ONLY 5 day a week Live-in. Pay? Live-out Weekends/Sick days/Holidays/Vacations.

[Anonymous]

First of all, it's a small subset of nannies who would be interested and are qualified for the position you are offering.

24 hour positions usually start at about 85k, so your salary is a little low. (Notice I said usually as I know there are 24 hour nannies making less). In my last 24 hour position I worked 4 days per week and made almost 100K ($475/day). If I was you I would offer a daily rate instead of pointing out that you are not paying for for 8 hours of sleep time. If the nanny is expected to keep the baby monitor they are likely going to want to be paid for that time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thanks in most part for the responses thus far.

We are currently unable to have someone live-in on the weekend. Yes this is a technically a 24hr/4.5 day position. But my LO, 9/10 nights will sleep without a peep! If she does wake-up and the nanny has to tend to her, I will pay for that time. But under the law, if she is able to sleep 8hrs uninterrupted, I am able to to pay her only for 16hrs out of 24hr period. The DOL made this very clear.

Thank goodness for that stipulation, because we probably could not afford to offer such a good rate 24 hours a day.

Is this considered a live-in or live-out position?

Reading many posts, it appears that $20 for one child is pretty great. She will have no other housekeeping duties, only after the child.

OP, is your nanny allowed to leave during these 8 hrs or not? Do you really not understand that it is an undesirable position for pretty much any nanny to be told "you must stay in the house during these 8 hours, but you are not going to be paid"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:First of all, it's a small subset of nannies who would be interested and are qualified for the position you are offering.

24 hour positions usually start at about 85k, so your salary is a little low. (Notice I said usually as I know there are 24 hour nannies making less). In my last 24 hour position I worked 4 days per week and made almost 100K ($475/day). If I was you I would offer a daily rate instead of pointing out that you are not paying for for 8 hours of sleep time. If the nanny is expected to keep the baby monitor they are likely going to want to be paid for that time.

Agree that a daily rate is a better idea, however OP has to be unrealistic. Most professional and highly qualified nannies are going to keep on walking once they find out they are supposed to be on for 24 hrs but are not going to be paid for that whole time.

[Anonymous]

Why have a baby at all?
if you want to be a weekend parent, you can do part time fostering for weekends only. This is for a child living at a group home

[Anonymous]

Even if your child is sleeping through the night, if nanny has the baby monitor, I would consider that on duty and you need to pay her. She cannot leave the house at night and still has to maintain a separate residence as you do not want her there on the weekends. That is a 24 hour job. If baby is sleeping through the night, then why can't you keep the baby monitor with you and tend to your child. That makes no sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why have a baby at all?
if you want to be a weekend parent, you can do part time fostering for weekends only. This is for a child living at a group home

Why even comment? You do know that plenty of celebrities and wealthy people who can afford it have live in nannies? Where's tge outrage for them to not bother having any kids?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Even if your child is sleeping through the night, if nanny has the baby monitor, I would consider that on duty and you need to pay her. She cannot leave the house at night and still has to maintain a separate residence as you do not want her there on the weekends. That is a 24 hour job. If baby is sleeping through the night, then why can't you keep the baby monitor with you and tend to your child. That makes no sense.

Agree with this. But the fact that OP doesn't seem to understand this kind of speaks to the MB she is going to be. RUN from this job potential nannies.

[Anonymous]

If she has to maintain her own seperate residence, she's a live-OUT nanny who stays in your home FT 4.5 days a week for your convenience. So yes, since you expect her to be on duty for 108 hours straight, you get to pay OT.

And if you interview savvy nannies, they will likely insist that any night they must wake up with your child means you will pay OT for all 8 hours of that night, since her sleep will have been interrupted.

So at 16/hr straight time, you'll be paying $1504/week with NO night waking, and each night your child wakes the nanny should cost you $192.

Frankly, the chance of utter burnout is extremely high in such a case. If you need that much coverage, you need to either:

1) hire a day nanny who lives out and a night nanny who actually does LI

2) hire 2 nannies to split the week evenly and pay each of them for a full 38 hours a week

3) plan to cycle through nannies pretty often.

