Urbansitter even worse than care.com

[Anonymous]

Saw something from Urbansitter in another section of DCUM and signed up (luckily for me I didn't want to link my Facebook so I made a fake linked in account and skipped adding a bank account for receiving payments.) I browsed through the 90 or so DC area jobs and found every one to be abysmal and extremely low pay. Then today I got an email from them with this gem:

$8/hr
Children: 1
Bowie MD
Bowie

Monday through Friday from 7 AM to 3 PM. You are responsible for our infant's basic wants and needs in addition to light cleaning. We need a two year commitment.

[Anonymous]

I heard about urbansitter and was going to try it. When I realized that you can't sign up without connecting to social media, I decided against it. Then I heard that the postings were terrible, so I feel even better about skipping it. Sorry, I don't connect personal social media to my work life.

[Anonymous]

Yep that was my experience too. Urbansitter sucks and they treat their sitters like chattel. Care.com, however has started allowing parents to post "flat rates" for sitting jobs which is just absolutely insane. Basically a parent can decide they want to pay $30 for an evening of sitting, then set a time frame. I've seen a few offering $30 for 6 hours. It's disgusting that care.com is allowing (encouraging) this abuse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yep that was my experience too. Urbansitter sucks and they treat their sitters like chattel. Care.com, however has started allowing parents to post "flat rates" for sitting jobs which is just absolutely insane. Basically a parent can decide they want to pay $30 for an evening of sitting, then set a time frame. I've seen a few offering $30 for 6 hours. It's disgusting that care.com is allowing (encouraging) this abuse.

I like the idea of a flat rate, but I think that there should be some way to set a minimum. I've seen a few that advertised a flat rate that averaged $18/hour, but the post clearly stated that they didn't expect to be that long, which is why they were guaranteeing that amount. For others, I've seen $35/8 hours and $60/24 hours.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yep that was my experience too. Urbansitter sucks and they treat their sitters like chattel. Care.com, however has started allowing parents to post "flat rates" for sitting jobs which is just absolutely insane. Basically a parent can decide they want to pay $30 for an evening of sitting, then set a time frame. I've seen a few offering $30 for 6 hours. It's disgusting that care.com is allowing (encouraging) this abuse.

I like the idea of a flat rate, but I think that there should be some way to set a minimum. I've seen a few that advertised a flat rate that averaged $18/hour, but the post clearly stated that they didn't expect to be that long, which is why they were guaranteeing that amount. For others, I've seen $35/8 hours and $60/24 hours.

A flat rate benefits no one but cheap ass parents. I find it laughable that so many people try to pretend their kids are the most important things in their lives, but when it comes to paying for the care of those precious children, $5 an hour seems appropriate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yep that was my experience too. Urbansitter sucks and they treat their sitters like chattel. Care.com, however has started allowing parents to post "flat rates" for sitting jobs which is just absolutely insane. Basically a parent can decide they want to pay $30 for an evening of sitting, then set a time frame. I've seen a few offering $30 for 6 hours. It's disgusting that care.com is allowing (encouraging) this abuse.

I like the idea of a flat rate, but I think that there should be some way to set a minimum. I've seen a few that advertised a flat rate that averaged $18/hour, but the post clearly stated that they didn't expect to be that long, which is why they were guaranteeing that amount. For others, I've seen $35/8 hours and $60/24 hours.

A flat rate benefits no one but cheap ass parents. I find it laughable that so many people try to pretend their kids are the most important things in their lives, but when it comes to paying for the care of those precious children, $5 an hour seems appropriate.

Who cares if they are offering a low rate, assume they wont find anyone. I like a flat rate because 1) like the previous poster said for fair parents it's usually a bonus since they won't use all the time they have alloted but still pay you what they said, and 2) there is less chance at confusion when a parent says they offer $X rate but then in that they include some dumb "perks" they have assigned a value to when they really want to pay much less.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yep that was my experience too. Urbansitter sucks and they treat their sitters like chattel. Care.com, however has started allowing parents to post "flat rates" for sitting jobs which is just absolutely insane. Basically a parent can decide they want to pay $30 for an evening of sitting, then set a time frame. I've seen a few offering $30 for 6 hours. It's disgusting that care.com is allowing (encouraging) this abuse.

I like the idea of a flat rate, but I think that there should be some way to set a minimum. I've seen a few that advertised a flat rate that averaged $18/hour, but the post clearly stated that they didn't expect to be that long, which is why they were guaranteeing that amount. For others, I've seen $35/8 hours and $60/24 hours.

A flat rate benefits no one but cheap ass parents. I find it laughable that so many people try to pretend their kids are the most important things in their lives, but when it comes to paying for the care of those precious children, $5 an hour seems appropriate.

