Is the work of a nanny valuable or not?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


You're making a false comparison. When I go to a store or a salon, I am a customer. The business sets the price. When you employ a nanny, YOU are the business, not a customer. It is YOU setting the value of the service.

I'm also not talking about specific wages, although I think wages for childcare workers are too low across the board. What I'm talking about is the incongruence of the idea that children and their care/education is super important, but somehow the people doing the caring and educating are invisible unskilled low wage workers that society doesn't see fit to protect. We recognize that early childhood experiences are crazy important, but don't give a crap about the workers and you see it reflected in the quality of the workforce. A "nanny" is a dime a dozen, but the ones worth trusting your kid with are few and far between.

No, the market sets the price. The salon charges what the market will bear. Same with nannying, it's just more direct.

Moreover, if you believe it's every person's duty to pay what is "fair" - you are simply making an excuse not to pay your nail person a decent wage by saying, "well, the business set the price. I just followed it."

It's not that black and white. Some retail stores pay minimum wage or just barely more. Others pay much better wages, and offer their employees benefits. A business can choose to direct a grater share of its profits to paying it's employees. I'm not paying the nail person's wage. That's the difference between being a consumer vs. an employer. When you hire a nanny you become an employer, like it or not. I don't know why you keep trying to ignore the facts of the point you're trying to make. Purchasing a service from a business is not the same as setting the wage of your employee.

Because you are talking about some sort of moral responsibility that we should all have to make sure everyone who does something of "social value" is well-paid. Don't you have a moral responsibility to all people who sell you their services?

I do believe that I have that responsibility and I already discussed how I approach it from a consumer prospective. I don't patronize business that don't treat and compensate their employees fairly. That means I give my business to small local business or I do it myself. My original post was asking how you reconcile the two ideas that a nannies job is both the most important, and one of the least at the same time. I've gotten my answer. Some of you see them as separate ideas and not in conflict, while some of you simply don't care so long as your childcare stays cheap and your salary high.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the real issue with nannying, as well as other semi-skilled jobs, is that there is no real career ladder. What seems like a great gig when you are 22, young and flexible feels like a dead end job at 40 when you are basically commanding about the same salary and doing the same work with the same unreliability.

It's up to the individual nanny to find a long term path within nannying. Teaching, running or working for a nanny agency, etc. are all good ideas. Nannies should be thinking about this from day 1.

I think this is a good point and I agree with you to an extent. I think it's also fair to point out that there is a ladder within actual nannying itself, albeit a short one, that few nanny employers want to acknowledge.

For example, if you are going to employ a nanny for a single infant with little expectations beyond safe childcare, you can easily hire a young/inexperienced nanny offering low to average wages. When you start adding more qualifiers to your applicants, and more complications to the job, at a certain point you can't reasonably expect to pay average rates.

When you want to hire a nanny with 10 years of experience, a degree, and 6 exceptional references, isn't it fair for your applicants to expect pay and benefits beyond "entry level?" Vacation time is the most frustrating thing here. Everyone who hires a nanny wants to offer 2 weeks or less, even if the nanny they hire has 20 years of experience under her belt. Shouldn't experience reasonably come with increased benefits? If you can't offer beyond the basic wages and benefits, perhaps you should look at less experienced nannies?

I think they do acknowledge it by paying more for experienced nannies. But like all things, buyers want to pay less, sellers want to earn more so it's a negotiation.

Again, arguing about what's "fair" gets you nowhere- everyone feels they should be paid more and get more vacation. What do you propose to do with the "should"s of this argument.

Take a look at discussions on this board. No one is offering more for more experienced nannies. They ask, how much should I expect to pay for 1 kid, 2 kids, after school, etc. And no one says well how much experience are you requiring? It is commonly, and I believe wrongly, understood that it is the details of the job set the rate, not the qualifications of the nanny. The qualifications required are rarely considered when setting a rate or in the advice given here.

Any discussion about laws or standard practices are going to revolve around the ideas of fairness and what's right. I opened this thread to discuss. What do YOU propose? Or are you prepared to say the industry requires no improvement?

