NYT Article on Nanny Compensation

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

To this I would add that the $10-12/hour daycare workers are supervised by someone who earns considerably more. These daycare workers are not paid to make decisions, etc. but to maintain order in the class, make sure diapers are changed on schedule, lunch and snack are served, etc. Your nanny is sole charge when you are gone - one would hope you take this into consideration when evaluating candidates and compensation. There is clearly some middle ground between the $10/hour daycare worker and the $20 hour entitled nanny.

I'd actually disagree with this as I've used daycare and had a nanny. The daycare office staff is more focused on the overall running of facilities, business aspects (billing/collecting), compliance with inspectors, hiring etc. While they do supervise the daycare workers the lead worker or teacher as they refer to them really is making the same type of daily decisions that a nanny is making. As much as I really like our nanny, she isn't making big decisions beyond what the infant daycare worker was making on a daily basis.

You could argue that in daycare you could hire workers with far less experience because they can be trained by the more experience childcare givers on site and have closer supervision. However at our daycare all the teachers were required to have child care certifications and the lead teacher/worker in the room needed a degree. Our nanny is great but she like most nannies doesn't have this level of education.

I remember asking a few of the teachers why they chose to work in daycare rather than be a nanny since a nanny paid more. This was long before we decided to go the nanny route so we weren't poaching. They seemed to look down on nannies, certainly didn't view them as individuals who make bigger decisions and saw being a nanny as a stigma.

Interesting. I don't know if I trust what they give as answers for choosing to be daycare workers.

I know someone who works at a daycare and she chooses that because although it is lower pay, she has a much higher quality of life. As a nanny, if you are watching an infant, you can't even go to the bathroom sometimes. You don't have that problem at a daycare and you get scheduled breaks. You have co-workers you can discuss last night's TV show with. You can participate in halloween parties that you didn't have to do 100% of the preparation for. She also can attend training classes paid for by the company although I don't think she cares that much about that. It's not as isolating to work in a daycare facility. You are dealing with a lot more people on a professional environment instead of dealing with pleasing one set of parents all the time. She had a bad experience working for a family before although her stories sound bad and as an employer, I would never have that kind of expectation and communications with my nanny so the family you get is kind of a luck of the draw for the nanny. That is why she works there instead of being a nanny.

[Anonymous]

The article is pretty much irrelevant, as there are several major metropolitan areas where in-home workers make much more, on average, than the numbers quoted in the article and D.C. is one of them.

I would be interested in reading the results of city-specific surveys.

[Anonymous]

The report mentioned in the article made several recommendations, including giving domestic workers meal and rest breaks. I don't see how this would work for most households that employ one nanny full-time. Either a parent would have to be at home twice a day or there would have to be a second employee hired to provide breaks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I will never understand this desire of working mothers on this board to pay the person you want to love and care for your child as little as possible. Would you be okay with similar working conditions for your daughter/sister/mother? When you hire a nanny, the wage you pay is more than your childcare costs. Its how someone pays their bills and feeds their children. I know you all say it isn't your job to worry about these things but its the reality. What you pay your nanny is what you are asking her to live on in exchange for caring for your baby day after day.

You can use this argument about ANYTHING which is why it's a totally invalid reason. Under this reasoning, we shouldn't consider public schools. All our kids should go to private school, shouldn't i want the VERY best for the person I love and care about? I also shouldn't buy clothes at consignment - why wouldn't I want the person I love and care about to wear the VERY BEST clothes? Let's all go to Jacadi.

Hiring a reasonably priced nanny isn't about negotiating down quality or services, but finding someone who fits your needs and values INCLUDING no artificially inflated wages.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will never understand this desire of working mothers on this board to pay the person you want to love and care for your child as little as possible. Would you be okay with similar working conditions for your daughter/sister/mother? When you hire a nanny, the wage you pay is more than your childcare costs. Its how someone pays their bills and feeds their children. I know you all say it isn't your job to worry about these things but its the reality. What you pay your nanny is what you are asking her to live on in exchange for caring for your baby day after day.

You can use this argument about ANYTHING which is why it's a totally invalid reason. Under this reasoning, we shouldn't consider public schools. All our kids should go to private school, shouldn't i want the VERY best for the person I love and care about? I also shouldn't buy clothes at consignment - why wouldn't I want the person I love and care about to wear the VERY BEST clothes? Let's all go to Jacadi.

Hiring a reasonably priced nanny isn't about negotiating down quality or services, but finding someone who fits your needs and values INCLUDING no artificially inflated wages.

