Nanny advice in Washington Post today

[Anonymous]

Advice before you hire....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/parenting/wp/2016/09/01/five-things-that-will-help-build-a-strong-relationship-with-a-nanny/

[Anonymous]

Just read the full article, yet didn't learn anything that I didn't already know.

Not being snarky or critical here, just that nothing brand-new was brought up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Advice before you hire....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/parenting/wp/2016/09/01/five-things-that-will-help-build-a-strong-relationship-with-a-nanny/

Thank you for sharing this, OP.

[Anonymous]

I thought the Union Station point was weird (I wouldn't have cared, so, yes, spell it out if there are places you don't want your nanny to roam with your child), but the rest of it makes sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just read the full article, yet didn't learn anything that I didn't already know.

Not being snarky or critical here, just that nothing brand-new was brought up.

This. How is this warranted in the newspaper. Also I found the microwaving of breastmilk weird. Any serious nanny knows not to do that in the first place and wouldn't you have gone over how to heat the food?

[Anonymous]

Nanny here. I think her broader point is sound. First time nanny employers need to shift away from just wanting someone to love their kid and instead think about what it's going to be like a) having an employee, b) sharing your home with another adult and c) coparenting with an additional person. And I know enough first time parents who haven't figured this out before hiring their first nanny that I think it bears repeating.

That said, the examples she gives were really strange to me. She's fine shrugging it off if her baby isn't being fed correctly but not fine if nanny takes an infant on a shopping trip? I would think nutrition as a basic physiological need would rank higher than making sure nanny doesn't do any lollygagging on "your" time (I've never taken charges on personal shopping but I still think it's a weird ranking of priorities).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nanny here. I think her broader point is sound. First time nanny employers need to shift away from just wanting someone to love their kid and instead think about what it's going to be like a) having an employee, b) sharing your home with another adult and c) coparenting with an additional person. And I know enough first time parents who haven't figured this out before hiring their first nanny that I think it bears repeating.

That said, the examples she gives were really strange to me. She's fine shrugging it off if her baby isn't being fed correctly but not fine if nanny takes an infant on a shopping trip? I would think nutrition as a basic physiological need would rank higher than making sure nanny doesn't do any lollygagging on "your" time (I've never taken charges on personal shopping but I still think it's a weird ranking of priorities).

I thought it was useful for people who maybe haven't hired anyone yet to help think through the decision completely -- and all the possible scenarios. And I thought some of the specifics were meant to be for instances -- not that you would actually write a contract telling your nanny not to go to Union Station. At least that's the way I took it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nanny here. I think her broader point is sound. First time nanny employers need to shift away from just wanting someone to love their kid and instead think about what it's going to be like a) having an employee, b) sharing your home with another adult and c) coparenting with an additional person. And I know enough first time parents who haven't figured this out before hiring their first nanny that I think it bears repeating.

That said, the examples she gives were really strange to me. She's fine shrugging it off if her baby isn't being fed correctly but not fine if nanny takes an infant on a shopping trip? I would think nutrition as a basic physiological need would rank higher than making sure nanny doesn't do any lollygagging on "your" time (I've never taken charges on personal shopping but I still think it's a weird ranking of priorities).

I thought it was useful for people who maybe haven't hired anyone yet to help think through the decision completely -- and all the possible scenarios. And I thought some of the specifics were meant to be for instances -- not that you would actually write a contract telling your nanny not to go to Union Station. At least that's the way I took it.

No, I get that she was just encouraging parents to think theough whether/what limits they'd like to put on outings, her examples were just so strange to me. Like if someone was writing about tips to get the best fit in your clothes and off-handedly mentioned that baggy clothing might be harder to swim in, I would be pulled out of the article trying to imagine why that would even be a factor. Choosing to ignore your nanny preparing breastmilk in a way that is at best nutritionally unsound and at worst damaging is so off-base to me that I couldn't focus on her point.

[Anonymous]

Thought article had a rude tone

[Anonymous]

Good advice but presented a little too cutesy.

[Anonymous]

fwiw I didn't like the shopping point. We interviewed a nanny who a reference told us she didn't like that she went shopping either, and at first it put me off too and then i thought - well if I was home alone with a child, I would definitely take that child shopping occasionally. Now that I have a nanny i allow shopping and my DS loves going to the grocery store as an "outing."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thought article had a rude tone

I agree, all I could think was damn glad I don't work for her