How much to pay...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You cannot afford a nanny but you want to hire one anyway.

You are paying under the table so you can “save” money.

You are hiring this nanny bc you, like many of these moms, believe if she brings her child she will not work as hard. So you justify a lower wage and compare it to a nanny share. When in reality you are hiring a nanny for your child who I assume you would want to be skilled. However, it isn’t a share bc she is not paying into it. What she is doing is providing a service to you and should be paid accordingly for that service. If you believe she isn’t going to perform it well bc she is bringing her child then why hire her. But alas, we come back to the argument so many of the moms present on this forum to justify paying someone low.

You want someone to help you justify paying her low bc she is bringing her child. So pay her between $12-$15 so you can save money and tell everyone you have a nanny.

I’d be hiring a nnny who would share her time between caring for two kids. So it’s basically a nanny hare but even worse for me is she’d be more attentive to her kid obviously. We both prefer it to be under the table cuz it saves us both money.

Did you even read what was written? No of course you didn’t. If it’s worst for you then why would you even hire her? Oh that’s right, to save money.

While I am firmly against the OP breaking the law, I don’t think it’s wrong to look for affordable options. If she can find childcare that is more attentive and conducive to her child for a cost she can afford, then what’s the problem? Not everyone can afford the luxury of a nanny, but there are more options than daycare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You cannot afford a nanny but you want to hire one anyway.

You are paying under the table so you can “save” money.

You are hiring this nanny bc you, like many of these moms, believe if she brings her child she will not work as hard. So you justify a lower wage and compare it to a nanny share. When in reality you are hiring a nanny for your child who I assume you would want to be skilled. However, it isn’t a share bc she is not paying into it. What she is doing is providing a service to you and should be paid accordingly for that service. If you believe she isn’t going to perform it well bc she is bringing her child then why hire her. But alas, we come back to the argument so many of the moms present on this forum to justify paying someone low.

You want someone to help you justify paying her low bc she is bringing her child. So pay her between $12-$15 so you can save money and tell everyone you have a nanny.

I’d be hiring a nnny who would share her time between caring for two kids. So it’s basically a nanny hare but even worse for me is she’d be more attentive to her kid obviously. We both prefer it to be under the table cuz it saves us both money.

Did you even read what was written? No of course you didn’t. If it’s worst for you then why would you even hire her? Oh that’s right, to save money.

While I am firmly against the OP breaking the law, I don’t think it’s wrong to look for affordable options. If she can find childcare that is more attentive and conducive to her child for a cost she can afford, then what’s the problem? Not everyone can afford the luxury of a nanny, but there are more options than daycare.

Ok so you didn’t read either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hate when people assume that all nannies who bring their children to work pay less attention to the child they get paid to watch. I’m not saying all nannies are like that but like in any situation, it’s a 50% chance that the nanny may or may not play favortism- you just don’t know.

It’s pretty hard to compare a daycare ratio to a nanny-share. For 1, most daycares, at least in MD and DC the infant and toddler ratio is 1:3 or 1:4 and twos are 1:4 or 1:6. However, you are responsible for all 6, 8 or 12 children!

In a nanny share with 2 children (where nether child is yours) how can only one child get 50% of your time? These kids eat, sleep, play, get pushed in the stroller and participate in activities together. If there’s an age difference, any good nanny would incoroporate a schedule that has both children getting the same amount of attention. It’s really not hard to give equal amount of attention to 2 children regardless of if the child is yours.

Now to the original post. I think that if you’re not comfortable with the nanny bringing her child, then you shouldn’t allow it. However, you can always throw a number out there and if it doesn’t work, it doesn’t work. Although she’s bringing her child, your expectations should be the same (if she wasn’t) because you are paying her for a service, therefore, her rate shouldn’t matter. If you’re paying her a lower rate, then you are basically telling her “it’s okay to pay more attention to your child.” My suggestion would be to pay her a flat (weekly) rate since it’s under the table, which, could (and should) be anywhere between $400-600 per week.