Who cares if they are offering a low rate, assume they wont find anyone. I like a flat rate because 1) like the previous poster said for fair parents it's usually a bonus since they won't use all the time they have alloted but still pay you what they said, and 2) there is less chance at confusion when a parent says they offer $X rate but then in that they include some dumb "perks" they have assigned a value to when they really want to pay much less.

And this is why I negotiate for salary, based on average hours Yes, I work more during the summer, and my check stays the same, but there have been plenty of times when I was only working 10 hours per week during the school year... and my check stayed the same. Besides, to me, summer hours are so much easier anyway.

I thoroughly agree that employers usually over-estimate the value of perks. Room and board, season passes to places that the nanny would never go without NKs (children's museum, child's gym, zoo) and gift cards (regifted, to places they don't go, nor do I) are things that I would much rather they skip. Is it that hard to post actual compensation, that way nannies can look at the numbers and easily see which ones to skip? 3 interviews in the last week, and all 3 misrepresented compensation drastically.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yep that was my experience too. Urbansitter sucks and they treat their sitters like chattel. Care.com, however has started allowing parents to post "flat rates" for sitting jobs which is just absolutely insane. Basically a parent can decide they want to pay $30 for an evening of sitting, then set a time frame. I've seen a few offering $30 for 6 hours. It's disgusting that care.com is allowing (encouraging) this abuse.

I like the idea of a flat rate, but I think that there should be some way to set a minimum. I've seen a few that advertised a flat rate that averaged $18/hour, but the post clearly stated that they didn't expect to be that long, which is why they were guaranteeing that amount. For others, I've seen $35/8 hours and $60/24 hours.

A flat rate benefits no one but cheap ass parents. I find it laughable that so many people try to pretend their kids are the most important things in their lives, but when it comes to paying for the care of those precious children, $5 an hour seems appropriate.

Who cares if they are offering a low rate, assume they wont find anyone. I like a flat rate because 1) like the previous poster said for fair parents it's usually a bonus since they won't use all the time they have alloted but still pay you what they said, and 2) there is less chance at confusion when a parent says they offer $X rate but then in that they include some dumb "perks" they have assigned a value to when they really want to pay much less.

And this is why I negotiate for salary, based on average hours Yes, I work more during the summer, and my check stays the same, but there have been plenty of times when I was only working 10 hours per week during the school year... and my check stayed the same. Besides, to me, summer hours are so much easier anyway.

I thoroughly agree that employers usually over-estimate the value of perks. Room and board, season passes to places that the nanny would never go without NKs (children's museum, child's gym, zoo) and gift cards (regifted, to places they don't go, nor do I) are things that I would much rather they skip. Is it that hard to post actual compensation, that way nannies can look at the numbers and easily see which ones to skip? 3 interviews in the last week, and all 3 misrepresented compensation drastically.

The new trend I've seen now is parents advertising a huge range ($10-$20/hour) then you get to talking and they say the rate is $10/hour, but $20/hour OT. Okay, for how many hours? 40. So no overtime? Nope. GTFO!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yep that was my experience too. Urbansitter sucks and they treat their sitters like chattel. Care.com, however has started allowing parents to post "flat rates" for sitting jobs which is just absolutely insane. Basically a parent can decide they want to pay $30 for an evening of sitting, then set a time frame. I've seen a few offering $30 for 6 hours. It's disgusting that care.com is allowing (encouraging) this abuse.

I like the idea of a flat rate, but I think that there should be some way to set a minimum. I've seen a few that advertised a flat rate that averaged $18/hour, but the post clearly stated that they didn't expect to be that long, which is why they were guaranteeing that amount. For others, I've seen $35/8 hours and $60/24 hours.

A flat rate benefits no one but cheap ass parents. I find it laughable that so many people try to pretend their kids are the most important things in their lives, but when it comes to paying for the care of those precious children, $5 an hour seems appropriate.

Who cares if they are offering a low rate, assume they wont find anyone. I like a flat rate because 1) like the previous poster said for fair parents it's usually a bonus since they won't use all the time they have alloted but still pay you what they said, and 2) there is less chance at confusion when a parent says they offer $X rate but then in that they include some dumb "perks" they have assigned a value to when they really want to pay much less.

And this is why I negotiate for salary, based on average hours Yes, I work more during the summer, and my check stays the same, but there have been plenty of times when I was only working 10 hours per week during the school year... and my check stayed the same. Besides, to me, summer hours are so much easier anyway.

