Nanny: “Let me do what I want or I’ll quit.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's insane is reading the OP where it clearly says that the nanny can take the kids to the park, playground and playdates, but continue to insist that the nanny will be "stuck inside the house" just because it works better for your argument.

No, what’s really insane is you coming back with the same argument that they’re not really stuck inside the house because of “park, playground, and play dates.” First of all, park and playground are the same freakin’ thing. Second of all, not having a variety of activities will bore both the nanny and the older child. Trust me, I’ve been down this road.

I know you’re going to say that the nanny is not supposed to be entertained because it’s work, but why would you want to purposely make someone resentful when they’re caring for your children? Not to mention you’d be completely disregarding the fact that a two year old’s entire routine will be entirely upended on top of welcoming a new sibling.

Children benefit from experience. There’s not much experience in staying in the house and going to the same park every damn day. Kids get bored, and when they get bored, things get pretty crazy.

Staying inside on a rainy day, or going to the local park a couple times a week, maybe a play date here and there, is totally fine! If that’s all there’s going to be in life, though, things are going to get dull pretty quickly. The parents know this, too, and that’s why on the weekends they’re going to be taking them not only to the park, but maybe to visit family, or to the zoo, out to run some errands, a relaxing drive, out to eat, etc.

The nanny put her feelings out there in a mature way, so maybe her and the parents can work something out. It doesn’t have to be the end of things. She certainly didn’t say, “Let me do what I want or I quit.”

She isn't purposefully making anyone resentful. She is arranging her life in a way that works for her. That the nanny got resentful is a side effect.

Don't be silly with upended routines, a 2-year old's routine changes every three months. It's not like they go to the same class for the next six years.

Sorry, but if you can't entertain a two-year old for four hours in the day left after park and nap, you aren't a very good nanny. Two-year olds are entertained by life itself, there is something new happening every day. If you're relying out the outside world to deliver entertainment, what's the point of you as a nanny? Get a new craft out. Bake cookies. Have a picnic at the park. Get mom to drop you at the grocery store and look at produce. Draw with chalk on the sidewalk. have a dance party. Ask him to sing to the baby. Read a new book every day. Build a pillow fort. Paint. Find a new way to walk to the park and point out letters on the street signs. Still bored? Six months of dullness never killed anyone.

The nanny is of course entitled to like or not like any job, to stay or go. That's not the point. The point is that the nanny is articulating her feelings for her own benefit. It has nothing to do with what the child needs, or with what is good for the child. If that was her concern, there are a million ways of making it work. For instance, once a week or so mom can drop them off at a place and then pick them up again after an errand. Or a 2-year old's activity can be synchronized with a baby's nap so that the nanny can go and be back while the baby naps and the mom works. There are options. But that's not what the nanny wants. The nanny wants freedom that comes from driving, and she wants it for herself. She's upset this freedom has been taken away. That's all. Please don't bring the child's interests into it. The child doesn't care, and a good nanny can keep a 2-year old entertained at home, park and playdates just fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m the OP.

Yes, DH and I take both of our children ourthat doesn’t mean I feel comfortable allowing our nanny to do the same.

Massive difference between a SAHM and a nanny. The nanny is there to do the job, the job she’s hired to do and that means following parental request. I don’t pay someone to do whatever they want.

I’m not being unreasonable. I know plenty of families who don’t allow their nannies to drive even their older children. The children are happy and well-adjusted. They get out on the weekends.

There is a park a few blocks away. My child won’t suffer, we keep him engaged on the weekends and we are still open to play dates.

Many many entitled nannies on this thread. You don’t make the calls, your employers do. Figure that out, and your life will be much easier.

Lol, and your nanny can decide that your employment is no longer right for her. That's what she has done, You're "miffed" because now you have to go through the process of finding someone else.

As a Mom I can't imagine being so restricted with a two year old. Your choice though, and now you have the chance to find a new nanny who is ok with it. Lots of nannies prefer to not have to haul kids around.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What's insane is reading the OP where it clearly says that the nanny can take the kids to the park, playground and playdates, but continue to insist that the nanny will be "stuck inside the house" just because it works better for your argument.

No, what’s really insane is you coming back with the same argument that they’re not really stuck inside the house because of “park, playground, and play dates.” First of all, park and playground are the same freakin’ thing. Second of all, not having a variety of activities will bore both the nanny and the older child. Trust me, I’ve been down this road.

I know you’re going to say that the nanny is not supposed to be entertained because it’s work, but why would you want to purposely make someone resentful when they’re caring for your children? Not to mention you’d be completely disregarding the fact that a two year old’s entire routine will be entirely upended on top of welcoming a new sibling.

