Instead of a raise... Is this unreasonable?

[Anonymous]

I would be happy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nanny has been with us 5 years, and is now making $22/hour for nearly 50 hours a week - we started her at $18/hour and have given $1/ hour raise every year. This is the year the youngest goes to FT school - 7:30 to 3:30 (includes a bus ride). We realize we can't cut her hours to part time because we need her for vacation and sick days, and so we are willing to keep her on as long as she takes on additional tasks (errands, shopping, cooking, laundry). However, it feels outrageous to pay over $50k/year for someone to sit around for 7 hours a day most days (we can't possibly give her enough to fill that time). So this year instead of a raise we are proposing to keep her pay the same and reduce her hours (probably give her one morning a week she can come 2.5 hours later), so she is getting a raise in her hourly rate but not a raise in overall pay (but also not a reduction).

Is this unreasonable? She is unhappy about it, but it seems fair to me. I doubt she could find another job that pays her over $1000 a week so fast, and we could probably find someone who was happy for $20/hour for 40 hours a week with OT when kids are off, and save ourselves $200/week. So I feel like we are trying to do right by her by not firing her or cutting her hours/salary, but she doesn't see it that way.

1. She probably has a better offer elsewhere.
2. Do you have a written agreement?

Op?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nanny has been with us 5 years, and is now making $22/hour for nearly 50 hours a week - we started her at $18/hour and have given $1/ hour raise every year. This is the year the youngest goes to FT school - 7:30 to 3:30 (includes a bus ride). We realize we can't cut her hours to part time because we need her for vacation and sick days, and so we are willing to keep her on as long as she takes on additional tasks (errands, shopping, cooking, laundry). However, it feels outrageous to pay over $50k/year for someone to sit around for 7 hours a day most days (we can't possibly give her enough to fill that time). So this year instead of a raise we are proposing to keep her pay the same and reduce her hours (probably give her one morning a week she can come 2.5 hours later), so she is getting a raise in her hourly rate but not a raise in overall pay (but also not a reduction).

Is this unreasonable? She is unhappy about it, but it seems fair to me. I doubt she could find another job that pays her over $1000 a week so fast, and we could probably find someone who was happy for $20/hour for 40 hours a week with OT when kids are off, and save ourselves $200/week. So I feel like we are trying to do right by her by not firing her or cutting her hours/salary, but she doesn't see it that way.

1. She probably has a better offer elsewhere.
2. Do you have a written agreement?

Op?

OP here - I'd be shocked if she had a better offer for 2 reasons - is someone likely to offer her more than $1000 week without even checking her reference for her job of 5 years? She doesn't have a M Ed or any of those criteria that draw the uber-wealthy or a starting rate over $20/hour. And I have told her I wouldn't be offended if she looked for another job, she should just be transparent with me so we don't get left in the lurch.

And yes, she has a written agreement, but what does that have to do with anything? It doesn't promise her an annual raise.

[Anonymous]

Op, ask her how she envisioned her role evolving. If she is willing to clean, but not do adult laundry, or is happy to run errands but dislikes cooking dinner daily, are you willing to adapt and compromise?

FWIW, my counter offer to you would be: I add kid laundry, grocery shopping, running errands, and meal planning/cooking simple meals for dinner 3x/week to my responsibilities all weeks that your kids are in school. In exchange, I want to have a set day every week when I come in to work at 2:00, with the exception of weeks with school holidays and the summer. Pay stays the same, and I also get 2 additional days of PTO. Additional responsibilities take a back seat to childcare when there is no school.

[Anonymous]

This is exactly why you can't go by salary when judging a nanny. Any subpar nanny can stick around long enough and raise her salary pretty high with a family that thinks raises have to be given every year no matter what. Imagine if you were this nannies next family and offered her $22 to match what she is making now. She is a "meh" nanny for this family according to OP, and she will be a "meh" nanny for you, and inflexible and unwilling to adapt to boot.

[Anonymous]

This is totally reasonable, OP. If your nanny is not happy, best to part ways.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Op, ask her how she envisioned her role evolving. If she is willing to clean, but not do adult laundry, or is happy to run errands but dislikes cooking dinner daily, are you willing to adapt and compromise?

FWIW, my counter offer to you would be: I add kid laundry, grocery shopping, running errands, and meal planning/cooking simple meals for dinner 3x/week to my responsibilities all weeks that your kids are in school. In exchange, I want to have a set day every week when I come in to work at 2:00, with the exception of weeks with school holidays and the summer. Pay stays the same, and I also get 2 additional days of PTO. Additional responsibilities take a back seat to childcare when there is no school.

If she's your housecleaner, she's not your nanny.