The day we take discussions on this board is the day BOTH of us need to get our heads checked. Some nannies on here claim they get paid $35 an hour, some MBs say they won't pay over $12. In reality it is always a negotiation. I can think of my friend down the street who pays $24 an hour for a very experienced nanny for her 3 kids and it's due to the experience the nanny has.

What do I think? I honestly don't think the industry of individual nannies makes a very compelling case for improvement. I don't think most nannies around here are underpaid for what they do. I DO think we need more government support for childcare, but not for nannies. We need child care centers that are affordable, with well-paid carers and workers who receive training and good benefits. That is the most efficient use of public funds. Single-family nannies should be the reserve of the super-wealthy, and the $35/hour nannies can take those jobs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the real issue with nannying, as well as other semi-skilled jobs, is that there is no real career ladder. What seems like a great gig when you are 22, young and flexible feels like a dead end job at 40 when you are basically commanding about the same salary and doing the same work with the same unreliability.

It's up to the individual nanny to find a long term path within nannying. Teaching, running or working for a nanny agency, etc. are all good ideas. Nannies should be thinking about this from day 1.

I think this is a good point and I agree with you to an extent. I think it's also fair to point out that there is a ladder within actual nannying itself, albeit a short one, that few nanny employers want to acknowledge.

For example, if you are going to employ a nanny for a single infant with little expectations beyond safe childcare, you can easily hire a young/inexperienced nanny offering low to average wages. When you start adding more qualifiers to your applicants, and more complications to the job, at a certain point you can't reasonably expect to pay average rates.

When you want to hire a nanny with 10 years of experience, a degree, and 6 exceptional references, isn't it fair for your applicants to expect pay and benefits beyond "entry level?" Vacation time is the most frustrating thing here. Everyone who hires a nanny wants to offer 2 weeks or less, even if the nanny they hire has 20 years of experience under her belt. Shouldn't experience reasonably come with increased benefits? If you can't offer beyond the basic wages and benefits, perhaps you should look at less experienced nannies?

I think they do acknowledge it by paying more for experienced nannies. But like all things, buyers want to pay less, sellers want to earn more so it's a negotiation.

Again, arguing about what's "fair" gets you nowhere- everyone feels they should be paid more and get more vacation. What do you propose to do with the "should"s of this argument.

Take a look at discussions on this board. No one is offering more for more experienced nannies. They ask, how much should I expect to pay for 1 kid, 2 kids, after school, etc. And no one says well how much experience are you requiring? It is commonly, and I believe wrongly, understood that it is the details of the job set the rate, not the qualifications of the nanny. The qualifications required are rarely considered when setting a rate or in the advice given here.

Any discussion about laws or standard practices are going to revolve around the ideas of fairness and what's right. I opened this thread to discuss. What do YOU propose? Or are you prepared to say the industry requires no improvement?

The day we take discussions on this board is the day BOTH of us need to get our heads checked. Some nannies on here claim they get paid $35 an hour, some MBs say they won't pay over $12. In reality it is always a negotiation. I can think of my friend down the street who pays $24 an hour for a very experienced nanny for her 3 kids and it's due to the experience the nanny has.

What do I think? I honestly don't think the industry of individual nannies makes a very compelling case for improvement. I don't think most nannies around here are underpaid for what they do. I DO think we need more government support for childcare, but not for nannies. We need child care centers that are affordable, with well-paid carers and workers who receive training and good benefits. That is the most efficient use of public funds. Single-family nannies should be the reserve of the super-wealthy, and the $35/hour nannies can take those jobs.

I respect that point of view. I get flamed any time I say that nannies are for the wealthy. Wealthy people can afford to finance a decent lifestyle for another adult, which is what you are doing when you become an employer. When nannies became a middle class "thing" in this country, suddenly every person watching a child is a nanny, and every family thinks they can afford one.

If families had access to quality, flexible childcare, and caregivers were paid decently, that would address many of the issues. Less women would be duking it out over crap paying nanny jobs, and you'd have to pay a professional wage to the ones that remained.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the real issue with nannying, as well as other semi-skilled jobs, is that there is no real career ladder. What seems like a great gig when you are 22, young and flexible feels like a dead end job at 40 when you are basically commanding about the same salary and doing the same work with the same unreliability.