+1

You have nannies that play favoritism towards kids that aren't even theirs but if she has the experience and education you're going to lower her rate just because she's bringing her child? She already isn't getting healthcare and are you going to provide paid vacation and sick, OP?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You cannot afford a nanny but you want to hire one anyway.

You are paying under the table so you can “save” money.

You are hiring this nanny bc you, like many of these moms, believe if she brings her child she will not work as hard. So you justify a lower wage and compare it to a nanny share. When in reality you are hiring a nanny for your child who I assume you would want to be skilled. However, it isn’t a share bc she is not paying into it. What she is doing is providing a service to you and should be paid accordingly for that service. If you believe she isn’t going to perform it well bc she is bringing her child then why hire her. But alas, we come back to the argument so many of the moms present on this forum to justify paying someone low.

You want someone to help you justify paying her low bc she is bringing her child. So pay her between $12-$15 so you can save money and tell everyone you have a nanny.

I’d be hiring a nnny who would share her time between caring for two kids. So it’s basically a nanny hare but even worse for me is she’d be more attentive to her kid obviously. We both prefer it to be under the table cuz it saves us both money.

Did you even read what was written? No of course you didn’t. If it’s worst for you then why would you even hire her? Oh that’s right, to save money.

While I am firmly against the OP breaking the law, I don’t think it’s wrong to look for affordable options. If she can find childcare that is more attentive and conducive to her child for a cost she can afford, then what’s the problem? Not everyone can afford the luxury of a nanny, but there are more options than daycare.

Ok so you didn’t read either.

you must be the pp who posted that long post that no one read.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You cannot afford a nanny but you want to hire one anyway.

You are paying under the table so you can “save” money.

You are hiring this nanny bc you, like many of these moms, believe if she brings her child she will not work as hard. So you justify a lower wage and compare it to a nanny share. When in reality you are hiring a nanny for your child who I assume you would want to be skilled. However, it isn’t a share bc she is not paying into it. What she is doing is providing a service to you and should be paid accordingly for that service. If you believe she isn’t going to perform it well bc she is bringing her child then why hire her. But alas, we come back to the argument so many of the moms present on this forum to justify paying someone low.

You want someone to help you justify paying her low bc she is bringing her child. So pay her between $12-$15 so you can save money and tell everyone you have a nanny.

I’d be hiring a nnny who would share her time between caring for two kids. So it’s basically a nanny hare but even worse for me is she’d be more attentive to her kid obviously. We both prefer it to be under the table cuz it saves us both money.

Did you even read what was written? No of course you didn’t. If it’s worst for you then why would you even hire her? Oh that’s right, to save money.

While I am firmly against the OP breaking the law, I don’t think it’s wrong to look for affordable options. If she can find childcare that is more attentive and conducive to her child for a cost she can afford, then what’s the problem? Not everyone can afford the luxury of a nanny, but there are more options than daycare.

Ok so you didn’t read either.

you must be the pp who posted that long post that no one read.

You must have just come to comment and add nothing while also not reading. But you think you’re funny in your world so yay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If she's bringing her own child, it's essentially a share arrangement so you'd calculate it based on that, and yes, it would be a little higher because it's part-time. (Three days per week is part-time, even if for full days.)

Probably $12-$15 depending on what the going rates are for nannyshares in your area. Ask around.

WRONG! A share is designed for families to split the cost of a nanny. That doesn’t hardly seem fair since she is the one taking care of the other child.

You can certainly argue that the rate should be based solely on hours worked and not based on the number of kids in care, but most nannies would never agree to take care of two or three kids for the same rate as one child, and most parents would not agree to pay the same for their child to be one of two or three being cared for vs. being cared for solo. It's neither here nor there whether the second child is the child of the nanny or of another family. The OP is still getting a 1:2 ratio instead of a 1:1 ratio, and thus should be paying accordingly. The alternative (and I know of at least one nanny who did this) is for the nanny to put her own child into a less costly daycare and then be paid the higher rate--but not everyone is willing to do that.

Obviously, if OP absolutely must have this specific nanny, then the nanny holds the cards and can negotiate whatever pay rate and employment conditions she chooses. But it's not clear that this is the case.