I thoroughly agree that employers usually over-estimate the value of perks. Room and board, season passes to places that the nanny would never go without NKs (children's museum, child's gym, zoo) and gift cards (regifted, to places they don't go, nor do I) are things that I would much rather they skip. Is it that hard to post actual compensation, that way nannies can look at the numbers and easily see which ones to skip? 3 interviews in the last week, and all 3 misrepresented compensation drastically.

Flat rates apply to babysitting gigs. I can't imagine anyone has a flat rate for a 40 hour a week nanny job. That's not what we were discussing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yep that was my experience too. Urbansitter sucks and they treat their sitters like chattel. Care.com, however has started allowing parents to post "flat rates" for sitting jobs which is just absolutely insane. Basically a parent can decide they want to pay $30 for an evening of sitting, then set a time frame. I've seen a few offering $30 for 6 hours. It's disgusting that care.com is allowing (encouraging) this abuse.

I like the idea of a flat rate, but I think that there should be some way to set a minimum. I've seen a few that advertised a flat rate that averaged $18/hour, but the post clearly stated that they didn't expect to be that long, which is why they were guaranteeing that amount. For others, I've seen $35/8 hours and $60/24 hours.

A flat rate benefits no one but cheap ass parents. I find it laughable that so many people try to pretend their kids are the most important things in their lives, but when it comes to paying for the care of those precious children, $5 an hour seems appropriate.

Who cares if they are offering a low rate, assume they wont find anyone. I like a flat rate because 1) like the previous poster said for fair parents it's usually a bonus since they won't use all the time they have alloted but still pay you what they said, and 2) there is less chance at confusion when a parent says they offer $X rate but then in that they include some dumb "perks" they have assigned a value to when they really want to pay much less.

And this is why I negotiate for salary, based on average hours Yes, I work more during the summer, and my check stays the same, but there have been plenty of times when I was only working 10 hours per week during the school year... and my check stayed the same. Besides, to me, summer hours are so much easier anyway.

I thoroughly agree that employers usually over-estimate the value of perks. Room and board, season passes to places that the nanny would never go without NKs (children's museum, child's gym, zoo) and gift cards (regifted, to places they don't go, nor do I) are things that I would much rather they skip. Is it that hard to post actual compensation, that way nannies can look at the numbers and easily see which ones to skip? 3 interviews in the last week, and all 3 misrepresented compensation drastically.

Flat rates apply to babysitting gigs. I can't imagine anyone has a flat rate for a 40 hour a week nanny job. That's not what we were discussing.

There have been several temp positions posted with a flat rate. I have also interviewed for 3 positions in the last week with an hourly wage posted, only to find that they want to pay a flat rate per week, and it works out to far less than the hourly rates they posted. All because they are including "perks" in their rates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yep that was my experience too. Urbansitter sucks and they treat their sitters like chattel. Care.com, however has started allowing parents to post "flat rates" for sitting jobs which is just absolutely insane. Basically a parent can decide they want to pay $30 for an evening of sitting, then set a time frame. I've seen a few offering $30 for 6 hours. It's disgusting that care.com is allowing (encouraging) this abuse.

I like the idea of a flat rate, but I think that there should be some way to set a minimum. I've seen a few that advertised a flat rate that averaged $18/hour, but the post clearly stated that they didn't expect to be that long, which is why they were guaranteeing that amount. For others, I've seen $35/8 hours and $60/24 hours.

A flat rate benefits no one but cheap ass parents. I find it laughable that so many people try to pretend their kids are the most important things in their lives, but when it comes to paying for the care of those precious children, $5 an hour seems appropriate.

Who cares if they are offering a low rate, assume they wont find anyone. I like a flat rate because 1) like the previous poster said for fair parents it's usually a bonus since they won't use all the time they have alloted but still pay you what they said, and 2) there is less chance at confusion when a parent says they offer $X rate but then in that they include some dumb "perks" they have assigned a value to when they really want to pay much less.

And this is why I negotiate for salary, based on average hours Yes, I work more during the summer, and my check stays the same, but there have been plenty of times when I was only working 10 hours per week during the school year... and my check stayed the same. Besides, to me, summer hours are so much easier anyway.

I thoroughly agree that employers usually over-estimate the value of perks. Room and board, season passes to places that the nanny would never go without NKs (children's museum, child's gym, zoo) and gift cards (regifted, to places they don't go, nor do I) are things that I would much rather they skip. Is it that hard to post actual compensation, that way nannies can look at the numbers and easily see which ones to skip? 3 interviews in the last week, and all 3 misrepresented compensation drastically.

Flat rates apply to babysitting gigs. I can't imagine anyone has a flat rate for a 40 hour a week nanny job. That's not what we were discussing.