It's up to the individual nanny to find a long term path within nannying. Teaching, running or working for a nanny agency, etc. are all good ideas. Nannies should be thinking about this from day 1.

I think this is a good point and I agree with you to an extent. I think it's also fair to point out that there is a ladder within actual nannying itself, albeit a short one, that few nanny employers want to acknowledge.

For example, if you are going to employ a nanny for a single infant with little expectations beyond safe childcare, you can easily hire a young/inexperienced nanny offering low to average wages. When you start adding more qualifiers to your applicants, and more complications to the job, at a certain point you can't reasonably expect to pay average rates.

When you want to hire a nanny with 10 years of experience, a degree, and 6 exceptional references, isn't it fair for your applicants to expect pay and benefits beyond "entry level?" Vacation time is the most frustrating thing here. Everyone who hires a nanny wants to offer 2 weeks or less, even if the nanny they hire has 20 years of experience under her belt. Shouldn't experience reasonably come with increased benefits? If you can't offer beyond the basic wages and benefits, perhaps you should look at less experienced nannies?

I think they do acknowledge it by paying more for experienced nannies. But like all things, buyers want to pay less, sellers want to earn more so it's a negotiation.

Again, arguing about what's "fair" gets you nowhere- everyone feels they should be paid more and get more vacation. What do you propose to do with the "should"s of this argument.

Take a look at discussions on this board. No one is offering more for more experienced nannies. They ask, how much should I expect to pay for 1 kid, 2 kids, after school, etc. And no one says well how much experience are you requiring? It is commonly, and I believe wrongly, understood that it is the details of the job set the rate, not the qualifications of the nanny. The qualifications required are rarely considered when setting a rate or in the advice given here.

Any discussion about laws or standard practices are going to revolve around the ideas of fairness and what's right. I opened this thread to discuss. What do YOU propose? Or are you prepared to say the industry requires no improvement?

The day we take discussions on this board is the day BOTH of us need to get our heads checked. Some nannies on here claim they get paid $35 an hour, some MBs say they won't pay over $12. In reality it is always a negotiation. I can think of my friend down the street who pays $24 an hour for a very experienced nanny for her 3 kids and it's due to the experience the nanny has.

What do I think? I honestly don't think the industry of individual nannies makes a very compelling case for improvement. I don't think most nannies around here are underpaid for what they do. I DO think we need more government support for childcare, but not for nannies. We need child care centers that are affordable, with well-paid carers and workers who receive training and good benefits. That is the most efficient use of public funds. Single-family nannies should be the reserve of the super-wealthy, and the $35/hour nannies can take those jobs.

I respect that point of view. I get flamed any time I say that nannies are for the wealthy. Wealthy people can afford to finance a decent lifestyle for another adult, which is what you are doing when you become an employer. When nannies became a middle class "thing" in this country, suddenly every person watching a child is a nanny, and every family thinks they can afford one.

If families had access to quality, flexible childcare, and caregivers were paid decently, that would address many of the issues. Less women would be duking it out over crap paying nanny jobs, and you'd have to pay a professional wage to the ones that remained.

Hurrah! We have come to an agreement! .... now what to do with the rest of my day....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the real issue with nannying, as well as other semi-skilled jobs, is that there is no real career ladder. What seems like a great gig when you are 22, young and flexible feels like a dead end job at 40 when you are basically commanding about the same salary and doing the same work with the same unreliability.

It's up to the individual nanny to find a long term path within nannying. Teaching, running or working for a nanny agency, etc. are all good ideas. Nannies should be thinking about this from day 1.

I think this is a good point and I agree with you to an extent. I think it's also fair to point out that there is a ladder within actual nannying itself, albeit a short one, that few nanny employers want to acknowledge.

For example, if you are going to employ a nanny for a single infant with little expectations beyond safe childcare, you can easily hire a young/inexperienced nanny offering low to average wages. When you start adding more qualifiers to your applicants, and more complications to the job, at a certain point you can't reasonably expect to pay average rates.

When you want to hire a nanny with 10 years of experience, a degree, and 6 exceptional references, isn't it fair for your applicants to expect pay and benefits beyond "entry level?" Vacation time is the most frustrating thing here. Everyone who hires a nanny wants to offer 2 weeks or less, even if the nanny they hire has 20 years of experience under her belt. Shouldn't experience reasonably come with increased benefits? If you can't offer beyond the basic wages and benefits, perhaps you should look at less experienced nannies?

