Refusing to fly the nanny first class

[Anonymous]

She needs a day or 2 to recover from jet lag, with no kid in the evening on the first day. Obviously, something made her unhappy, and the article is only the parents' side of the story.

[Anonymous]

If someone is that wealthy it makes no sense to snub the nanny like that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If someone is that wealthy it makes no sense to snub the nanny like that.

Not the point. Most employees do not travel first class on trips, unless they are upper management.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If someone is that wealthy it makes no sense to snub the nanny like that.

Not the point. Most employees do not travel first class on trips, unless they are upper management.

If they can fly a young child first class, they can fly the nanny. This is not a corporate job and the nanny lives with the family for their connivence.

[Anonymous]

They want to sit with the crying chlld while the nanny rests in coach? I'd be down for that.

[Anonymous]

Honestly I wouldn't care about the flight class, but I would mind (a lot) if I couldn't refuse to go without consequences to my position because I would hate having my schedule changed. It might depend on the circumstances, but it's not always fun to fend for yourself in a strange place and then work at night.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Honestly I wouldn't care about the flight class, but I would mind (a lot) if I couldn't refuse to go without consequences to my position because I would hate having my schedule changed. It might depend on the circumstances, but it's not always fun to fend for yourself in a strange place and then work at night.

The article says nothing about this. It's the nanny threatening to quit because they don't want to fly her first class. It's the FAMILY who is being threatened with consequences (losing their nanny) if they don't pay extra to fly nanny first class. Again - nanny knew about the trip ahead of time and was excited. Eagerly agreed to three trips with them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They want to sit with the crying chlld while the nanny rests in coach? I'd be down for that.

+1 and the nanny would still complain if she was in first class and seated next to one of the kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If someone is that wealthy it makes no sense to snub the nanny like that.

Not the point. Most employees do not travel first class on trips, unless they are upper management.

If they can fly a young child first class, they can fly the nanny. This is not a corporate job and the nanny lives with the family for their connivence.

What the family "can do" is irrelevant. Live in vs out status is also irrelevant.

[Anonymous]

I find it totally outrageous that this family flew first class while they put their Nanny in comfort.

How demeaning!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think they should treat her the sane they would treat a relative or friend they were taking. If they were all in first class it’s rude they didn’t do the same for her.

Nanny is not relative or friend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If someone is that wealthy it makes no sense to snub the nanny like that.

Not the point. Most employees do not travel first class on trips, unless they are upper management.

If they can fly a young child first class, they can fly the nanny. This is not a corporate job and the nanny lives with the family for their connivence.

Fir their convenience and hers.

[Anonymous]

I saw this article online last week & was floored!

I think principle plays a HUGE part in this situation…..

This is a perfect illustration of where the family sees the Nanny’s place in relation to their family.

And it is sad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think they should treat her the sane they would treat a relative or friend they were taking. If they were all in first class it’s rude they didn’t do the same for her.

Nanny is not relative or friend.

So…..
Just because Nanny is not a family or friend technically - does that mean it is perfectly acceptable to seat her in a lower class section of the plane??

I disagree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She got a free (monetary-wise and kid-wise) flight to a vacation. They didn't even put her in coach - they put her in comfort plus!

Nanny is very entitled and shame on her.

She is flying for work. They were clear she was working and kind enough to give her a bit of time off (how generous when they probably aren't paying her extra for travel and other stuff). They changed their place of employment and they should provide the same transportation level as they take, as well as a good room, food and every other expense. This is not a vacation, this is work for her.

I’m not a nanny and have traveled for work and not always flown the same class as the people I work with.