Lying about sick children.

[Anonymous]

When a nanny tries to renegotiate after already agreeing to certain terms, you all jump down her throat. This MB made an agreement and she should stick to it, no matter if you agree with the terms or not. Just as a nanny is free to look for new employment if she is unhappy with the terms, so can the MB look for a new nanny(and likely she should). It doesn't absolve her of the fact that this is the agreement. If she want to keep this particular nanny she will need to care for her own children when they are sick, or expect to pay OP for the entire time she has to stay away from home because her children have contaminated her.

[Anonymous]

Posters are trying to point out that this requirement isn't practical and doesn't even address OP's concern. She shouldn't be working in childcare. Sure, babysitting is easy money but she'll have to find a different job if she doesn't want to be around sick kids.

First, sick is subjective and depending on the child may be less noticeable or change quickly. Its common for kids to look and feel fine during the day and then become sicker in the evening. Anyone with small kids is aware of the evening mystery fever. You keep the kids home because they were running a fever a night before, during the day they are fine and running around, and then once 7pm hits the fever is back and they feel lousy. My nanny thought we were nuts because I'd ask her to keep DC in because he had a fever and to her he looked perfectly fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Posters are trying to point out that this requirement isn't practical and doesn't even address OP's concern. She shouldn't be working in childcare. Sure, babysitting is easy money but she'll have to find a different job if she doesn't want to be around sick kids.

First, sick is subjective and depending on the child may be less noticeable or change quickly. Its common for kids to look and feel fine during the day and then become sicker in the evening. Anyone with small kids is aware of the evening mystery fever. You keep the kids home because they were running a fever a night before, during the day they are fine and running around, and then once 7pm hits the fever is back and they feel lousy. My nanny thought we were nuts because I'd ask her to keep DC in because he had a fever and to her he looked perfectly fine.

The requirement may not be practical but neither are a lot of things employers fail to offer or require of nannies when reaching an agreement. It's not practical to offer no paid sick days, but some nannies stupidly agree to the arrangement. Is that the employers problem? The consensus has always been no. Said employer may be a crappy person, and in this case this may be a lazy or high maintenance nanny, but the MB agreed nonetheless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Posters are trying to point out that this requirement isn't practical and doesn't even address OP's concern. She shouldn't be working in childcare. Sure, babysitting is easy money but she'll have to find a different job if she doesn't want to be around sick kids.

First, sick is subjective and depending on the child may be less noticeable or change quickly. Its common for kids to look and feel fine during the day and then become sicker in the evening. Anyone with small kids is aware of the evening mystery fever. You keep the kids home because they were running a fever a night before, during the day they are fine and running around, and then once 7pm hits the fever is back and they feel lousy. My nanny thought we were nuts because I'd ask her to keep DC in because he had a fever and to her he looked perfectly fine.

The requirement may not be practical but neither are a lot of things employers fail to offer or require of nannies when reaching an agreement. It's not practical to offer no paid sick days, but some nannies stupidly agree to the arrangement. Is that the employers problem? The consensus has always been no. Said employer may be a crappy person, and in this case this may be a lazy or high maintenance nanny, but the MB agreed nonetheless.

+1000

Exactly.

MB agreed to certain terms and then backpedaled and lied to change said terms. That is unacceptable, no matter how unreasonable one believes the terms to be. If MB is unhappy with her nanny's boundaries then she needs to say so. If she's not unhappy, she needs to respect them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Posters are trying to point out that this requirement isn't practical and doesn't even address OP's concern. She shouldn't be working in childcare. Sure, babysitting is easy money but she'll have to find a different job if she doesn't want to be around sick kids.

First, sick is subjective and depending on the child may be less noticeable or change quickly. Its common for kids to look and feel fine during the day and then become sicker in the evening. Anyone with small kids is aware of the evening mystery fever. You keep the kids home because they were running a fever a night before, during the day they are fine and running around, and then once 7pm hits the fever is back and they feel lousy. My nanny thought we were nuts because I'd ask her to keep DC in because he had a fever and to her he looked perfectly fine.

The requirement may not be practical but neither are a lot of things employers fail to offer or require of nannies when reaching an agreement. It's not practical to offer no paid sick days, but some nannies stupidly agree to the arrangement. Is that the employers problem? The consensus has always been no. Said employer may be a crappy person, and in this case this may be a lazy or high maintenance nanny, but the MB agreed nonetheless.