I think they do acknowledge it by paying more for experienced nannies. But like all things, buyers want to pay less, sellers want to earn more so it's a negotiation.

Again, arguing about what's "fair" gets you nowhere- everyone feels they should be paid more and get more vacation. What do you propose to do with the "should"s of this argument.

Take a look at discussions on this board. No one is offering more for more experienced nannies. They ask, how much should I expect to pay for 1 kid, 2 kids, after school, etc. And no one says well how much experience are you requiring? It is commonly, and I believe wrongly, understood that it is the details of the job set the rate, not the qualifications of the nanny. The qualifications required are rarely considered when setting a rate or in the advice given here.

Any discussion about laws or standard practices are going to revolve around the ideas of fairness and what's right. I opened this thread to discuss. What do YOU propose? Or are you prepared to say the industry requires no improvement?

The day we take discussions on this board is the day BOTH of us need to get our heads checked. Some nannies on here claim they get paid $35 an hour, some MBs say they won't pay over $12. In reality it is always a negotiation. I can think of my friend down the street who pays $24 an hour for a very experienced nanny for her 3 kids and it's due to the experience the nanny has.

What do I think? I honestly don't think the industry of individual nannies makes a very compelling case for improvement. I don't think most nannies around here are underpaid for what they do. I DO think we need more government support for childcare, but not for nannies. We need child care centers that are affordable, with well-paid carers and workers who receive training and good benefits. That is the most efficient use of public funds. Single-family nannies should be the reserve of the super-wealthy, and the $35/hour nannies can take those jobs.

I respect that point of view. I get flamed any time I say that nannies are for the wealthy. Wealthy people can afford to finance a decent lifestyle for another adult, which is what you are doing when you become an employer. When nannies became a middle class "thing" in this country, suddenly every person watching a child is a nanny, and every family thinks they can afford one.

If families had access to quality, flexible childcare, and caregivers were paid decently, that would address many of the issues. Less women would be duking it out over crap paying nanny jobs, and you'd have to pay a professional wage to the ones that remained.

I agree with this too. Most childcare centers are pretty awful, and the ones that aren't are as expensive as a nanny if you have 2+ children and always full. If I could trust in the quality of an affordable childcare center, I would have gone that route, at least part time. I don't enjoy the business management aspect of being a MB. If I were fabulously wealthy, I'd have a household manager to do that for me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the real issue with nannying, as well as other semi-skilled jobs, is that there is no real career ladder. What seems like a great gig when you are 22, young and flexible feels like a dead end job at 40 when you are basically commanding about the same salary and doing the same work with the same unreliability.

It's up to the individual nanny to find a long term path within nannying. Teaching, running or working for a nanny agency, etc. are all good ideas. Nannies should be thinking about this from day 1.

I think this is a good point and I agree with you to an extent. I think it's also fair to point out that there is a ladder within actual nannying itself, albeit a short one, that few nanny employers want to acknowledge.

For example, if you are going to employ a nanny for a single infant with little expectations beyond safe childcare, you can easily hire a young/inexperienced nanny offering low to average wages. When you start adding more qualifiers to your applicants, and more complications to the job, at a certain point you can't reasonably expect to pay average rates.

When you want to hire a nanny with 10 years of experience, a degree, and 6 exceptional references, isn't it fair for your applicants to expect pay and benefits beyond "entry level?" Vacation time is the most frustrating thing here. Everyone who hires a nanny wants to offer 2 weeks or less, even if the nanny they hire has 20 years of experience under her belt. Shouldn't experience reasonably come with increased benefits? If you can't offer beyond the basic wages and benefits, perhaps you should look at less experienced nannies?

I think they do acknowledge it by paying more for experienced nannies. But like all things, buyers want to pay less, sellers want to earn more so it's a negotiation.

Again, arguing about what's "fair" gets you nowhere- everyone feels they should be paid more and get more vacation. What do you propose to do with the "should"s of this argument.