Children benefit from experience. There’s not much experience in staying in the house and going to the same park every damn day. Kids get bored, and when they get bored, things get pretty crazy.

Staying inside on a rainy day, or going to the local park a couple times a week, maybe a play date here and there, is totally fine! If that’s all there’s going to be in life, though, things are going to get dull pretty quickly. The parents know this, too, and that’s why on the weekends they’re going to be taking them not only to the park, but maybe to visit family, or to the zoo, out to run some errands, a relaxing drive, out to eat, etc.

The nanny put her feelings out there in a mature way, so maybe her and the parents can work something out. It doesn’t have to be the end of things. She certainly didn’t say, “Let me do what I want or I quit.”

She isn't purposefully making anyone resentful. She is arranging her life in a way that works for her. That the nanny got resentful is a side effect.

Don't be silly with upended routines, a 2-year old's routine changes every three months. It's not like they go to the same class for the next six years.

Sorry, but if you can't entertain a two-year old for four hours in the day left after park and nap, you aren't a very good nanny. Two-year olds are entertained by life itself, there is something new happening every day. If you're relying out the outside world to deliver entertainment, what's the point of you as a nanny? Get a new craft out. Bake cookies. Have a picnic at the park. Get mom to drop you at the grocery store and look at produce. Draw with chalk on the sidewalk. have a dance party. Ask him to sing to the baby. Read a new book every day. Build a pillow fort. Paint. Find a new way to walk to the park and point out letters on the street signs. Still bored? Six months of dullness never killed anyone.

The nanny is of course entitled to like or not like any job, to stay or go. That's not the point. The point is that the nanny is articulating her feelings for her own benefit. It has nothing to do with what the child needs, or with what is good for the child. If that was her concern, there are a million ways of making it work. For instance, once a week or so mom can drop them off at a place and then pick them up again after an errand. Or a 2-year old's activity can be synchronized with a baby's nap so that the nanny can go and be back while the baby naps and the mom works. There are options. But that's not what the nanny wants. The nanny wants freedom that comes from driving, and she wants it for herself. She's upset this freedom has been taken away. That's all. Please don't bring the child's interests into it. The child doesn't care, and a good nanny can keep a 2-year old entertained at home, park and playdates just fine.

So your solution to not letting the nanny take the kid anywhere is to have the mom take the nanny and the kid places? If the mom wanted to watch her baby while the nanny took the two-year-old to activities, she wouldn't have cancelled all of the the two-year-old's existing scheduled activities.

I just think that acting like the nanny is being so unreasonable and selfish is silly. Sure, she could find a way to entertain the two-year-old for at least six months without going anywhere other than the park/playground all spring and summer. But it's not crazy for her to not want to do that, given that it involves a major change in her working conditions. And frankly, OP's not wanting the newborn to leave the house for at least six months isn't for the toddler's benefit, either--and frankly, not really necessary for the baby.

Actual parents value these classes as a way to structure the day, get out of the house, and expose their kids to new things. Do you think that SAHMs who take their toddlers to music classes or Gymboree are selfish? Shouldn't they just be happy to spend all their days at home or the playground? They must not be good parents if they can't entertain a two-year-old at home day in and day out. The idea that the nanny is being so unreasonable by not wanting to stop doing them is silly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
So your solution to not letting the nanny take the kid anywhere is to have the mom take the nanny and the kid places? If the mom wanted to watch her baby while the nanny took the two-year-old to activities, she wouldn't have cancelled all of the the two-year-old's existing scheduled activities.

All I'm saying they could have worked something out if they wanted to.

Anonymous wrote:
I just think that acting like the nanny is being so unreasonable and selfish is silly. Sure, she could find a way to entertain the two-year-old for at least six months without going anywhere other than the park/playground all spring and summer. But it's not crazy for her to not want to do that, given that it involves a major change in her working conditions. And frankly, OP's not wanting the newborn to leave the house for at least six months isn't for the toddler's benefit, either--and frankly, not really necessary for the baby.

What's REALLY not necessary for the baby is to be dragged to the 2-year old classes. THAT is really unnecessary. This is the sort of thing you only do when you have to. There is zero reason for the baby to be there. It's a hassle for the baby, hassle for the nanny, and hassle for the 2-year old, especially if his class - as so many classes in this age bracket - requires close supervision from the accompanying adult. What is a possible benefit for the baby from an hour spent in a stroller or a carseat parked at the corner of the room packed with 2-year olds and their caregivers with loud music, screaming, and people coming and going? Come on.

