nannies, why don't you charge per child

[Anonymous]

If you are paid $15.00 for one child it hardly seems fair to only give you a measly dollar and increase for adding a new baby. It is twice the work. You are cheating yourselves.

[Anonymous]

Good question.

A few novice nannies think it's a badge of honor to be dumb.

A few parent employers pretend to be nannies on this forum, so they'll say an extra dollar an hour is a great raise for taking on the full-time care of a newborn.

Impossible to know which is which.

[Anonymous]

Because if you charge $15/hour per child the market of people who can employ nannies will shrink to next to nothing. You will price an entire profession out of work.

[Anonymous]

Rates for nannies, like any other profession, are a function of supply & demand. It's not as simple as the nanny proclaiming the rate she feels she deserves, nor is it as simple as a family proclaiming what they wished it cost to employ a nanny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Because if you charge $15/hour per child the market of people who can employ nannies will shrink to next to nothing. You will price an entire profession out of work.

What's so bad about that? Then you could have a job with a future for 25 years not 5 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Because if you charge $15/hour per child the market of people who can employ nannies will shrink to next to nothing. You will price an entire profession out of work.

WRONG. NO one on DCUM has ever proposed paying nannies $15/hr per child for multiple children in the same family.

There was, however, a pediatrician who recommended increasing the nanny's hourly pay rate by $5/hr for the addition of newborn care. (This of course assumes the nanny has the required skills.)

I agree with the pediatrician, as $2/hr is simply not acceptable, considering the necessary skill and responsibility for a newborn baby.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because if you charge $15/hour per child the market of people who can employ nannies will shrink to next to nothing. You will price an entire profession out of work.

WRONG. NO one on DCUM has ever proposed paying nannies $15/hr per child for multiple children in the same family.

There was, however, a pediatrician who recommended increasing the nanny's hourly pay rate by $5/hr for the addition of newborn care. (This of course assumes the nanny has the required skills.)

I agree with the pediatrician, as $2/hr is simply not acceptable, considering the necessary skill and responsibility for a newborn baby.

The typical model for this scenario is that a family hires a nanny when they have a newborn. Nanny stays with the family for some period of time, and the family has a second child.

The existing nanny is not needing additional skills for newborn care - he/she came in with those skills and has refined them to the employer family's needs. So an additional child is an additional amount of work, but not new or unknown work.

Assuming nanny and family are happy with each other, all parties want to continue the working relationship. It is usually easier and happier for everyone to retain their employment/employee than to suffer the stress of starting over, with all sorts of unknowns.

Employing family increases compensation to account for additional work. Employee decides what compensation will or will not be acceptable to her.

Most families will not offer or be able to afford a 33% raise ($5/hr on a $15/hr position as an example). Very few people ever see that kind of raise in an existing job, regardless of profession.

One can opine on anonymous boards for hours every day and that doesn't change the pragmatic decisions people will make about affordability, employment, total value (many factors beyond simple hourly rate) of a position, etc... And what seems a reasonable increase for one person may be unacceptable to another.

That's all fine. This is a highly individualized profession where hard and fast rules really don't apply in the real world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because if you charge $15/hour per child the market of people who can employ nannies will shrink to next to nothing. You will price an entire profession out of work.

WRONG. NO one on DCUM has ever proposed paying nannies $15/hr per child for multiple children in the same family.

There was, however, a pediatrician who recommended increasing the nanny's hourly pay rate by $5/hr for the addition of newborn care. (This of course assumes the nanny has the required skills.)

I agree with the pediatrician, as $2/hr is simply not acceptable, considering the necessary skill and responsibility for a newborn baby.

The typical model for this scenario is that a family hires a nanny when they have a newborn. Nanny stays with the family for some period of time, and the family has a second child.

The existing nanny is not needing additional skills for newborn care - he/she came in with those skills and has refined them to the employer family's needs. So an additional child is an additional amount of work, but not new or unknown work.

Assuming nanny and family are happy with each other, all parties want to continue the working relationship. It is usually easier and happier for everyone to retain their employment/employee than to suffer the stress of starting over, with all sorts of unknowns.

Employing family increases compensation to account for additional work. Employee decides what compensation will or will not be acceptable to her.

Most families will not offer or be able to afford a 33% raise ($5/hr on a $15/hr position as an example). Very few people ever see that kind of raise in an existing job, regardless of profession.

One can opine on anonymous boards for hours every day and that doesn't change the pragmatic decisions people will make about affordability, employment, total value (many factors beyond simple hourly rate) of a position, etc... And what seems a reasonable increase for one person may be unacceptable to another.

That's all fine. This is a highly individualized profession where hard and fast rules really don't apply in the real world.