Take a look at discussions on this board. No one is offering more for more experienced nannies. They ask, how much should I expect to pay for 1 kid, 2 kids, after school, etc. And no one says well how much experience are you requiring? It is commonly, and I believe wrongly, understood that it is the details of the job set the rate, not the qualifications of the nanny. The qualifications required are rarely considered when setting a rate or in the advice given here.

Any discussion about laws or standard practices are going to revolve around the ideas of fairness and what's right. I opened this thread to discuss. What do YOU propose? Or are you prepared to say the industry requires no improvement?

The day we take discussions on this board is the day BOTH of us need to get our heads checked. Some nannies on here claim they get paid $35 an hour, some MBs say they won't pay over $12. In reality it is always a negotiation. I can think of my friend down the street who pays $24 an hour for a very experienced nanny for her 3 kids and it's due to the experience the nanny has.

What do I think? I honestly don't think the industry of individual nannies makes a very compelling case for improvement. I don't think most nannies around here are underpaid for what they do. I DO think we need more government support for childcare, but not for nannies. We need child care centers that are affordable, with well-paid carers and workers who receive training and good benefits. That is the most efficient use of public funds. Single-family nannies should be the reserve of the super-wealthy, and the $35/hour nannies can take those jobs.

I respect that point of view. I get flamed any time I say that nannies are for the wealthy. Wealthy people can afford to finance a decent lifestyle for another adult, which is what you are doing when you become an employer. When nannies became a middle class "thing" in this country, suddenly every person watching a child is a nanny, and every family thinks they can afford one.

If families had access to quality, flexible childcare, and caregivers were paid decently, that would address many of the issues. Less women would be duking it out over crap paying nanny jobs, and you'd have to pay a professional wage to the ones that remained.

Hurrah! We have come to an agreement! .... now what to do with the rest of my day....

Awesome! Thanks for the discussion. You've given me some ideas and some things to think about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the real issue with nannying, as well as other semi-skilled jobs, is that there is no real career ladder. What seems like a great gig when you are 22, young and flexible feels like a dead end job at 40 when you are basically commanding about the same salary and doing the same work with the same unreliability.

It's up to the individual nanny to find a long term path within nannying. Teaching, running or working for a nanny agency, etc. are all good ideas. Nannies should be thinking about this from day 1.

I think this is a good point and I agree with you to an extent. I think it's also fair to point out that there is a ladder within actual nannying itself, albeit a short one, that few nanny employers want to acknowledge.

For example, if you are going to employ a nanny for a single infant with little expectations beyond safe childcare, you can easily hire a young/inexperienced nanny offering low to average wages. When you start adding more qualifiers to your applicants, and more complications to the job, at a certain point you can't reasonably expect to pay average rates.

When you want to hire a nanny with 10 years of experience, a degree, and 6 exceptional references, isn't it fair for your applicants to expect pay and benefits beyond "entry level?" Vacation time is the most frustrating thing here. Everyone who hires a nanny wants to offer 2 weeks or less, even if the nanny they hire has 20 years of experience under her belt. Shouldn't experience reasonably come with increased benefits? If you can't offer beyond the basic wages and benefits, perhaps you should look at less experienced nannies?

I think they do acknowledge it by paying more for experienced nannies. But like all things, buyers want to pay less, sellers want to earn more so it's a negotiation.

Again, arguing about what's "fair" gets you nowhere- everyone feels they should be paid more and get more vacation. What do you propose to do with the "should"s of this argument.

Take a look at discussions on this board. No one is offering more for more experienced nannies. They ask, how much should I expect to pay for 1 kid, 2 kids, after school, etc. And no one says well how much experience are you requiring? It is commonly, and I believe wrongly, understood that it is the details of the job set the rate, not the qualifications of the nanny. The qualifications required are rarely considered when setting a rate or in the advice given here.

Any discussion about laws or standard practices are going to revolve around the ideas of fairness and what's right. I opened this thread to discuss. What do YOU propose? Or are you prepared to say the industry requires no improvement?

The day we take discussions on this board is the day BOTH of us need to get our heads checked. Some nannies on here claim they get paid $35 an hour, some MBs say they won't pay over $12. In reality it is always a negotiation. I can think of my friend down the street who pays $24 an hour for a very experienced nanny for her 3 kids and it's due to the experience the nanny has.

