Minimum wage rising and nannies wages

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm not sure why anyone would stay in a share for 11:50/hr when they can get a very qualified nanny of their own for 4 dollars an hour more.

Shares would not be worth it and it is the share nanny who will lose as those jobs become extinct.

Where's a "very well qualified" nanny looking for a job? Funny how most of the nannies who already have jobs, don't speak gramatically correct English. Why is that, Einstein? Or are you a "very qualified" educator who believes that proper language doesn't matter?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Written agreements are very useful if all parties are honest enough to actually adhere to them, or at least formally modify them with joint consent.

Don't you love it when the employer formally stipulates in the agreement that the nanny must be "flexible" in terms of her availability (oops, I'll be two hours late tonight, just cancel your plans) and in terms of her "responsibilities"?

We didn't realize how little "work" it is to put up with our spoiled rotten out-of-control kids all day, so here's the housekeeper's task list. No sense in paying both of you, so we fired her. She said she can't keep an eye on the kids while she's cleaning. Parents do it all the time you know, so you can do it to. But don't forget, if one of the kids gets hurt because you weren't doing your job, you know what will happen to you, don't you?

If you expect a potential employer to honor an agreement, you had best get a few references for them first. You know nothing about them, beyond that fact that they have a child they can't personally provide care for.

[Anonymous]

Don't you love it when the employer formally stipulates in the agreement that the nanny must be "flexible" in terms of her availability (oops, I'll be two hours late tonight, just cancel your plans) and in terms of her "responsibilities"?

There is one bitchy nanny on this board that embarrasses everyone else. Please find another hobby!

Its far preferable for a parent to stipulate that they need time or task flexibility upfront. Some parents have predictable jobs and some parents like doctors have very unpredictable schedules. This works for some nannies and doesn't work for others. If everyone is upfront in the beginning a better match is better for everyone.

Problems arise when parents just assume that getting a nanny means getting someone flexible with time or duties. Some nannies aren't available after their scheduled time and some nannies are very rigid, bare minimum types. Parents need to be upfront to find the right nanny. Nannies also bear some responsibility in also being upfront. If you need to leave when your shift ends be upfront and say so in the interview. If you are not the high energy type and don't plan on doing anything beyond exactly what your employer asks be upfront that you don't take on extra tasks. Some nannies are just pissed that every job isn't the right one for them. They should be upfront and walk away if its not the right job even if it means compromising on something else for a different job.

[Anonymous]

Some people are pissed they can't find the right slave girl for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some people are pissed they can't find the right slave girl for them.

Stop making this comparison. It is wildly inaccurate, inflammatory, and incredibly insulting. Slavery is a world away from being under compensated or "over worked" and this baseless, knee jerk response (which is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand...not really sure how a free agent being paid at least minimum wage could be considered a slave) adds nothing constructive to the discussion. It merely reveals your bitter unintelligence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some people are pissed they can't find the right slave girl for them.

Stop making this comparison. It is wildly inaccurate, inflammatory, and incredibly insulting. Slavery is a world away from being under compensated or "over worked" and this baseless, knee jerk response (which is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand...not really sure how a free agent being paid at least minimum wage could be considered a slave) adds nothing constructive to the discussion. It merely reveals your bitter unintelligence.

+1.

[Anonymous]

+2 to 8:28

Also for the purpose of this particular discussion, we are talking about whether a nanny would be legally required to earn $23 an hour if she works in a share. That is a pretty darn high rate, don't you think 5:23?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm not sure why anyone would stay in a share for 11:50/hr when they can get a very qualified nanny of their own for 4 dollars an hour more.

Shares would not be worth it and it is the share nanny who will lose as those jobs become extinct.

It's your personal opinion that the only benefit to a share, is getting a discount in your minimum wage payout.

Other parents may see it differently:

1) They want their tot to be with another child to mitigate the dreaded "singleton" experience.

2) They can suddenly afford the high quality professional nanny who charges 25-30/hr, or more.

[Anonymous]

No one said the only benefit of a share was cost, although it is certainly A benefit.

Also, there is no such thing as the dreaded singleton experience. That's just your weird issue.

[Anonymous]

Some people due a share due to cost savings against a solo nanny. Others do a share as a "splurge" that is more expensive than daycare while still being within reach. Making both families pay the new rate individually would eradicate much of the latter group since it would probably price people out of the market or at least mean they could not afford any raises after the first year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:15:27, you think $39,523 is a lot of money to take care of children 8-10 hrs/day? Do not have kids if you cannot afford to care for them.

Wow you're stupid.

I totally agree. 15:27, if you're a nanny making $39,523, what if YOU needed childcare? Should nannies not be entitled to have children either?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:15:27, you think $39,523 is a lot of money to take care of children 8-10 hrs/day? Do not have kids if you cannot afford to care for them.

Wow you're stupid.

I totally agree. 15:27, if you're a nanny making $39,523, what if YOU needed childcare? Should nannies not be entitled to have children either?

well, what would you say to a secretary making $40K a year? A taxi driver? A trainee cop? No children for them either?

[Anonymous]

Professional educators typically have higher standards for the education of their own children. One presumes they know more than other professionals about optimal education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:15:27, you think $39,523 is a lot of money to take care of children 8-10 hrs/day? Do not have kids if you cannot afford to care for them.

Wow you're stupid.

I totally agree. 15:27, if you're a nanny making $39,523, what if YOU needed childcare? Should nannies not be entitled to have children either?

If you could not afford children on $40,000 a year, then NO you should not have children. It is not a matter of job/career it is what you can personally afford. It is no one's responsibility but your own to pay for your life choices. An employer should not be required to pay you more because you want to be able to have children or drive a nice car or take a cruise once a year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No one said the only benefit of a share was cost, although it is certainly A benefit.

Also, there is no such thing as the dreaded singleton experience. That's just your weird issue.

You may search the parents' forum if you'd like a dose of reality.