+1000

Exactly.

MB agreed to certain terms and then backpedaled and lied to change said terms. That is unacceptable, no matter how unreasonable one believes the terms to be. If MB is unhappy with her nanny's boundaries then she needs to say so. If she's not unhappy, she needs to respect them.

I basically agree that the mom needs to be bound by the terms she negotiated. However, you are all making a critical assumption that the MB is lying. Why are you so sure that she didn't believe it was a food reaction rather than sickness? My DD vomited last night after being fine all day yesterday, fine five minutes after the episode, and fine all day today. I think it was caused by eating a huge meal followed by a ridiculous amount of milk and too much activity. If someone asked me whether she is sick I would say no without hesitation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Posters are trying to point out that this requirement isn't practical and doesn't even address OP's concern. She shouldn't be working in childcare. Sure, babysitting is easy money but she'll have to find a different job if she doesn't want to be around sick kids.

First, sick is subjective and depending on the child may be less noticeable or change quickly. Its common for kids to look and feel fine during the day and then become sicker in the evening. Anyone with small kids is aware of the evening mystery fever. You keep the kids home because they were running a fever a night before, during the day they are fine and running around, and then once 7pm hits the fever is back and they feel lousy. My nanny thought we were nuts because I'd ask her to keep DC in because he had a fever and to her he looked perfectly fine.

The requirement may not be practical but neither are a lot of things employers fail to offer or require of nannies when reaching an agreement. It's not practical to offer no paid sick days, but some nannies stupidly agree to the arrangement. Is that the employers problem? The consensus has always been no. Said employer may be a crappy person, and in this case this may be a lazy or high maintenance nanny, but the MB agreed nonetheless.

+1000

Exactly.

MB agreed to certain terms and then backpedaled and lied to change said terms. That is unacceptable, no matter how unreasonable one believes the terms to be. If MB is unhappy with her nanny's boundaries then she needs to say so. If she's not unhappy, she needs to respect them.

I basically agree that the mom needs to be bound by the terms she negotiated. However, you are all making a critical assumption that the MB is lying. Why are you so sure that she didn't believe it was a food reaction rather than sickness? My DD vomited last night after being fine all day yesterday, fine five minutes after the episode, and fine all day today. I think it was caused by eating a huge meal followed by a ridiculous amount of milk and too much activity. If someone asked me whether she is sick I would say no without hesitation.

+1

We don't know enough to assess whether or not the MB was actually deceiving the nanny intentionally, or simply didn't realize the kid was sick. Why leap to the most negative assumption? This may not be a good fit for employer or nanny but that doesn't mean anyone went into it with anything but good intentions - on both sides.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I work part-time for a SAHM with three young children. My agreement is a little bit different from most, I don't care or work with sick children for several reasons. One being I am a full time student, and the other is that I have a family member who has a suppressed immune system. I made it very clear when interviewing. MB/DB agreed, and said it would be easy since she stays at home most of the time. I know it's not optimal for most families, but it's what was agreed upon. I don't mind when the kids have a cold, ear infection ect...but something really contagious like strep, flu, stomach virus I just can't risk. I usually come in around 6, and stay the night to help care for the infant. I can get paid and get sleep, it's a great arrangement. I just get the kids ready for bed, and then the rest of the night I sleep and get up with the baby when I need to. I came in Thursday and MB left saying she had to go on some errands, and then not 30 minutes passed and the two-year-old was throwing up. The 4-year-old tell me he's been sick all day, and she never told me! I called MB and she said it was just something he ate, but he was running a low grade fever. I was pretty upset, mostly because she never told me he had been sick. She arrived home after they had gone to bed. She asked me to stay, since she was going to be up with the two-year-old and I agreed since I've already been exposed. Of course the 4-year-old started getting sick around midnight, it was obviously a stomach flu. I know shit happens, and I feel bad. However, it was agreed by all parties that I did not work with sick children. I really rather her find someone else, then lie and break our agreement. It put me in a bad position this weekend, I can't go home so I have to stay at MB house as to not expose my family member. Should I bring it up, or just cast it off as a one time event?

