Does the nanny have a say?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow and good grief, the OP is just asking a question. Not everyone phrases themselves the best and I am sure this employer is not trying to say she owns her nanny. They are looking for help, not snarky answers.
To answer your question OP: The best thing is to communicate with your nanny. Do you have an agreement that states if she is paid when not needed? If yes then it is a good idea to stand by it, you could ask however if she might be willing help out someone, and perhaps just make that a nanny share time. If she does not want that kind of arrangement, and you really like her and want to keep her on I would just pay her for the time and have her do other things for you.
I hope that helps a bit.

From Nanny Sherri

This is terrible advice.

If OP and her nanny have an agreement that the nanny is paid guaranteed hours, regardless of whether her employer needs her or not, OP should absolutely not ask if she would be willing to "help out someone" and make that "nanny share time." The nanny is entitled to be paid her full wages from OP. Period. Her job description cannot be changed to share-nanny, or dog-walker, or house-cleaner ("doing other things") for that week. She is either allowed to do her job that week - work as a nanny for OPs children - or she isn't, but she will be paid either way.

[Anonymous]

With all due respect, Nanny Sherri, but I have to second that this is terrible advice. If you are actually a nanny, please re-evaluate whether you are being taken advantage of by your employer, understand that you possess a valuable set of skills and experience, and remember that you deserve to be employed by someone who appreciates you as much as you do them.

And please note that OP titled this post "Does the nanny have a say?" and was asking specifically if she could "legally loan out" her nanny and "what the laws on that" are. OP was explicitly asking if he or she has to talk to the nanny at all, and you should not suggest that, in lieu of commanding her to work for an unknown, unvetted family, OP attempt to manipulate her into either that or other work that is clearly not her job.

It is also worth noting that OP was given an "additional" vacation. If this is because OP's own office is closed for a national holiday, is it acceptable to give the hourly janitorial staff an unpaid day off and to ask OP to come in and clean the toilets for free? After all - OP is being paid her minimum salary regardless, so what's the big deal? In fact, if the office bathrooms are already clean, then maybe OP could be loaned out for some landscaping across the street. I'm sure they wouldn't mind compensating OP's employer - it would be a steal!

The point is this: If it sounds absurd for OP, and it clearly does, then it is absurd to ask her nanny. This is not a matter of asking nicely, it is a matter of respecting the individual and the job you have hired her to do just as you would want to be respected for the work that you do.

[Anonymous]

No worries Ladies and I rececpt your advice. Please re-read my post. Everyone can choose to communicate in a positive tone. As I did post that it might be a good idea to pay the nanny for the week. Snarky never helps anyone and I would want employers on this employers section to think all nannies have negative communication skills.

Nsnny Sherri

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And when your spouse wants to have sex, but you don't, are you going to offer up the nanny to take your place?

+1

She is not an object that can be loaned, she is a person. For the love of... OP, what, you want to loan her out, pay her, and have the other family pay you? No.

You can legally let her know whether this week will be paid or unpaid (should have been determined upfront in your work agreement/contract) and then let her know you have friends who need care and ASK her if she is interested in taking the job.

I can't believe you've even asked if you can loan out another human being...

Agree!

[Anonymous]

Some of you are so insanely dramatic. We really need to quite pulling out the "slave" accusation and quotes from the emancipation proclamation. It's embarrassing and offensive.

OP, no, I don't think it would be fair to ask or demand that your nanny provide her services elsewhere during a week that you don't need her. There is implicitly (or should be in your contract) a defined set of duties that a nanny is agreeing to provide to your family in exchange for her hourly rate. You can't fairly add on additional duties or direct the use of her skills beyond the implicit or written contract without renegotiating your terms with her.

If this is an annual trip you will be taking with a set date, I would suggest for next time adding into your contract that you get to choose one of her vacation weeks or listing it as an additional perk in your ad to attract candidates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some of you are so insanely dramatic. We really need to quite pulling out the "slave" accusation and quotes from the emancipation proclamation. It's embarrassing and offensive.

OP, no, I don't think it would be fair to ask or demand that your nanny provide her services elsewhere during a week that you don't need her. There is implicitly (or should be in your contract) a defined set of duties that a nanny is agreeing to provide to your family in exchange for her hourly rate. You can't fairly add on additional duties or direct the use of her skills beyond the implicit or written contract without renegotiating your terms with her.