What do I think? I honestly don't think the industry of individual nannies makes a very compelling case for improvement. I don't think most nannies around here are underpaid for what they do. I DO think we need more government support for childcare, but not for nannies. We need child care centers that are affordable, with well-paid carers and workers who receive training and good benefits. That is the most efficient use of public funds. Single-family nannies should be the reserve of the super-wealthy, and the $35/hour nannies can take those jobs.

I respect that point of view. I get flamed any time I say that nannies are for the wealthy. Wealthy people can afford to finance a decent lifestyle for another adult, which is what you are doing when you become an employer. When nannies became a middle class "thing" in this country, suddenly every person watching a child is a nanny, and every family thinks they can afford one.

If families had access to quality, flexible childcare, and caregivers were paid decently, that would address many of the issues. Less women would be duking it out over crap paying nanny jobs, and you'd have to pay a professional wage to the ones that remained.

I agree with this too. Most childcare centers are pretty awful, and the ones that aren't are as expensive as a nanny if you have 2+ children and always full. If I could trust in the quality of an affordable childcare center, I would have gone that route, at least part time. I don't enjoy the business management aspect of being a MB. If I were fabulously wealthy, I'd have a household manager to do that for me.

You're absolutely right. This is an industry wide dynamic that needs to be addressed, and clearly expecting either caregivers or parents to shoulder the financial burden isn't working.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is lots of important and valuable work that doesn't earn a lot of money. Not sure why you think the two are so linked.

Do you think hedge fund managers do valuable work? Are they "worth" the millions they make every year?

Does a kindergarten teacher do valuable work?

Why is that though, and how do you as an employer reconcile the two ideas and perhaps being personally responsible for perpetuating it?

To answer your questions, yes I do think a kindergarten teacher does incredibly important work, but I think their salary versus the hendge fund manager's salary show the value our society places on their work. Any work that is traditionally female and relating to the care of children is always undervalued.

Because it's the world I live in. I am an MB, and my salary is based upon my market value, not my value to society. Which is why, when selecting a career, I paid a lot of attention to the market value of careers and why I am not a nanny or teacher. Life is unfair, for sure. As for perpetuating it, how often do you pay more for your services than you are charged? Do you hand out $$ to your local police officers or paramedics to make sure they are well paid? What about your kids teachers- do you give them a few thousand because of their value to society?

This just shows how effed up our values are. You value your job but not your children because you want to get the cheapest childcare available. Teachers, firefighters, police, and nannies are important and should be paid better. Nannies need to fight for professional status and all childcare 3orkets should be licensed by the state. Once this happens then nannies can start asking for and receiving. Professional pay. Nannies have huge responsibility but no authority. They are grossly underpaid but they bring it on themselves by accepting less than desirable working conditions and pay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This just shows how effed up our values are. You value your job but not your children because you want to get the cheapest childcare available. Teachers, firefighters, police, and nannies are important and should be paid better. Nannies need to fight for professional status and all childcare 3orkets should be licensed by the state. Once this happens then nannies can start asking for and receiving. Professional pay. Nannies have huge responsibility but no authority. They are grossly underpaid but they bring it on themselves by accepting less than desirable working conditions and pay.

It is brought on by oversupply and under-demand- nothing less. Ask any sports reporter, architect or actor if their salary is "fair".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, know that background and credit checks are routine for most jobs these days.

Not for other "unskilled" jobs. The credit and background check requirements are for people whose work require a certain amount of responsibility and ethical sense. In faft, I did not undergo a background or credit check for my office job which puts me in one on one relatively unsupervised contact with children.

Any skilled or unskilled workers in a medium-large company usually gets a background check. Your company is potentially exposing themselves to risk by not performing them, but of course that's their choice.

This really isn't true. My teenaged brother didn't go through a background check to work at McDonalds or Target. I also never did when I worked those types of jobs. Those are the actual unskilled labor jobs. To compare being a nanny to those jobs is ridiculous, which was kind of the point.

If they were considered the same, you'd be making minimum wage. So no, they aren't the same. Nor are the paid the same.

According to this definition, nannying would be a semi-skilled job.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/unskilled-work-semi-skilled-work-skilled-work-social-security-disability.html

There are lots of parents attempting to pay less than that! So the fact that I not personally making minimum wage doesn't change the fact that so many in our society and on this board consider nannies unskilled insignificant workers.