OP was pretty clear, and it doesn't take a genius to figure out that when two kids are vomiting, it is clearly a case of a bug...not too much milk or excitement or whatever other excuse MB could come up with. MB did lie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Posters are trying to point out that this requirement isn't practical and doesn't even address OP's concern. She shouldn't be working in childcare. Sure, babysitting is easy money but she'll have to find a different job if she doesn't want to be around sick kids.

First, sick is subjective and depending on the child may be less noticeable or change quickly. Its common for kids to look and feel fine during the day and then become sicker in the evening. Anyone with small kids is aware of the evening mystery fever. You keep the kids home because they were running a fever a night before, during the day they are fine and running around, and then once 7pm hits the fever is back and they feel lousy. My nanny thought we were nuts because I'd ask her to keep DC in because he had a fever and to her he looked perfectly fine.

The requirement may not be practical but neither are a lot of things employers fail to offer or require of nannies when reaching an agreement. It's not practical to offer no paid sick days, but some nannies stupidly agree to the arrangement. Is that the employers problem? The consensus has always been no. Said employer may be a crappy person, and in this case this may be a lazy or high maintenance nanny, but the MB agreed nonetheless.

+1000

Exactly.

MB agreed to certain terms and then backpedaled and lied to change said terms. That is unacceptable, no matter how unreasonable one believes the terms to be. If MB is unhappy with her nanny's boundaries then she needs to say so. If she's not unhappy, she needs to respect them.

I basically agree that the mom needs to be bound by the terms she negotiated. However, you are all making a critical assumption that the MB is lying. Why are you so sure that she didn't believe it was a food reaction rather than sickness? My DD vomited last night after being fine all day yesterday, fine five minutes after the episode, and fine all day today. I think it was caused by eating a huge meal followed by a ridiculous amount of milk and too much activity. If someone asked me whether she is sick I would say no without hesitation.

I remember one time that I got sick at school in the first grade. It was a special day, people brought in tons of treats and we got to enjoy some of them for a few minutes, then had recess, and then had a school assembly. I got sick in the middle of the assembly. I felt fine right before that, and perfectly fine right afterwards as well. They called my mom to come get me, and I was actually trying to talk everyone into letting me stay. Everyone thought that it might have been the treats that had been served, but I had actually only eaten an apple. I went home for the rest of the day, feeling great and had no other issues at all. Random sick episode is all it was.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I work part-time for a SAHM with three young children. My agreement is a little bit different from most, I don't care or work with sick children for several reasons. One being I am a full time student, and the other is that I have a family member who has a suppressed immune system. I made it very clear when interviewing. MB/DB agreed, and said it would be easy since she stays at home most of the time. I know it's not optimal for most families, but it's what was agreed upon. I don't mind when the kids have a cold, ear infection ect...but something really contagious like strep, flu, stomach virus I just can't risk. I usually come in around 6, and stay the night to help care for the infant. I can get paid and get sleep, it's a great arrangement. I just get the kids ready for bed, and then the rest of the night I sleep and get up with the baby when I need to. I came in Thursday and MB left saying she had to go on some errands, and then not 30 minutes passed and the two-year-old was throwing up. The 4-year-old tell me he's been sick all day, and she never told me! I called MB and she said it was just something he ate, but he was running a low grade fever. I was pretty upset, mostly because she never told me he had been sick. She arrived home after they had gone to bed. She asked me to stay, since she was going to be up with the two-year-old and I agreed since I've already been exposed. Of course the 4-year-old started getting sick around midnight, it was obviously a stomach flu. I know shit happens, and I feel bad. However, it was agreed by all parties that I did not work with sick children. I really rather her find someone else, then lie and break our agreement. It put me in a bad position this weekend, I can't go home so I have to stay at MB house as to not expose my family member. Should I bring it up, or just cast it off as a one time event?

OP was pretty clear, and it doesn't take a genius to figure out that when two kids are vomiting, it is clearly a case of a bug...not too much milk or excitement or whatever other excuse MB could come up with. MB did lie.