If this is an annual trip you will be taking with a set date, I would suggest for next time adding into your contract that you get to choose one of her vacation weeks or listing it as an additional perk in your ad to attract candidates.

Come on. Don't act like OPs post was not insane or inflammatory. "Does the nanny have a say?" She was asking about the legalities of loaning someone her nanny!! I don't think posters were being dramatic when they reacted rightfully disgusted with OP. the poster quoting the emancipation proclamation was being satirical. Anyone who thinks they can loan someone a human being, and has to ask if her nanny has a say and about the laws governing such practices needs to be directed to the emancipation proclamation. OP asked about laws and she got some.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of you are so insanely dramatic. We really need to quite pulling out the "slave" accusation and quotes from the emancipation proclamation. It's embarrassing and offensive.

OP, no, I don't think it would be fair to ask or demand that your nanny provide her services elsewhere during a week that you don't need her. There is implicitly (or should be in your contract) a defined set of duties that a nanny is agreeing to provide to your family in exchange for her hourly rate. You can't fairly add on additional duties or direct the use of her skills beyond the implicit or written contract without renegotiating your terms with her.

If this is an annual trip you will be taking with a set date, I would suggest for next time adding into your contract that you get to choose one of her vacation weeks or listing it as an additional perk in your ad to attract candidates.

Come on. Don't act like OPs post was not insane or inflammatory. "Does the nanny have a say?" She was asking about the legalities of loaning someone her nanny!! I don't think posters were being dramatic when they reacted rightfully disgusted with OP. the poster quoting the emancipation proclamation was being satirical. Anyone who thinks they can loan someone a human being, and has to ask if her nanny has a say and about the laws governing such practices needs to be directed to the emancipation proclamation. OP asked about laws and she got some.

It happens all the time in professional jobs. Management directed reassignments - if a person's skills aren't needed for a particular time period, they can absolutely be "loaned out" to another division or moved there permanently, yes, without a say. They can be asked to help out on other tasks if a coworker is gone or if there is a slow period in their own work - "other duties as assigned." It's not disgusting and it's nowhere close to slavery. it's business and the people getting reassigned or asked to cover other jobs are getting paid to do so.

Stop reacting to every post as if the person meant the worst possible thing. This board would be so much better if people would consider that all they know about a poster is the few words they quickly typed out and assume that perhaps they worded something poorly. Even if they didn't word it poorly and they really are clueless, isn't it better to educate politely rather than flying off the handle and comparing nannying to slavery?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of you are so insanely dramatic. We really need to quite pulling out the "slave" accusation and quotes from the emancipation proclamation. It's embarrassing and offensive.

OP, no, I don't think it would be fair to ask or demand that your nanny provide her services elsewhere during a week that you don't need her. There is implicitly (or should be in your contract) a defined set of duties that a nanny is agreeing to provide to your family in exchange for her hourly rate. You can't fairly add on additional duties or direct the use of her skills beyond the implicit or written contract without renegotiating your terms with her.

If this is an annual trip you will be taking with a set date, I would suggest for next time adding into your contract that you get to choose one of her vacation weeks or listing it as an additional perk in your ad to attract candidates.

Come on. Don't act like OPs post was not insane or inflammatory. "Does the nanny have a say?" She was asking about the legalities of loaning someone her nanny!! I don't think posters were being dramatic when they reacted rightfully disgusted with OP. the poster quoting the emancipation proclamation was being satirical. Anyone who thinks they can loan someone a human being, and has to ask if her nanny has a say and about the laws governing such practices needs to be directed to the emancipation proclamation. OP asked about laws and she got some.

I agree, nothing wrong with asking using positive communication. Yes the nanny can say no and the employer has a right to want a nanny who is flexable and helpfull. The nanny also has right to not like the new arrangment and find a better fit.


It happens all the time in professional jobs. Management directed reassignments - if a person's skills aren't needed for a particular time period, they can absolutely be "loaned out" to another division or moved there permanently, yes, without a say. They can be asked to help out on other tasks if a coworker is gone or if there is a slow period in their own work - "other duties as assigned." It's not disgusting and it's nowhere close to slavery. it's business and the people getting reassigned or asked to cover other jobs are getting paid to do so.