[Anonymous]

You'd be better off getting a full-time housekeeper/sitter who drives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You'd be better off getting a full-time housekeeper/sitter who drives.

I agree with this. Your family's needs have changed; there is no shame in that. All nanny jobs come with an expiration date - that's just the nature of the industry. I don't know you but if I had to guess, I would think that for a family with school-age kids, help with housekeeping is much more important than a few hours of childcare. At this point most of your workload comes from running a clean and well-stocked house plus ferrying kids to activities. I think that for 50K, you can get a very competent housekeeper who can drive kids around. You will come home to a clean house with a cooked dinner, and the degree of your stress relief would be amazing. You can figure something out for vacations and sick days - school breaks are pretty predictable so you can plan ahead, and kids will stop getting sick so often.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Op, ask her how she envisioned her role evolving. If she is willing to clean, but not do adult laundry, or is happy to run errands but dislikes cooking dinner daily, are you willing to adapt and compromise?

FWIW, my counter offer to you would be: I add kid laundry, grocery shopping, running errands, and meal planning/cooking simple meals for dinner 3x/week to my responsibilities all weeks that your kids are in school. In exchange, I want to have a set day every week when I come in to work at 2:00, with the exception of weeks with school holidays and the summer. Pay stays the same, and I also get 2 additional days of PTO. Additional responsibilities take a back seat to childcare when there is no school.

Why would any family accept your CO? You're asking to have your hours cut 7 of 50 hours a week and for the remaining 28 hours that you work without any kids around (OP mentioned kids are not around 7 hours/day, * 4 days), you'll have enough to do to fill up maybe one-third of those hours, yet you want the same pay. You are entitled to counter with whatever you want, but I'm assuming you think this is a reasonable counter. This is why there is such a disconnect between employers and employees, people are completely clueless that their expectations are so out there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You'd be better off getting a full-time housekeeper/sitter who drives.

I agree with this. Your family's needs have changed; there is no shame in that. All nanny jobs come with an expiration date - that's just the nature of the industry. I don't know you but if I had to guess, I would think that for a family with school-age kids, help with housekeeping is much more important than a few hours of childcare. At this point most of your workload comes from running a clean and well-stocked house plus ferrying kids to activities. I think that for 50K, you can get a very competent housekeeper who can drive kids around. You will come home to a clean house with a cooked dinner, and the degree of your stress relief would be amazing. You can figure something out for vacations and sick days - school breaks are pretty predictable so you can plan ahead, and kids will stop getting sick so often.

Ditto

[Anonymous]

OP- the family I used to work for before my current family gave me an annual raise and huge bonuses. My current employers didn't give me an annual raise and guess what...no big deal. By the way, $1/h raise is very very very generous...

[Anonymous]

I would switch to an au pair for a year and see how that goes. You basically need child care on call at this point, which is what APs are good for. Although the whole living with thing can be a pain; but with your age children and hours you need you would be a dream family for them.

[Anonymous]

You really should let her go, and find a part time nanny or au pair. If she wants to be the part-time person, great. If not, oh well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nanny has been with us 5 years, and is now making $22/hour for nearly 50 hours a week - we started her at $18/hour and have given $1/ hour raise every year. This is the year the youngest goes to FT school - 7:30 to 3:30 (includes a bus ride). We realize we can't cut her hours to part time because we need her for vacation and sick days, and so we are willing to keep her on as long as she takes on additional tasks (errands, shopping, cooking, laundry). However, it feels outrageous to pay over $50k/year for someone to sit around for 7 hours a day most days (we can't possibly give her enough to fill that time). So this year instead of a raise we are proposing to keep her pay the same and reduce her hours (probably give her one morning a week she can come 2.5 hours later), so she is getting a raise in her hourly rate but not a raise in overall pay (but also not a reduction).

Is this unreasonable? She is unhappy about it, but it seems fair to me. I doubt she could find another job that pays her over $1000 a week so fast, and we could probably find someone who was happy for $20/hour for 40 hours a week with OT when kids are off, and save ourselves $200/week. So I feel like we are trying to do right by her by not firing her or cutting her hours/salary, but she doesn't see it that way.

1. She probably has a better offer elsewhere.
2. Do you have a written agreement?

Op?

OP here - I'd be shocked if she had a better offer for 2 reasons - is someone likely to offer her more than $1000 week without even checking her reference for her job of 5 years? She doesn't have a M Ed or any of those criteria that draw the uber-wealthy or a starting rate over $20/hour. And I have told her I wouldn't be offended if she looked for another job, she should just be transparent with me so we don't get left in the lurch.

And yes, she has a written agreement, but what does that have to do with anything? It doesn't promise her an annual raise.

I don't have any degrees, but still earn $25/hr for one child.