There have been several temp positions posted with a flat rate. I have also interviewed for 3 positions in the last week with an hourly wage posted, only to find that they want to pay a flat rate per week, and it works out to far less than the hourly rates they posted. All because they are including "perks" in their rates.

If it's a temp, non-live in position what perks could they be including? Use of their own car at hourly rent a car rates?!?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yep that was my experience too. Urbansitter sucks and they treat their sitters like chattel. Care.com, however has started allowing parents to post "flat rates" for sitting jobs which is just absolutely insane. Basically a parent can decide they want to pay $30 for an evening of sitting, then set a time frame. I've seen a few offering $30 for 6 hours. It's disgusting that care.com is allowing (encouraging) this abuse.

I like the idea of a flat rate, but I think that there should be some way to set a minimum. I've seen a few that advertised a flat rate that averaged $18/hour, but the post clearly stated that they didn't expect to be that long, which is why they were guaranteeing that amount. For others, I've seen $35/8 hours and $60/24 hours.

A flat rate benefits no one but cheap ass parents. I find it laughable that so many people try to pretend their kids are the most important things in their lives, but when it comes to paying for the care of those precious children, $5 an hour seems appropriate.

Who cares if they are offering a low rate, assume they wont find anyone. I like a flat rate because 1) like the previous poster said for fair parents it's usually a bonus since they won't use all the time they have alloted but still pay you what they said, and 2) there is less chance at confusion when a parent says they offer $X rate but then in that they include some dumb "perks" they have assigned a value to when they really want to pay much less.

And this is why I negotiate for salary, based on average hours Yes, I work more during the summer, and my check stays the same, but there have been plenty of times when I was only working 10 hours per week during the school year... and my check stayed the same. Besides, to me, summer hours are so much easier anyway.

I thoroughly agree that employers usually over-estimate the value of perks. Room and board, season passes to places that the nanny would never go without NKs (children's museum, child's gym, zoo) and gift cards (regifted, to places they don't go, nor do I) are things that I would much rather they skip. Is it that hard to post actual compensation, that way nannies can look at the numbers and easily see which ones to skip? 3 interviews in the last week, and all 3 misrepresented compensation drastically.

Flat rates apply to babysitting gigs. I can't imagine anyone has a flat rate for a 40 hour a week nanny job. That's not what we were discussing.

There have been several temp positions posted with a flat rate. I have also interviewed for 3 positions in the last week with an hourly wage posted, only to find that they want to pay a flat rate per week, and it works out to far less than the hourly rates they posted. All because they are including "perks" in their rates.

If it's a temp, non-live in position what perks could they be including? Use of their own car at hourly rent a car rates?!?

Use of their car and gas (their children and their errands, during work hours only, so not a perk), inclusion in the family's memberships (none that I would care about), a work cell phone and service (nanny isn't allowed to carry personal phone during work hours, so... not a perk), and meals with the children (exactly the same food and portion size as the oldest child, not food that I can eat... and nanny gets to pay for it, NOT a perk). Those are some of the "perks" in the last few interviews.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yep that was my experience too. Urbansitter sucks and they treat their sitters like chattel. Care.com, however has started allowing parents to post "flat rates" for sitting jobs which is just absolutely insane. Basically a parent can decide they want to pay $30 for an evening of sitting, then set a time frame. I've seen a few offering $30 for 6 hours. It's disgusting that care.com is allowing (encouraging) this abuse.

I like the idea of a flat rate, but I think that there should be some way to set a minimum. I've seen a few that advertised a flat rate that averaged $18/hour, but the post clearly stated that they didn't expect to be that long, which is why they were guaranteeing that amount. For others, I've seen $35/8 hours and $60/24 hours.

A flat rate benefits no one but cheap ass parents. I find it laughable that so many people try to pretend their kids are the most important things in their lives, but when it comes to paying for the care of those precious children, $5 an hour seems appropriate.

Who cares if they are offering a low rate, assume they wont find anyone. I like a flat rate because 1) like the previous poster said for fair parents it's usually a bonus since they won't use all the time they have alloted but still pay you what they said, and 2) there is less chance at confusion when a parent says they offer $X rate but then in that they include some dumb "perks" they have assigned a value to when they really want to pay much less.

And this is why I negotiate for salary, based on average hours Yes, I work more during the summer, and my check stays the same, but there have been plenty of times when I was only working 10 hours per week during the school year... and my check stayed the same. Besides, to me, summer hours are so much easier anyway.

I thoroughly agree that employers usually over-estimate the value of perks. Room and board, season passes to places that the nanny would never go without NKs (children's museum, child's gym, zoo) and gift cards (regifted, to places they don't go, nor do I) are things that I would much rather they skip. Is it that hard to post actual compensation, that way nannies can look at the numbers and easily see which ones to skip? 3 interviews in the last week, and all 3 misrepresented compensation drastically.