Stop reacting to every post as if the person meant the worst possible thing. This board would be so much better if people would consider that all they know about a poster is the few words they quickly typed out and assume that perhaps they worded something poorly. Even if they didn't word it poorly and they really are clueless, isn't it better to educate politely rather than flying off the handle and comparing nannying to slavery?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of you are so insanely dramatic. We really need to quite pulling out the "slave" accusation and quotes from the emancipation proclamation. It's embarrassing and offensive.

OP, no, I don't think it would be fair to ask or demand that your nanny provide her services elsewhere during a week that you don't need her. There is implicitly (or should be in your contract) a defined set of duties that a nanny is agreeing to provide to your family in exchange for her hourly rate. You can't fairly add on additional duties or direct the use of her skills beyond the implicit or written contract without renegotiating your terms with her.

If this is an annual trip you will be taking with a set date, I would suggest for next time adding into your contract that you get to choose one of her vacation weeks or listing it as an additional perk in your ad to attract candidates.

Come on. Don't act like OPs post was not insane or inflammatory. "Does the nanny have a say?" She was asking about the legalities of loaning someone her nanny!! I don't think posters were being dramatic when they reacted rightfully disgusted with OP. the poster quoting the emancipation proclamation was being satirical. Anyone who thinks they can loan someone a human being, and has to ask if her nanny has a say and about the laws governing such practices needs to be directed to the emancipation proclamation. OP asked about laws and she got some.

It happens all the time in professional jobs. Management directed reassignments - if a person's skills aren't needed for a particular time period, they can absolutely be "loaned out" to another division or moved there permanently, yes, without a say. They can be asked to help out on other tasks if a coworker is gone or if there is a slow period in their own work - "other duties as assigned." It's not disgusting and it's nowhere close to slavery. it's business and the people getting reassigned or asked to cover other jobs are getting paid to do so.

Stop reacting to every post as if the person meant the worst possible thing. This board would be so much better if people would consider that all they know about a poster is the few words they quickly typed out and assume that perhaps they worded something poorly. Even if they didn't word it poorly and they really are clueless, isn't it better to educate politely rather than flying off the handle and comparing nannying to slavery?

A different department in a company is different than offering your nanny's services to a different family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of you are so insanely dramatic. We really need to quite pulling out the "slave" accusation and quotes from the emancipation proclamation. It's embarrassing and offensive.

OP, no, I don't think it would be fair to ask or demand that your nanny provide her services elsewhere during a week that you don't need her. There is implicitly (or should be in your contract) a defined set of duties that a nanny is agreeing to provide to your family in exchange for her hourly rate. You can't fairly add on additional duties or direct the use of her skills beyond the implicit or written contract without renegotiating your terms with her.

If this is an annual trip you will be taking with a set date, I would suggest for next time adding into your contract that you get to choose one of her vacation weeks or listing it as an additional perk in your ad to attract candidates.

Come on. Don't act like OPs post was not insane or inflammatory. "Does the nanny have a say?" She was asking about the legalities of loaning someone her nanny!! I don't think posters were being dramatic when they reacted rightfully disgusted with OP. the poster quoting the emancipation proclamation was being satirical. Anyone who thinks they can loan someone a human being, and has to ask if her nanny has a say and about the laws governing such practices needs to be directed to the emancipation proclamation. OP asked about laws and she got some.

It happens all the time in professional jobs. Management directed reassignments - if a person's skills aren't needed for a particular time period, they can absolutely be "loaned out" to another division or moved there permanently, yes, without a say. They can be asked to help out on other tasks if a coworker is gone or if there is a slow period in their own work - "other duties as assigned." It's not disgusting and it's nowhere close to slavery. it's business and the people getting reassigned or asked to cover other jobs are getting paid to do so.

Stop reacting to every post as if the person meant the worst possible thing. This board would be so much better if people would consider that all they know about a poster is the few words they quickly typed out and assume that perhaps they worded something poorly. Even if they didn't word it poorly and they really are clueless, isn't it better to educate politely rather than flying off the handle and comparing nannying to slavery?

A different department in a company is different than offering your nanny's services to a different family.

I was reacting to the shock with which posters were exclaiming that you can't possible "loan someone a human being" and calling OP's request "insane" and "inflammatory." Working human beings are loaned elsewhere outside their explicit job duties all the time.

I said I agree with you that it would be unwise and unfair to expect that you can just direct a nanny to another family for the week. But we don't need to be shrieking " how could you loan a HUMAN BEING???", accusing the OP of treating her nanny like "property" and quoting the emancipation proclimation, or calling her "disgusting."

