Nanny has a bad reference and doesn't know - WWYD?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Who would keep a bad nanny for a whole year?

+100 Exactly. And this is an excellent question to politely ask former employer. IMO

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Stay out of it, OP. It's not for you to educate the candidate you didn't even hire on how to be a better nanny. References are not an automatic positive endorsement. Some are good and some are bad and they serve to inform an employer. That's what happened here and is all you should be concerned about.

I have to disagree under these circumstances. The former employer seems disgruntled, and the nanny should be told the truth.


Well, I'd advocate for letting the candidate know somehow, but this poster is right - it isn't her job to do so. It is quite poor of the candidate not to have informed a reference that they might get a call, and to not have a sense of what might be said. It sounds like the nanny in question doesn't really know how to handle the professional aspects of changing/finding jobs.

I don't think we can assume the former employer is disgruntled. It sounds like she was unhappy with the performance and didn't do her job as an employer with much professionalism either but she might be completely accurate in her assessment/review of the nanny's performance. We can't tell from the little info we have here.


I beg to differ. Former MBS let nanny go without clear indicators of why. Then she freely and deliberately BURNS the nanny. Sounds disgruntled. Even if FE concerns are genuine and justified, there is a way and appropriate phraseology to use to convey dissatisfaction. It would be unreasonable for nanny to use FE as a reference if she knew it would be a bad one. So I agree with PP about former MB being deceptive. All negatives toward the MB-but she's not job hunting.

Don't know what state/area this is in. However, there can be laws governing the manner in which previous employers provide reference information. Reason being, this exact scenario whereby the person could be (maliciously) interfering with the candidate ever being likely to get a new position. You cannot harm another person's need to earn a living. And, no one is going to give a negative reference just because she was unaware/hadn't been asked. So maybe it's not that the nanny doesn't know how to "professional aspects of finding a jon. She may not know how to be aware/handle being stabbed in the back vis-a-vie, her wallet.

As for what you should tell the nanny... Agree with PP: Ask her if her former employer approved using her as a reference? Did she alert FE to expect your/other inquiries? Then tell her, "Your references were not what we expected. ". And if you want to assist her a bit further, you could add something like, "It's a good practice to have a trusted friend call and do a "mock reference check" to gain feedback on the type of reference being provided. Or not.

You're making a lot of bad assumptions, PP, and offering bad advice. NF can let a nanny go for whatever reason or no reason at all. They don't owe the fired nanny any explanation. As for being disgruntled or burning the nanny, you can't know that. Even if she is disgruntled, well, if she had a bad nanny, that's a good reason to be disgruntled. You have absolutely no basis to charge that the former MB is maliciously interfering with the candidate getting a new position. Former MB merely did what a reference does, discuss her experience with a nanny who apparently wasn't very good. That's what references are for.

As for suggesting to the failed candidate to have a friend lie to check on references, that is a terrible idea. Lying is never a good idea.

The fault lies with the nanny. Her former MB gave a balanced and honest assessment of how she wasn't good and what a new employer should do if they wished to go ahead and hire her (manage her).

If the nanny wants a good reference, she should be sure to do a better job. According to OP, her former MB had some specific examples of how she wasn't doing a good job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lots of parents will suddenly turn wicked once you give notice. That's exactly why smart nannies get regular written reviews/references. It's the only way to protect themselves.

This. No one keeps a bad nanny for a year. Her reference is clearly behaving dishonestly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Stay out of it, OP. It's not for you to educate the candidate you didn't even hire on how to be a better nanny. References are not an automatic positive endorsement. Some are good and some are bad and they serve to inform an employer. That's what happened here and is all you should be concerned about.

I have to disagree under these circumstances. The former employer seems disgruntled, and the nanny should be told the truth.


Well, I'd advocate for letting the candidate know somehow, but this poster is right - it isn't her job to do so. It is quite poor of the candidate not to have informed a reference that they might get a call, and to not have a sense of what might be said. It sounds like the nanny in question doesn't really know how to handle the professional aspects of changing/finding jobs.

I don't think we can assume the former employer is disgruntled. It sounds like she was unhappy with the performance and didn't do her job as an employer with much professionalism either but she might be completely accurate in her assessment/review of the nanny's performance. We can't tell from the little info we have here.