Flat rates apply to babysitting gigs. I can't imagine anyone has a flat rate for a 40 hour a week nanny job. That's not what we were discussing.

There have been several temp positions posted with a flat rate. I have also interviewed for 3 positions in the last week with an hourly wage posted, only to find that they want to pay a flat rate per week, and it works out to far less than the hourly rates they posted. All because they are including "perks" in their rates.

If it's a temp, non-live in position what perks could they be including? Use of their own car at hourly rent a car rates?!?

Use of their car and gas (their children and their errands, during work hours only, so not a perk), inclusion in the family's memberships (none that I would care about), a work cell phone and service (nanny isn't allowed to carry personal phone during work hours, so... not a perk), and meals with the children (exactly the same food and portion size as the oldest child, not food that I can eat... and nanny gets to pay for it, NOT a perk). Those are some of the "perks" in the last few interviews.

I don't understand. A family actually told you that you are allowed to eat only the amount their oldest child eats? And what do you mean you need to pay for it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yep that was my experience too. Urbansitter sucks and they treat their sitters like chattel. Care.com, however has started allowing parents to post "flat rates" for sitting jobs which is just absolutely insane. Basically a parent can decide they want to pay $30 for an evening of sitting, then set a time frame. I've seen a few offering $30 for 6 hours. It's disgusting that care.com is allowing (encouraging) this abuse.

I like the idea of a flat rate, but I think that there should be some way to set a minimum. I've seen a few that advertised a flat rate that averaged $18/hour, but the post clearly stated that they didn't expect to be that long, which is why they were guaranteeing that amount. For others, I've seen $35/8 hours and $60/24 hours.

A flat rate benefits no one but cheap ass parents. I find it laughable that so many people try to pretend their kids are the most important things in their lives, but when it comes to paying for the care of those precious children, $5 an hour seems appropriate.

Who cares if they are offering a low rate, assume they wont find anyone. I like a flat rate because 1) like the previous poster said for fair parents it's usually a bonus since they won't use all the time they have alloted but still pay you what they said, and 2) there is less chance at confusion when a parent says they offer $X rate but then in that they include some dumb "perks" they have assigned a value to when they really want to pay much less.

And this is why I negotiate for salary, based on average hours Yes, I work more during the summer, and my check stays the same, but there have been plenty of times when I was only working 10 hours per week during the school year... and my check stayed the same. Besides, to me, summer hours are so much easier anyway.

I thoroughly agree that employers usually over-estimate the value of perks. Room and board, season passes to places that the nanny would never go without NKs (children's museum, child's gym, zoo) and gift cards (regifted, to places they don't go, nor do I) are things that I would much rather they skip. Is it that hard to post actual compensation, that way nannies can look at the numbers and easily see which ones to skip? 3 interviews in the last week, and all 3 misrepresented compensation drastically.

Flat rates apply to babysitting gigs. I can't imagine anyone has a flat rate for a 40 hour a week nanny job. That's not what we were discussing.

There have been several temp positions posted with a flat rate. I have also interviewed for 3 positions in the last week with an hourly wage posted, only to find that they want to pay a flat rate per week, and it works out to far less than the hourly rates they posted. All because they are including "perks" in their rates.

If it's a temp, non-live in position what perks could they be including? Use of their own car at hourly rent a car rates?!?

Use of their car and gas (their children and their errands, during work hours only, so not a perk), inclusion in the family's memberships (none that I would care about), a work cell phone and service (nanny isn't allowed to carry personal phone during work hours, so... not a perk), and meals with the children (exactly the same food and portion size as the oldest child, not food that I can eat... and nanny gets to pay for it, NOT a perk). Those are some of the "perks" in the last few interviews.

I don't understand. A family actually told you that you are allowed to eat only the amount their oldest child eats? And what do you mean you need to pay for it?

They told me that they only wanted me eating the same amount the oldest eats, that way the child doesn't learn to overeat by watching others eat more than they are served. It made no sense to me, nor did making me pay for the privilege of eating food that would make me sick. I turned down the position for a number of reasons, and that was one.

[Anonymous]

I tried urbansitter out for 6 months, and my experience was a waste of time. In your profile you can include your minimum (I think, my profile has been closed for a year now), but many of the jobs are for $8-$12/hour and the parents expect you to go to extreme lengths.I had a similar experience with Care. I basically stick with SitterCity (worked for two families last week through this site due to kids being out for snow) and DCUM, both I have found great families to work for and got paid what I asked.