Trouble with 55 hour workweek

[Anonymous]

Paying on the books at that rate is the problem. $16 gross is about $11 net. Not exciting when you're working 11 hr days and can't even pick up some quick cash with an evening date night job. You need to bump up at least 2-3 to make this attractive to a wider pool; including people who usually work under the table.

[Anonymous]

Can I apply for your position?

[Anonymous]

I think the people who say they need more hours are probably working at less than 40 hrs, or want some OT. 11 hour days are still a hard sell.

Your child will quickly get used to any differences in style between two nannies; I'm assuming you would only hire good, kind people who know how to care for children. One isn't going to be Cruela DeVil while the other is a woodland fairy. The other advantage to having a second nanny for those kinds of hours is that you don't lose 100% of your childcare if the nanny gets sick, and you have a second person to call if you're ever in a pinch.

Yes, your part time person is likely to be less reliable in the sense that you probably won't keep that person as long. However, it's not impossible to find. You need to offer at least 3-4 hours a day, though, to make it worth someone's while, which is why it probably makes more sense to either have a 3-day and 2-day nanny, or a 4-day nanny and a 1-day nanny (this is what I would do).

Also, if there are agencies in your area, I would go that route.

[Anonymous]

I know a nanny "team" - 2 nannies who work as partners. Sort of brilliant in that they provide coverage for the other if sick and no one ever gets burned out. Seems to work for all concerned. I actually wish there were more of these teams around.

[Anonymous]

Just get one nanny, OP. As a nanny, I know I get into a groove with charges and a long workday - as long as I know the end time and my employers are always on time. I currently work 12 hours days, five days a week (60 hours) and do fine with it. Yes, it is hard work but the paycheck is wonderful! And I have my weekends to myself. Time and a half for 20 hours is worth the sacrifice during the week. I am in Los Angeles and am paid $25 an hour base for one child.

Look for a nanny who is single or, better yet, widowed and with no children at home.

[Anonymous]

Are you going to place your ad for a nanny here? I would love to apply

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is a very long workweek, and you want (or you say you want) and experienced nanny who will not quit. So, you've got two factors:

1) $16/hr is starting nanny pay, even in a mid-range city. For an experienced, mature nanny, there is no reason to take this lower pay for 55 hours a week when they could make the same money in a higher-paying job of fewer hours. The only person who is going to make that bargain is someone who is already looking at $15-$16/hr, and is excited about overtime at that rate.

2) 55 hours a week is a lot. It is pretty much the maximum anyone would recommend you try to schedule for one person. A lot of experienced nannies are just beyond the point where they want to work 11 hour days (remember, they will also have to commute to you). That means having to negotiate with you to ever see a doctor or go to the bank, or essentially having to do everything like that on the weekends rather than having their own time to relax.

If money is a consideration, I strongly suggest that you hire two people: one full time person and one part time person. You will likely find someone willing to do a 44-hour gig with one day off, and then hire someone for the other day. That drastically reduces your OT issue.

I think #1 is your issue, A nanny who can make the same amount of money in less hours will not find the position attractive.

[Anonymous]

I love working 60 hours a week, OP. I am an educated and experienced nanny who is older (settled and happy in personal life). Definitely up your hourly rate and keep looking. Look through the nannies profiles on your own and contact the ones that you like. Try an agency. The right nanny will come along.

[Anonymous]

I have this long hours set up. But for only 1 toddler who naps 3.5 hours a day (used to nap 4.5 hours as an infant). Nanny does not housework, she plays with her phone or naps herself while kid sleeps. I found a less experienced person, a high school grad who trued a few jobs but was not driven or successful in those jobs, who is very introverted and a homebody, who didn't have a social life (I didn't seek out such a person but I now understand why she has a higher tolerance for spending so much time at work). She asks for minimal time off. I think it's her personality.

I let her take the kid to whichever Park museum library she chooses. I have said ok to her taking him to the mall, for lunch when she's craving something from somewhere, I basically let her as much freedom as I can. She says her prior MB was a micromanager and didn't like that. She says this pays way better than retail and her friends want in too. She likes kids but says she doesn't want to care for 2 kids, too difficult.

I agree, working 55 hours with two young kids would burn you out. If OP has 2 or more kids, I suggest getting 2 nannies. My friend who had twins did this and it also happened to save her $ since no OT pay was involved.

[Anonymous]

Who would really want to work 55hrs a week? You obviously do because you make a ton of money and consider the trade off of basically being a weekend warrior worth it. I wouldn't work those hours long term for any amount of money. You will certainly not find a nanny with a family who would do this job.

