Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:OP you may want to look at this from the financial angle and compare it against other job offers that you have/reasonably expect to find. Nannies and employers fail to realize that time off paid or not is just another form of compensation that has a monetary value. If the weekly gross for a job is even a little bit more than the amount of time off when comparing jobs, the higher weekly rate job ends up giving you more money and time off over a year. Psychologically, the job offering more standard PTO may seem more attractive (hence all the walk away posts from nannies) but if you're smart you should look at the numbers between your job offers.
Job A pays 550 a week for 50 weeks a year (i.e. out of 52 week 2 weeks are PTO, 2 weeks are unpaid) and no sick leave. This job would yield you 27,500 in one year and give you four weeks off.
Job B pays 500 a week for 52 weeks (includes 2 weeks/one of your choosing and one of theirs plus 3 sick/PTO days), this job would yield you 26,000 in one year and give you 2 weeks off plus 3 possible sick days.
Lets say you need to take 3 sick offs. This would not change the yield for Job B ($26,000) but it would change Job A to $27,200 to subtract 3 days of unpaid time. You would still yield $1200 more from Job A than Job B. You would have 4 weeks off for Job A rather than 2 weeks for Job B.
If you are comparing Job A (better rate, non-standard benefits) to Job B (lesser rate, standard benefits), Job A is much better with the caveat that you don't get to choose one of the weeks. You would need to decide if getting to choose the dates for one week of vacation is worth giving up $1200 and 2 extra weeks off.
+1