which position would you choose?

[Anonymous]

So I have 2 different positions to consider.

A: twins, 35 hrs a week, comfortable family, they don't travel and are home bodies, so no date nights, laid back but sometimes a little too much. they go above and beyond to support you. Extra little perks and thanks, IE electronics, clothes, etc. No other staff in the home. Unlimited paid vacation and sick time. Pay per week 1000

B: twins, 60 hrs a week, easy going but busy family. Lots of travel with family, parents go out a lot. Type A personality, but still easy to talk to. Fully staffed home 120 to 180 hrs of all vacation, sick and pto. Pay per week 2100

Which sounds better. I can live with either pay, though the higher is nicer its not a necessity

[Anonymous]

Unlimited paid vacation? Base pay $30/hr, 20 hours of OT at $45/hr? Are you kidding me??

I don't understand where people are finding these jobs. I have 15 years full time nanny experience with impeccable references, and have a bachelors degree from an accredited university in ECE. I speak English and Spanish fluently (not of Hispanic descent if that is relevant), and have a myriad of other qualifications and certifications. I look at job postings on care.com, sittercity, and my local agency websites ALL THE TIME. I've never heard of $30/hr (even for twins, and I've worked with many set of twins) with 20 hours of OT, or this concept of unlimited vacation??

I'm sorry I can't offer advice. I'm too flabbergasted. I might almost believe the $30/hr base pay, but this unlimited paid vacation...can't be real.

[Anonymous]

OP is in a different league than most people on this forum, that's all.

[Anonymous]

I would always accept the position with more money so #2. You need to think about your future, OP, and start banking some real money. If nothing else, nannies have no pensions - you need to set up one for yourself and contribute to it.

[Anonymous]

Number 2. PP is right - start saving money now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP is in a different league than most people on this forum, that's all.

Or city.

Btw, no one uses or abuses "unlimited sick days or vacation days" if you want to keep your job. Consulting studies show that by giving nannies or company employees unlimited PTO they do not abuse sick days and they better coordinate their couple vacations with their bosses. This is common knowledge in the HR industry.

[Anonymous]

Is this a joke? Comparing 35 hours a week to 60 is totally different and will vastly affect one's life.

As for the pay, I rarely believe crap in dcum and now there are so many non DC nannies posting it is practically irrelevant data points.

[Anonymous]

#1. More time to spend on other interests you may have outside of work. With #2 higher chance of burnout and this is if you already have enough saved and don't need the money.

[Anonymous]

It depends on what you want. If it were me, even taking rhe 30-hr-per-week job I know I would end up picking up work on the side because I like working and making money. Other people get super burnt out over about 45 hours. Where do you fall?

[Anonymous]

If you are healthy, I would choose #2. Never underestimate the importance of saving money especially in a field like nannying. There is no security, no pension, no cushion. Save, save, save!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Unlimited paid vacation? Base pay $30/hr, 20 hours of OT at $45/hr? Are you kidding me??

I don't understand where people are finding these jobs. I have 15 years full time nanny experience with impeccable references, and have a bachelors degree from an accredited university in ECE. I speak English and Spanish fluently (not of Hispanic descent if that is relevant), and have a myriad of other qualifications and certifications. I look at job postings on care.com, sittercity, and my local agency websites ALL THE TIME. I've never heard of $30/hr (even for twins, and I've worked with many set of twins) with 20 hours of OT, or this concept of unlimited vacation??

I'm sorry I can't offer advice. I'm too flabbergasted. I might almost believe the $30/hr base pay, but this unlimited paid vacation...can't be real.

I am sorry you don't think it's something that's offered, but it is.

I've actually been with the family for 2 years now and position B has been offered to me by another family.
I don't abuse my time off. I've never taken a sick day, but I have taken vacations and with advanced notice my bosses encourage it. In the past 2 years I have taken 4 3 week European trips and numerous long weekends.

No I don't live in DC, but I don't think this has to do with location at all. If I was asking about rate of pay or a family in one part of the city verses another for commute issues, then I can see the point of letting others know my location.

I'm considering position B because of 1. The savings I can have 2. It will enhance my resume by having this family/type of position.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would always accept the position with more money so #2. You need to think about your future, OP, and start banking some real money. If nothing else, nannies have no pensions - you need to set up one for yourself and contribute to it.

Thank you, this is what I was thinking. I have a great 401k, and saving set up already. But to add to it and help with the future is always nice. I'm getting older, not old old, but you know this type of work is difficult on the body.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It depends on what you want. If it were me, even taking rhe 30-hr-per-week job I know I would end up picking up work on the side because I like working and making money. Other people get super burnt out over about 45 hours. Where do you fall?

Thanks, I always end up shopping which doesn't help. But I do enjoy the extra time off. Helps with doctor appointments, seeing friends, and relaxing.

[Anonymous]

I would select the first family. Esp. since you are not hard up for money at this time.

To me, a 60 Hr. workweek w/twins is a huge recipe for burn-out. I couldn't do it. And wouldn't want to either.

I would only take the second job if I was financially struggling.