[Anonymous]

OP again. Thanks for all these helpful responses. To the people asking if they could apply -- unfortunately, I am not in the DC area so I'm not sure it's appropriate/helpful for me to post the position here, but I will look into broadening my search among local job boards/agencies in my area as some others have suggested.

Overall, it sounds like increasing the rate would help somewhat, but not as much as decreasing the hours. I was working under the assumption many people (not everyone by any means, but many) would be happy to work 55 hours for $1000 instead of 50 hours for $880 since the extra 5 hours are paid well and overall it would be a more comfortable wage to live on without having to take side babysitting jobs, but given the opinions here clearly I need to reconsider. Splitting the job into two relatively equal parts probably isn't right for our family. I'm not confident we could go from never having had a nanny to having two at once in terms of managing all those relationships, though this is something we'll consider if we have more kids in the future. I think we might offer candidates the option of a reduced Friday schedule and getting a regular afternoon sitter to shave off a few hours from the workweek. This would allow the nanny some weekday daylight hours for errands or a longer weekend to recharge, and I'd also be okay with high turnover/a less experienced person if it's only a few hours a week. We'll also discuss in interviews some of the other suggestions people have made, such as:
- Direct deposit
- Minimizing housework
- Firm with end times (using sitters for all date nights, evening work events, weekends)
- Giving nanny flexibility on short errands, outings, and other things within reason to add variety to the day

[Anonymous]

We have a regular morning/afternoon sitter for one day a week so that our nanny's week is shorter, and it has worked out fine.

[Anonymous]

I work 12 hour a day, OP. It works for me and my life. I also only do chores directly related to my charge - no housekeeper - and get a two hour break when my charge naps which really helps. My employer encourages me to nap!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP again. Thanks for all these helpful responses. To the people asking if they could apply -- unfortunately, I am not in the DC area so I'm not sure it's appropriate/helpful for me to post the position here, but I will look into broadening my search among local job boards/agencies in my area as some others have suggested.

Overall, it sounds like increasing the rate would help somewhat, but not as much as decreasing the hours. I was working under the assumption many people (not everyone by any means, but many) would be happy to work 55 hours for $1000 instead of 50 hours for $880 since the extra 5 hours are paid well and overall it would be a more comfortable wage to live on without having to take side babysitting jobs, but given the opinions here clearly I need to reconsider. Splitting the job into two relatively equal parts probably isn't right for our family. I'm not confident we could go from never having had a nanny to having two at once in terms of managing all those relationships, though this is something we'll consider if we have more kids in the future. I think we might offer candidates the option of a reduced Friday schedule and getting a regular afternoon sitter to shave off a few hours from the workweek. This would allow the nanny some weekday daylight hours for errands or a longer weekend to recharge, and I'd also be okay with high turnover/a less experienced person if it's only a few hours a week. We'll also discuss in interviews some of the other suggestions people have made, such as:
- Direct deposit
- Minimizing housework
- Firm with end times (using sitters for all date nights, evening work events, weekends)
- Giving nanny flexibility on short errands, outings, and other things within reason to add variety to the day

But you also want a more experienced nanny, who can probably find a job that starts at $18-$20. You'll find plenty of people jumping at this job who need the money, but most of them will be young and new to nannying. If you want to be picky about who you hire, then you need to offer a wage+hours+benefits that is attractive to a large group of people.

As you can see from the responses here, there are people who will work this schedule. There just aren't many of them with the skill set and experience you want.

[Anonymous]

OP, I just posted about something else but put my pay up for the world to criticize. We have two kids (about to add a third) and started our nanny at $1057/week gross for 52 hours, on the books. To make it more attractive was to guarantee hours each week, regardless of whether nanny works all the hours (we have enough local family that her getting to knock off early is a regular occurrence). When we were looking, we did have several candidates simply insist on a higher hourly rate. We kept looking and found our nanny in relatively short order, and she's been great.

I've heard from friends that some nannies compare themselves by hourly rate, even if that's not all that relevant if you add in tons of OT. So, the way you present it can matter. We presented it as hourly but also noted the overall annual salary, which I think is pretty decent.

It may be the hours in your area? In the DC metro area, I feel like 50 hrs weeks are pretty standard due in part to onerous commutes. Maybe where you are, folks really don't want to be working that much and can hop in their cars and be home in 15 min (ah, the beautiful dream). Just speculation.