I think most people would agree that nannies are equal to [b]waiters/flight attendants/furniture movers[/b] in terms of skill. No education or special training required, no special skills necessary.

And honestly, you are still missing the point. It doesn't MATTER what people consider nannies to be- salary isn't determined by social value or likability.

Not at all. Most waiters who serve alcohol (so 80%-ish) are required to have some type of license requiring a class/test and yearly renewal. And flight attendants? Seriously? Do you no know how much training is required and how stringent the requirements to become one is, not to mention the security clearances? I'm sure even furniture movers have to pass a background check if they are working for a legitimately bonded company...Your analogies are WAY off.

[Anonymous]

http://www.sheknows.com/parenting/articles/1116471/how-much-to-pay-babysitter?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=editorial&utm_content=428289074


Paying a teenage babysitter is a lot more trouble than it's worth

If I am going to pay $20 an hour for someone to watch my children, I am expecting some Mary Poppins type of shit. I want my kids to be entertained, to get some exercise, and I definitely don’t want to have to pick up after my sitter when they leave. Instead, I suspect the people I have hired are flipping on the TV and pulling out their smartphone the second I walk out the door. My home is messier than when I left, and my kids excitedly tell me they got to watch Daniel Tiger, and My Little Pony, and Little Einsteins... and Princess Sofia while I was gone.

[Anonymous]

I honestly do not care if my nanny is a "professional nanny." Reading up on childhood development? Gosh, if you're interested, but don't strain yourself. Breaking out some paints, letting my kids have at it, then clean it up, or schlepping them to a museum and making sure they come back in one piece, honestly, that's all I really expect. I feel like nannies on this board keep trying to elevate the professionalism of the job without really grasping that most parents are thrilled with you just being a fun, pleasant, semi-playmate.

If you want the dignity and salary of a true professional job, go to professional school like I did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I honestly do not care if my nanny is a "professional nanny." Reading up on childhood development? Gosh, if you're interested, but don't strain yourself. Breaking out some paints, letting my kids have at it, then clean it up, or schlepping them to a museum and making sure they come back in one piece, honestly, that's all I really expect. I feel like nannies on this board keep trying to elevate the professionalism of the job without really grasping that most parents are thrilled with you just being a fun, pleasant, semi-playmate.

If you want the dignity and salary of a true professional job, go to professional school like I did.

Hah, if you think that is true I would love to see you, or any parent for that matter, teach a child to poop on the potty. If you haven't studied and read up on this stuff you will be SOL.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I honestly do not care if my nanny is a "professional nanny." Reading up on childhood development? Gosh, if you're interested, but don't strain yourself. Breaking out some paints, letting my kids have at it, then clean it up, or schlepping them to a museum and making sure they come back in one piece, honestly, that's all I really expect. I feel like nannies on this board keep trying to elevate the professionalism of the job without really grasping that most parents are thrilled with you just being a fun, pleasant, semi-playmate.

If you want the dignity and salary of a true professional job, go to professional school like I did.

You obviously missed the sitter vs. nanny threads.

You clearly have a sitter. Nothing wrong with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I honestly do not care if my nanny is a "professional nanny." Reading up on childhood development? Gosh, if you're interested, but don't strain yourself. Breaking out some paints, letting my kids have at it, then clean it up, or schlepping them to a museum and making sure they come back in one piece, honestly, that's all I really expect. I feel like nannies on this board keep trying to elevate the professionalism of the job without really grasping that most parents are thrilled with you just being a fun, pleasant, semi-playmate.

If you want the dignity and salary of a true professional job, go to professional school like I did.

Hah, if you think that is true I would love to see you, or any parent for that matter, teach a child to poop on the potty. If you haven't studied and read up on this stuff you will be SOL.

Are you kidding me? I mean, I'm a nanny and have potty trained several kids without ever needing to read a book. And yeah, parents do it every single day without the aid of reading materials too (though it's obviously a wonder than any child without a nanny manages not to be incontinent! )! But sure, if you want to claim being able to teach children to poop and pee on a toilet as a professional skill, go right ahead.