You are apparently not an early childhood professional.

Most nannies in fact do not have the skills to take on the responsibility of a newborn, especially if there's already an older child used to dominating the nanny's full attention. That's precisely why parents often hire a "baby nurse" or newborn care specialist, even if they already employ a nanny. This assumes the parents can afford to do so. If they can't afford an experienced and trained professional, well, they make do with whatever they can afford.

[Anonymous]

I certainly don't think a "newborn care specialist" or specially trained "baby nurse" is required to care for a baby, unless there are special needs.

Almost every mother on the planet cares for her baby. It does not require a trained professional.

You're right - I'm not an early childhood professional. I'm an experienced mother (and aunt, big sister, babysitter, godmother, friend, etc....)

Babies are pretty easy. Even when you have twins as I do. Still pretty easy. Hard work? Sure. Exhausting? Sure.

Requiring "an experienced and trained professional"? Nope.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I certainly don't think a "newborn care specialist" or specially trained "baby nurse" is required to care for a baby, unless there are special needs.

Almost every mother on the planet cares for her baby. It does not require a trained professional.

You're right - I'm not an early childhood professional. I'm an experienced mother (and aunt, big sister, babysitter, godmother, friend, etc....)

Babies are pretty easy. Even when you have twins as I do. Still pretty easy. Hard work? Sure. Exhausting? Sure.

Requiring "an experienced and trained professional"? Nope.

There's only one logical reason a mother of twin babies would insist that caring for them is an "easy" job: she has someone else doing the work for her much of the time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I certainly don't think a "newborn care specialist" or specially trained "baby nurse" is required to care for a baby, unless there are special needs.

Almost every mother on the planet cares for her baby. It does not require a trained professional.

You're right - I'm not an early childhood professional. I'm an experienced mother (and aunt, big sister, babysitter, godmother, friend, etc....)

Babies are pretty easy. Even when you have twins as I do. Still pretty easy. Hard work? Sure. Exhausting? Sure.

Requiring "an experienced and trained professional"? Nope.

There's only one logical reason a mother of twin babies would insist that caring for them is an "easy" job: she has someone else doing the work for her much of the time.

Nope, not when they were infants. It was all me (and my husband when he was home.) I stayed home for a long time so I did it all. They were easier as babies than they are now. It's a much harder job on several levels to wrangle toddlers and preschoolers. And now I have help. And I hired for people w/ experience w/ this age group. They're experienced, but they're not "trained".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I certainly don't think a "newborn care specialist" or specially trained "baby nurse" is required to care for a baby, unless there are special needs.

Almost every mother on the planet cares for her baby. It does not require a trained professional.

You're right - I'm not an early childhood professional. I'm an experienced mother (and aunt, big sister, babysitter, godmother, friend, etc....)

Babies are pretty easy. Even when you have twins as I do. Still pretty easy. Hard work? Sure. Exhausting? Sure.

Requiring "an experienced and trained professional"? Nope.

There's only one logical reason a mother of twin babies would insist that caring for them is an "easy" job: she has someone else doing the work for her much of the time.

Nope, not when they were infants. It was all me (and my husband when he was home.) I stayed home for a long time so I did it all. They were easier as babies than they are now. It's a much harder job on several levels to wrangle toddlers and preschoolers. And now I have help. And I hired for people w/ experience w/ this age group. They're experienced, but they're not "trained".

You're just out of the loop, lady.

[Anonymous]

I do charge per child. And by ages.
I think that's only fair especially since I have 25 years of childcare experiences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I certainly don't think a "newborn care specialist" or specially trained "baby nurse" is required to care for a baby, unless there are special needs.

Almost every mother on the planet cares for her baby. It does not require a trained professional.

You're right - I'm not an early childhood professional. I'm an experienced mother (and aunt, big sister, babysitter, godmother, friend, etc....)

Babies are pretty easy. Even when you have twins as I do. Still pretty easy. Hard work? Sure. Exhausting? Sure.

Requiring "an experienced and trained professional"? Nope.

There's only one logical reason a mother of twin babies would insist that caring for them is an "easy" job: she has someone else doing the work for her much of the time.

Nope, not when they were infants. It was all me (and my husband when he was home.) I stayed home for a long time so I did it all. They were easier as babies than they are now. It's a much harder job on several levels to wrangle toddlers and preschoolers. And now I have help. And I hired for people w/ experience w/ this age group. They're experienced, but they're not "trained".

You're just out of the loop, lady.

I have absolutely no idea what you mean. Pretty funny.

[Anonymous]

I used a pet sitting once and they charged $3.00 per extra an u meal.