[Anonymous]

An employee at a company might be reassigned (temporarily or permanently) within the company. That is not the same as loaning an employee to another company (??) without ASKING THEM if they'd like to go, while also docking their pay that week/month since, hey, these other folks will be paying them.

You cannot loan out a human being. It is not dramatic to be offended by such a suggestion. The nanny is an employee of a family, and as a PERSON cannot just be given to another family to serve them when they don't need her. That is the exact definition of owning a person and it is thankfully illegal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:An employee at a company might be reassigned (temporarily or permanently) within the company. That is not the same as loaning an employee to another company (??) without ASKING THEM if they'd like to go, while also docking their pay that week/month since, hey, these other folks will be paying them.

You cannot loan out a human being. It is not dramatic to be offended by such a suggestion. The nanny is an employee of a family, and as a PERSON cannot just be given to another family to serve them when they don't need her. That is the exact definition of owning a person and it is thankfully illegal.

Ok, PP. Go ahead and be horribly offended and twist it into a human rights issue. I 100% agreed that the OP should not do this and that she's most certainly writing herself into losing this nanny if she does go ahead with it. But I still think the posters were way too hysterical in their reactions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An employee at a company might be reassigned (temporarily or permanently) within the company. That is not the same as loaning an employee to another company (??) without ASKING THEM if they'd like to go, while also docking their pay that week/month since, hey, these other folks will be paying them.

You cannot loan out a human being. It is not dramatic to be offended by such a suggestion. The nanny is an employee of a family, and as a PERSON cannot just be given to another family to serve them when they don't need her. That is the exact definition of owning a person and it is thankfully illegal.

Ok, PP. Go ahead and be horribly offended and twist it into a human rights issue. I 100% agreed that the OP should not do this and that she's most certainly writing herself into losing this nanny if she does go ahead with it. But I still think the posters were way too hysterical in their reactions.

OP asked if the nanny has a say. Meaning, she'd like to make this decision to give her nanny to another family without even consulting her nanny.

You don't find that offensive? REALLY?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An employee at a company might be reassigned (temporarily or permanently) within the company. That is not the same as loaning an employee to another company (??) without ASKING THEM if they'd like to go, while also docking their pay that week/month since, hey, these other folks will be paying them.

You cannot loan out a human being. It is not dramatic to be offended by such a suggestion. The nanny is an employee of a family, and as a PERSON cannot just be given to another family to serve them when they don't need her. That is the exact definition of owning a person and it is thankfully illegal.

Ok, PP. Go ahead and be horribly offended and twist it into a human rights issue. I 100% agreed that the OP should not do this and that she's most certainly writing herself into losing this nanny if she does go ahead with it. But I still think the posters were way too hysterical in their reactions.

OP asked if the nanny has a say. Meaning, she'd like to make this decision to give her nanny to another family without even consulting her nanny.

You don't find that offensive? REALLY?

I find it extremely ill-advised, as I've said. But it's not a human rights issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An employee at a company might be reassigned (temporarily or permanently) within the company. That is not the same as loaning an employee to another company (??) without ASKING THEM if they'd like to go, while also docking their pay that week/month since, hey, these other folks will be paying them.

You cannot loan out a human being. It is not dramatic to be offended by such a suggestion. The nanny is an employee of a family, and as a PERSON cannot just be given to another family to serve them when they don't need her. That is the exact definition of owning a person and it is thankfully illegal.

Ok, PP. Go ahead and be horribly offended and twist it into a human rights issue. I 100% agreed that the OP should not do this and that she's most certainly writing herself into losing this nanny if she does go ahead with it. But I still think the posters were way too hysterical in their reactions.

OP asked if the nanny has a say. Meaning, she'd like to make this decision to give her nanny to another family without even consulting her nanny.

You don't find that offensive? REALLY?

I find it extremely ill-advised, as I've said. But it's not a human rights issue.

Okay but why is it crazy that nannies would find the question offensive? OP literally asked if her nanny has a say in this matter. To even think that she wouldn't have a say is beyond reason to me, and speaks to OPs lack of respect for her nanny. Who would even dream of doing this without considering what your nanny has to say about it?? It is blatantly offensive, and lets not get into qualifying the emotions of others. We are all entitled to our opinions and our emotions even if you don't agree with them. Some of the PPs, myself included, were offended and found the OP and title disgusting.