or find another career where you can make more money. Or you need to look at your budget and figure out where you over overspending. - signed, not a nanny employer but thinks the double standard for employers/nannies is kind of crazy.

I'm sorry that you have minimal understanding of the complexities of the employer / employee relationship. Good for you for recognizing this and not employing a nanny.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, you can't afford to have a nanny. You can't. That's OK -- a lot of people can't. You just need to admit that you are not able to have a "staff" and make other accommodations.

Business 101, if money isn't coming in, you stop money from going out. Even if someone had reserve money to "afford staff" nothing says you need to pay them when your situation changes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment

No one is arguing the legality of this. What I'm saying is that your financial circumstances don't allow you to continuously employ house staff. That's OK. But you should find other arrangements.

And if you are a nanny who can't go a couple of weeks without a paycheck, perhaps you need to look into ways you can become a more qualified (i.e higher earning nanny) or find another career where you can make more money. Or you need to look at your budget and figure out where you over overspending. - signed, not a nanny employer but thinks the double standard for employers/nannies is kind of crazy.

OP is a moron and the person who keeps defending his/her actions is a moron as well. I have no doubt they are the same person. Go away sockpuppet.

NOT the PP, but I think what she might be hinting at is that the nanny would be able to apply for some aid because of the no/low income? I'm not entirely sure but that is what I'm guessing. For instance, maybe that PP thinks that the nanny could get food stamps, whereas the family with 80k wouldn't qualify for them? Not sure, but just a guess.

Hey OP, guess what. My family income went from $185K to $0K with this shutdown and I'm still paying my full childcare bill, as I will be until this ends.