But 2 kids had NOT been sick before that point in the day. Again, I think most of us agree that it was pretty crappy that she didn't mention it to the nanny at least, but OP has pretty crazy expectations for being a nanny as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I work part-time for a SAHM with three young children. My agreement is a little bit different from most, I don't care or work with sick children for several reasons. One being I am a full time student, and the other is that I have a family member who has a suppressed immune system. I made it very clear when interviewing. MB/DB agreed, and said it would be easy since she stays at home most of the time. I know it's not optimal for most families, but it's what was agreed upon. I don't mind when the kids have a cold, ear infection ect...but something really contagious like strep, flu, stomach virus I just can't risk. I usually come in around 6, and stay the night to help care for the infant. I can get paid and get sleep, it's a great arrangement. I just get the kids ready for bed, and then the rest of the night I sleep and get up with the baby when I need to. I came in Thursday and MB left saying she had to go on some errands, and then not 30 minutes passed and the two-year-old was throwing up. The 4-year-old tell me he's been sick all day, and she never told me! I called MB and she said it was just something he ate, but he was running a low grade fever. I was pretty upset, mostly because she never told me he had been sick. She arrived home after they had gone to bed. She asked me to stay, since she was going to be up with the two-year-old and I agreed since I've already been exposed. Of course the 4-year-old started getting sick around midnight, it was obviously a stomach flu. I know shit happens, and I feel bad. However, it was agreed by all parties that I did not work with sick children. I really rather her find someone else, then lie and break our agreement. It put me in a bad position this weekend, I can't go home so I have to stay at MB house as to not expose my family member. Should I bring it up, or just cast it off as a one time event?

OP was pretty clear, and it doesn't take a genius to figure out that when two kids are vomiting, it is clearly a case of a bug...not too much milk or excitement or whatever other excuse MB could come up with. MB did lie.

Yes, OP was pretty clear that when she arrived for her shift, only one child had vomited. Clearly everyone knew it was a bug once the second kid started vomiting, but that didn't happen until midnight, after OP agreed to stay over with full knowledge that one child had vomited. I don't think we can say what the mother thought before the nanny arrived.

[Anonymous]

I think that with the agreement OP had with her MB and the circumstances at her home, her MB should have erred on the side of caution. We're not talking sniffles or a few sneezes. The child vomited. It could be a food reaction, but it could also be a contagious bug, and OP should have been given a heads up and the choice to come or not. She wasn't made aware of the situation until arriving at work and seeing the kid vomit.

[Anonymous]

^^^+1
Exactly. As an MB before I leave the house I update my nanny on the day's activities, what children ate, moods and any potential worries. Why would it not occur to her as a mother to mention to her nanny whom she is leaving that a child was throwing up that day. I am also pretty sure the 4 year old wouldn't say he was sick all day if he just threw up once that morning after eating and jumping. Then after the nanny tells her about the child's continued sickness she still did not come back until bed time. I would never do that. Sounds intentional to me.

[Anonymous]

There is a difference between a practical requirement and desirable requirement. For example, a nanny accepting a job that doesn't offer PTO is not be desirable to the nanny but it is a practical requirement because its clear whether she is able to work or not.

A requirement that a nanny will not work with a contagious sick child is not a practical requirement because its often not clear whether the child is sick with something contagious or not. The OP is increasing her chances for getting ill by doing childcare. She will be exposed to many things long before the child exhibits symptoms. She's either lying about being concerned about catching something and just never wants to deal with a sick kid or she's an idiot. It just makes no sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is a difference between a practical requirement and desirable requirement. For example, a nanny accepting a job that doesn't offer PTO is not be desirable to the nanny but it is a practical requirement because its clear whether she is able to work or not.

A requirement that a nanny will not work with a contagious sick child is not a practical requirement because its often not clear whether the child is sick with something contagious or not. The OP is increasing her chances for getting ill by doing childcare. She will be exposed to many things long before the child exhibits symptoms. She's either lying about being concerned about catching something and just never wants to deal with a sick kid or she's an idiot. It just makes no sense.

OPs question has to do with her MB having her work and undermining the agreement. I see your rep sonar says nothing about the MBs actions and only the practicality of the nannies terms. She didn't ask if you think it is practical to do child care if you have a sick relative. Answer the question at hand and leave the unrelated advice for later.

[Anonymous]

"I think that with the agreement OP had with her MB and the circumstances at her home, her MB should have erred on the side of caution. We're not talking sniffles or a few sneezes. The child vomited. It could be a food reaction, but it could also be a contagious bug, and OP should have been given a heads up and the choice to come or not. She wasn't made aware of the situation until arriving at work and seeing the kid vomit. "

+1 although I agree that if you NEED to not get sick then nannying is a poor job choice since kids are often contagious before they show symptoms.