[Anonymous]

You are crazy OP. Just wow. Good luck finding a decent nanny. Why did you even bother to have a kid?

[Anonymous]

I think people are getting way too hung up on the (legal) eight hours without pay. Either the total payment is enough for the total hours worked, or it's not. Structuring the pay this way actually works to the nanny's advantage as she essentially gets a bonus every time she has to work at night. If the same daily rate was structured as 24 hours worth of pay, the pay would remain the same even with a night waking.

That's not to say its a high enough rate. I have no idea. But the structure of the rate shouldn't be a turn off to anyone who thinks it through.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think people are getting way too hung up on the (legal) eight hours without pay. Either the total payment is enough for the total hours worked, or it's not. Structuring the pay this way actually works to the nanny's advantage as she essentially gets a bonus every time she has to work at night. If the same daily rate was structured as 24 hours worth of pay, the pay would remain the same even with a night waking.

That's not to say its a high enough rate. I have no idea. But the structure of the rate shouldn't be a turn off to anyone who thinks it through.

You're missing the point. If she's not allowed to leave during those 8 hrs and do as she pleases, she is working at night. If my boss says that from the hours of 10pm - 7am I am not being paid but I'm expected to be in the house and behaving responsibly (i.e. not kicking back with some wine) and cannot leave in case the baby wakes up, I would expect to be paid since I am on call.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think people are getting way too hung up on the (legal) eight hours without pay. Either the total payment is enough for the total hours worked, or it's not. Structuring the pay this way actually works to the nanny's advantage as she essentially gets a bonus every time she has to work at night. If the same daily rate was structured as 24 hours worth of pay, the pay would remain the same even with a night waking.

That's not to say its a high enough rate. I have no idea. But the structure of the rate shouldn't be a turn off to anyone who thinks it through.

You're missing the point. If she's not allowed to leave during those 8 hrs and do as she pleases, she is working at night. If my boss says that from the hours of 10pm - 7am I am not being paid but I'm expected to be in the house and behaving responsibly (i.e. not kicking back with some wine) and cannot leave in case the baby wakes up, I would expect to be paid since I am on call.

So you'd prefer a job where you make $20/hr for 24 hours to one where your pay was structured as $30/hr for 16 hours with 8 hours of unpaid sleep time? Because it's the same overall pay. The second way just allows the possibility of more pay if you actually have to wake up.

[Anonymous]

If she has her own residence she is a live-out nanny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think people are getting way too hung up on the (legal) eight hours without pay. Either the total payment is enough for the total hours worked, or it's not. Structuring the pay this way actually works to the nanny's advantage as she essentially gets a bonus every time she has to work at night. If the same daily rate was structured as 24 hours worth of pay, the pay would remain the same even with a night waking.

That's not to say its a high enough rate. I have no idea. But the structure of the rate shouldn't be a turn off to anyone who thinks it through.

The scenario you present is fine. Buut it appears OP's limit is 20 an hour with no 8 hr pay. From her posts, it doesnt appear ops budgrt allows for your reasonable solution


You're missing the point. If she's not allowed to leave during those 8 hrs and do as she pleases, she is working at night. If my boss says that from the hours of 10pm - 7am I am not being paid but I'm expected to be in the house and behaving responsibly (i.e. not kicking back with some wine) and cannot leave in case the baby wakes up, I would expect to be paid since I am on call.

So you'd prefer a job where you make $20/hr for 24 hours to one where your pay was structured as $30/hr for 16 hours with 8 hours of unpaid sleep time? Because it's the same overall pay. The second way just allows the possibility of more pay if you actually have to wake up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If she has her own residence she is a live-out nanny.

+1. If she is required to maintain a separate residence, she is considered a live-out nanny who is on duty 24hours/day; 4.5 days/week. Overtime is required by law, though I believe you are allotted the 8 hours of no pay if baby doesn't wake. You should be paying an on call fee, but legally do not have to. Your annual salary is a bit low for what you are asking.