I beg to differ. Former MBS let nanny go without clear indicators of why. Then she freely and deliberately BURNS the nanny. Sounds disgruntled. Even if FE concerns are genuine and justified, there is a way and appropriate phraseology to use to convey dissatisfaction. It would be unreasonable for nanny to use FE as a reference if she knew it would be a bad one. So I agree with PP about former MB being deceptive. All negatives toward the MB-but she's not job hunting.

Don't know what state/area this is in. However, there can be laws governing the manner in which previous employers provide reference information. Reason being, this exact scenario whereby the person could be (maliciously) interfering with the candidate ever being likely to get a new position. You cannot harm another person's need to earn a living. And, no one is going to give a negative reference just because she was unaware/hadn't been asked. So maybe it's not that the nanny doesn't know how to "professional aspects of finding a jon. She may not know how to be aware/handle being stabbed in the back vis-a-vie, her wallet.

As for what you should tell the nanny... Agree with PP: Ask her if her former employer approved using her as a reference? Did she alert FE to expect your/other inquiries? Then tell her, "Your references were not what we expected. ". And if you want to assist her a bit further, you could add something like, "It's a good practice to have a trusted friend call and do a "mock reference check" to gain feedback on the type of reference being provided. Or not.

You're making a lot of bad assumptions, PP, and offering bad advice. NF can let a nanny go for whatever reason or no reason at all. They don't owe the fired nanny any explanation. As for being disgruntled or burning the nanny, you can't know that. Even if she is disgruntled, well, if she had a bad nanny, that's a good reason to be disgruntled. You have absolutely no basis to charge that the former MB is maliciously interfering with the candidate getting a new position. Former MB merely did what a reference does, discuss her experience with a nanny who apparently wasn't very good. That's what references are for.

As for suggesting to the failed candidate to have a friend lie to check on references, that is a terrible idea. Lying is never a good idea.

The fault lies with the nanny. Her former MB gave a balanced and honest assessment of how she wasn't good and what a new employer should do if they wished to go ahead and hire her (manage her).

If the nanny wants a good reference, she should be sure to do a better job. According to OP, her former MB had some specific examples of how she wasn't doing a good job.

Actually, I'm not. The point of my post was that MBs behavior seems to indicate that she is disgruntled. I didn't say that she was required to give the nanny a reason. Only that OP expressed that nanny said she didn't receive clarity on why she was dismissed. Beginning with "Don't know what state/area..." the context was concerning scenarios exactly matching this one--because there are tons of them that do--whereby A person COULD BE..." And since there are laws--again, depending on where one lives--that mandate how a previous employer frames their reference replies, it is not "bad advice" to know whether they exist in one's state/area. For the purpose of not running afoul of them. Why do you consider a "mock" reference check to be a lie? I was not advocating lying. It has to be done in the right way and per state statutes. It's a common business practice to do integrity tests on feedback sources for everything from testing HR personnel knowledge on proper reference feedback on former employees; to customer service reps performance through test calls for the purpose of knowing what to expect, critique employees, and yes--try to avoid litigation. And--again--depending on where one lives, the one requesting the reference feedback may be under legal mandate to only ask a certain set of questions. For example: employment dates, job duties, would you consider her for rehire/as a good fit for your company?

Now here is where irony seems to creep in.... You say the fault lies with the nanny. You state the MB gave a fair and honest assessment, and the nanny should do a better job if she wants a good reference. OP did say MB had some specific examples/concerns--but did OP say MB shared any of them? By your own premise, I'm making ASSUMPTIONS the MB is burning nanny, are you, then, not doing likewise? Because an MBS who is justified in firing & a disgruntled MB can say they had reasons--and one of them would be truthfully correct. The other?? Because ???? please tell me why any sane person would knowingly list a reference who was "dissatisfied" with her work?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Stay out of it, OP. It's not for you to educate the candidate you didn't even hire on how to be a better nanny. References are not an automatic positive endorsement. Some are good and some are bad and they serve to inform an employer. That's what happened here and is all you should be concerned about.

I have to disagree under these circumstances. The former employer seems disgruntled, and the nanny should be told the truth.


Well, I'd advocate for letting the candidate know somehow, but this poster is right - it isn't her job to do so. It is quite poor of the candidate not to have informed a reference that they might get a call, and to not have a sense of what might be said. It sounds like the nanny in question doesn't really know how to handle the professional aspects of changing/finding jobs.