Anonymous wrote:
Actual parents value these classes as a way to structure the day, get out of the house, and expose their kids to new things. Do you think that SAHMs who take their toddlers to music classes or Gymboree are selfish? Shouldn't they just be happy to spend all their days at home or the playground? They must not be good parents if they can't entertain a two-year-old at home day in and day out. The idea that the nanny is being so unreasonable by not wanting to stop doing them is silly.

I don't think they are selfish per se, and let's not forget that standards are different for SAHMs and nannies. I happen to think that 2-year olds do not need any classes. That's just...vanity. There is nothing a 2-year old can get out of a Gymboree class or a "music" class that you can't do at home with a couple of pillows and a boombox. I make an exception for swimming since that can't really be recreated at home, but everything else is just busywork and parental ego stroking.

I didn't say the nanny is unreasonable - it is after all perfectly reasonable to advocate for yourself. I said that her resistance to this change has everything to do with what's good for her, and nothing to do with what's good for the 2-year old, and ESPECIALLY nothing to do with what's good for a newborn.

[Anonymous]

To OP, I believe the correct definition of "newborn" is under 1 month. Colloquially maybe 2 or 3 months. I remember being sad when DS turned 1 month. FWIW he was outside often and long before that, for sure.

To other posters, OP never said nanny was driving 2 yo to classes. People are conflating two factors. For all we know, classes, grocery, bigger playground, etc are all within walking distance and still considered (offlimits) "outings" by OP.

OP, I'd like to know what neighborhood you live in and/or whether driving even factors into these issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To OP, I believe the correct definition of "newborn" is under 1 month. Colloquially maybe 2 or 3 months. I remember being sad when DS turned 1 month. FWIW he was outside often and long before that, for sure.

To other posters, OP never said nanny was driving 2 yo to classes. People are conflating two factors. For all we know, classes, grocery, bigger playground, etc are all within walking distance and still considered (offlimits) "outings" by OP.

OP, I'd like to know what neighborhood you live in and/or whether driving even factors into these issues.

She said she didn't want the nanny to drive the baby, and she didn't want the baby to leave the house (other than walks). She added there is a park a few blocks away.

[Anonymous]

If you think it's reasonable why the f did you post here? Do you really want a resentful nanny taking care of your child? Hire an illegal immigrant. Maybe she would be grateful to stay inside all day. Actually I have a few illegal immigrant friends and they don't like staying inside all day. It's universal and will make most people depressed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you think it's reasonable why the f did you post here? Do you really want a resentful nanny taking care of your child? Hire an illegal immigrant. Maybe she would be grateful to stay inside all day. Actually I have a few illegal immigrant friends and they don't like staying inside all day. It's universal and will make most people depressed.

Tons of newborn nannies are content to take their charges to the park or for walks without a pressing urge to drive all over town.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you think it's reasonable why the f did you post here? Do you really want a resentful nanny taking care of your child? Hire an illegal immigrant. Maybe she would be grateful to stay inside all day. Actually I have a few illegal immigrant friends and they don't like staying inside all day. It's universal and will make most people depressed.

Tons of newborn nannies are content to take their charges to the park or for walks without a pressing urge to drive all over town.

When there’s only one child and/or the older child was never out and about frequently with the nanny.

A PP put the comparison like this: it’s like the parents who pull a child out of preschool so that the infant doesn’t get sick. It’s detrimental to the older child (every single resource I can find says to keep older child’s schedule as normal as possible while introducing a new baby), nerve-wracking for the nanny (wahm, infant not on a schedule yet, AND a 2 year old who is used to going out and about now confined to very local neighborhood), and of iffy benefit to the infant (still driven by parent, nanny could have gone the baby-wearing route, and presumably nanny is a good driver, or she wouldn’t have been allowed to drive the toddler).

As a nanny, I can agree that classes are unnecessary. Nice, convenient, sometimes provide ideas. But overall unnecessary. I mean, I’m capable of looking up the information on several species of bats, getting skeletons, arranging a craft to go with it... Oh, right, nope, not happening. However, my charge loved the class at the nature center on bats. And the classes on chipmunks and squirrels, leaves, seeds, owls, frogs and toads, etc. Heck, I learned a few things along with my charge (one owl species’ call: Who cooks for you? Who cooks for you all?). Sure, I can do a dance party with my charge, but there’s a huge difference between just the two of us dancing and singing versus a crowd of kids (where my charge can learn numerous things, like sitting still and listening to directions from someone else, personal space, etc.). We can do crafts at home, but I don’t have access to a kiln, and I try to (subtly) limit the mess at home, so that parents don’t freak out. We can have play dates... when schedules mesh, kids aren’t sick, older siblings aren’t home, parents aren’t home. Some play dates can’t be reciprocated due to space or warp, and several sahps treat play dates with nannies as free babysitting, so if you further limit the possibility by limiting the nanny to only a few blocks... I gave a gym available so that I can teach gymnastics, or dance, right? Oh, right, nope, I don’t.

Actually, I do agree. Toddlers don’t NEED classes. But there’s a huge difference between keeping a kid out of classes who has never attended versus cancelling enrollment for a child who has been attending for a while.

[Anonymous]

Too late now I suppose, but maybe if it's about the nanny going stir-crazy (which I think it is) the WAHM could have offered to give the nanny an actual lunch hour (i.e. she could go out of the house on her own) for those housebound months with the baby. If not every day, maybe 3 times a week. To me, a temporary compromise like that would be better for the family (i.e. keep the nanny and follow their rules for the new baby) and for the nanny (i.e. keep the job).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To OP, I believe the correct definition of "newborn" is under 1 month. Colloquially maybe 2 or 3 months. I remember being sad when DS turned 1 month. FWIW he was outside often and long before that, for sure.

To other posters, OP never said nanny was driving 2 yo to classes. People are conflating two factors. For all we know, classes, grocery, bigger playground, etc are all within walking distance and still considered (offlimits) "outings" by OP.

OP, I'd like to know what neighborhood you live in and/or whether driving even factors into these issues.

Classes for 2 year olds aren't 'necessary'...they can help but really they are as much about the mother/father/grandparent/nanny getting out as it is for the child. If the child's parents and nanny give a few solid hours of the day of undistracted attention, the child will develop well 99% of the time. If not, these classes are necessary.

We hired a nanny so that we both could be 'on' with hour child whenever we interacted with them. Its hard to be 'on' 12 hours a day. My husband gives our son a solid 4 hours everyday and I give the rest along with some help from our nanny a couple of days a week. Its not the nanny's job to raise the child, but it is their job to focus their energy. If they can't and NEED outings then they probably aren't the right person, or they should work less hours a day. Working with the parents if 8 hours a day or whatever is TOO MUCH is critical. Not every great nanny can be 'on' for 8 hours plus a day. The parents should fill in the gap or hire another nanny or two.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To OP, I believe the correct definition of "newborn" is under 1 month. Colloquially maybe 2 or 3 months. I remember being sad when DS turned 1 month. FWIW he was outside often and long before that, for sure.

To other posters, OP never said nanny was driving 2 yo to classes. People are conflating two factors. For all we know, classes, grocery, bigger playground, etc are all within walking distance and still considered (offlimits) "outings" by OP.

OP, I'd like to know what neighborhood you live in and/or whether driving even factors into these issues.

Classes for 2 year olds aren't 'necessary'...they can help but really they are as much about the mother/father/grandparent/nanny getting out as it is for the child. If the child's parents and nanny give a few solid hours of the day of undistracted attention, the child will develop well 99% of the time. If not, these classes are necessary.

We hired a nanny so that we both could be 'on' with hour child whenever we interacted with them. Its hard to be 'on' 12 hours a day. My husband gives our son a solid 4 hours everyday and I give the rest along with some help from our nanny a couple of days a week. Its not the nanny's job to raise the child, but it is their job to focus their energy. If they can't and NEED outings then they probably aren't the right person, or they should work less hours a day. Working with the parents if 8 hours a day or whatever is TOO MUCH is critical. Not every great nanny can be 'on' for 8 hours plus a day. The parents should fill in the gap or hire another nanny or two.

Again, it’s one thing for a child who has never been out doing classes. It’s another thing to pull a child out of classes.

Oh, and why are you teaching your snowflake to always be the center of attention and never entertain himself? Just curious.

[Anonymous]

Jobs change. Either your nanny can change with the job or find another. It isn’t a personal slight for both of you to admit it’s time to move on.

I have declined positions because parents didn’t want the kids going out. Play in discrete forms is critical to their development. I don’t fault parents for not wanting to let the nanny take them out, but I also don’t a position with those restrictions. There are plenty of nannies who would rather avoid the hassle of getting the kid(s) out of the house.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Jobs change. Either your nanny can change with the job or find another. It isn’t a personal slight for both of you to admit it’s time to move on.

I have declined positions because parents didn’t want the kids going out. Play in discrete forms is critical to their development. I don’t fault parents for not wanting to let the nanny take them out, but I also don’t a position with those restrictions. There are plenty of nannies who would rather avoid the hassle of getting the kid(s) out of the house.

+1

[Anonymous]

I’m on team nanny op.