I don't think we can assume the former employer is disgruntled. It sounds like she was unhappy with the performance and didn't do her job as an employer with much professionalism either but she might be completely accurate in her assessment/review of the nanny's performance. We can't tell from the little info we have here.


I beg to differ. Former MBS let nanny go without clear indicators of why. Then she freely and deliberately BURNS the nanny. Sounds disgruntled. Even if FE concerns are genuine and justified, there is a way and appropriate phraseology to use to convey dissatisfaction. It would be unreasonable for nanny to use FE as a reference if she knew it would be a bad one. So I agree with PP about former MB being deceptive. All negatives toward the MB-but she's not job hunting.

Don't know what state/area this is in. However, there can be laws governing the manner in which previous employers provide reference information. Reason being, this exact scenario whereby the person could be (maliciously) interfering with the candidate ever being likely to get a new position. You cannot harm another person's need to earn a living. And, no one is going to give a negative reference just because she was unaware/hadn't been asked. So maybe it's not that the nanny doesn't know how to "professional aspects of finding a jon. She may not know how to be aware/handle being stabbed in the back vis-a-vie, her wallet.

As for what you should tell the nanny... Agree with PP: Ask her if her former employer approved using her as a reference? Did she alert FE to expect your/other inquiries? Then tell her, "Your references were not what we expected. ". And if you want to assist her a bit further, you could add something like, "It's a good practice to have a trusted friend call and do a "mock reference check" to gain feedback on the type of reference being provided. Or not.

You're making a lot of bad assumptions, PP, and offering bad advice. NF can let a nanny go for whatever reason or no reason at all. They don't owe the fired nanny any explanation. As for being disgruntled or burning the nanny, you can't know that. Even if she is disgruntled, well, if she had a bad nanny, that's a good reason to be disgruntled. You have absolutely no basis to charge that the former MB is maliciously interfering with the candidate getting a new position. Former MB merely did what a reference does, discuss her experience with a nanny who apparently wasn't very good. That's what references are for.

As for suggesting to the failed candidate to have a friend lie to check on references, that is a terrible idea. Lying is never a good idea.

The fault lies with the nanny. Her former MB gave a balanced and honest assessment of how she wasn't good and what a new employer should do if they wished to go ahead and hire her (manage her).

If the nanny wants a good reference, she should be sure to do a better job. According to OP, her former MB had some specific examples of how she wasn't doing a good job.

Actually, I'm not. The point of my post was that MBs behavior seems to indicate that she is disgruntled. I didn't say that she was required to give the nanny a reason. Only that OP expressed that nanny said she didn't receive clarity on why she was dismissed. Beginning with "Don't know what state/area..." the context was concerning scenarios exactly matching this one--because there are tons of them that do--whereby A person COULD BE..." And since there are laws--again, depending on where one lives--that mandate how a previous employer frames their reference replies, it is not "bad advice" to know whether they exist in one's state/area. For the purpose of not running afoul of them. Why do you consider a "mock" reference check to be a lie? I was not advocating lying. It has to be done in the right way and per state statutes. It's a common business practice to do integrity tests on feedback sources for everything from testing HR personnel knowledge on proper reference feedback on former employees; to customer service reps performance through test calls for the purpose of knowing what to expect, critique employees, and yes--try to avoid litigation. And--again--depending on where one lives, the one requesting the reference feedback may be under legal mandate to only ask a certain set of questions. For example: employment dates, job duties, would you consider her for rehire/as a good fit for your company?

Now here is where irony seems to creep in.... You say the fault lies with the nanny. You state the MB gave a fair and honest assessment, and the nanny should do a better job if she wants a good reference. OP did say MB had some specific examples/concerns--but did OP say MB shared any of them? By your own premise, I'm making ASSUMPTIONS the MB is burning nanny, are you, then, not doing likewise? Because an MBS who is justified in firing & a disgruntled MB can say they had reasons--and one of them would be truthfully correct. The other?? Because ???? please tell me why any sane person would knowingly list a reference who was "dissatisfied" with her work?

Notice how the mb avoided the question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Who would keep a bad nanny for a whole year?

Exactly

[Anonymous]

A lot of people wouldn't keep a bad nanny for a whole year but I have definitely heard of people keeping so-so nannies for a year until something finally happens to tip the balance from "not great" to "not acceptable".