Artificially inflated wages are one thing, but seeking out a qualified moderately educated nanny and paying her as little as possible simply because she is in the unfortunate position to have to accept anything at that point in time is wrong. We're not talking about clothing or other objects. We're talking about people. You should not be trying to get a good deal on a human being. And if you truly cannot see the difference you are a sad person and I am wasting my time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will never understand this desire of working mothers on this board to pay the person you want to love and care for your child as little as possible. Would you be okay with similar working conditions for your daughter/sister/mother? When you hire a nanny, the wage you pay is more than your childcare costs. Its how someone pays their bills and feeds their children. I know you all say it isn't your job to worry about these things but its the reality. What you pay your nanny is what you are asking her to live on in exchange for caring for your baby day after day.

You can use this argument about ANYTHING which is why it's a totally invalid reason. Under this reasoning, we shouldn't consider public schools. All our kids should go to private school, shouldn't i want the VERY best for the person I love and care about? I also shouldn't buy clothes at consignment - why wouldn't I want the person I love and care about to wear the VERY BEST clothes? Let's all go to Jacadi.

Hiring a reasonably priced nanny isn't about negotiating down quality or services, but finding someone who fits your needs and values INCLUDING no artificially inflated wages.

Artificially inflated wages are one thing, but seeking out a qualified moderately educated nanny and paying her as little as possible simply because she is in the unfortunate position to have to accept anything at that point in time is wrong. We're not talking about clothing or other objects. We're talking about people. You should not be trying to get a good deal on a human being. And if you truly cannot see the difference you are a sad person and I am wasting my time.

Uh... this is so wrong in terms of labor market and capitalism and I'm not even going to discuss why. I guess that's why I'm MB and the nanny is watching my children.

[Anonymous]

"The report made several recommendations, including ending the exclusion of domestic workers from state minimum wage laws, providing them with workers’ compensation and unemployment insurance coverage and guaranteeing them overtime pay and meal and rest breaks. "

My take then is that this just not representative of the nanny market in the DC area. In MD at least and I think DC too, you have to pay min wage, provide workers' comp, pay into unemployment insurance and provide OT> There are of course always people everywhere that break the law but here we have all the reasonable suggestions already. As for meal and rest breaks, of course that is not feasible for a nanny position unless it's just "resting" time on the clock during naps - almost every MB on this board has said she expects her nanny to take a bit of time for lunch and rest during naptime. So i think DC area stacks up well.

[Anonymous]

A correction was issued...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/30/pageoneplus/corrections-november-30-2012.html?ref=corrections&_r=1&

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A correction was issued...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/30/pageoneplus/corrections-november-30-2012.html?ref=corrections&_r=1&

Wow, that is a huge misstatement for the NYT--embarrassing. Thanks for the update PP.

[Anonymous]

Wow, they had a lot of corrections. Maybe they should do a better job of checking things before printing them?

[Anonymous]

Artificially inflated wages are one thing, but seeking out a qualified moderately educated nanny and paying her as little as possible simply because she is in the unfortunate position to have to accept anything at that point in time is wrong. We're not talking about clothing or other objects. We're talking about people. You should not be trying to get a good deal on a human being. And if you truly cannot see the difference you are a sad person and I am wasting my time.

This is where you're wrong. The market determines a nanny's pay rate "worth". This is dependent on the number of nannies on the market, the comp rates, all kinds of factors. You may think you are worth more, and you may be right, depending on your professional qualifications, but if you're in an area with a lot of nannies similar to yourself, you will not be worth more.

All this nonsense about loving the children and that being a nanny is somehow more deserving of charitable compensation because of the love and preciousness of your charges...that's just nonsense. Being a nanny is like any other job, and any one of you would jump ship in a hot second for a big raise or a better schedule. And you should. But let's not pretend you are all Mother Teresas in training. You're just workers who like your jobs, like everyone else.

I'm good at my job. I think I'm worth a lot more than I'm paid. My boss agrees. But the fact of the matter is, the market say I'm paid fairly. I could leave, outraged that my organization seems to not appreciate that because they are talking about HUMAN BEINGS, they should pay me what I think I'm worth, rather than replacing me with someone with my similar skill set who understands why wages are what they are. The key thing is, if I left for that reason, the organization, while sad for me personally, should absolutely let me go because that is the most responsible decision.

Nannying is a great profession if you love kids, but it has a low bar for entry and that low bar, combined with the variety of job descriptions that define 'nanny', plus the obstacles that prevent standardization that might lead to unionization or other protective entities, will always mean that wages will seem depressed compared to more higher skilled child care professionals.

[Anonymous]

PP, we aren't talking about charitable pay, we're talking about a living wage. That is something I believe everyone is entitled to, nanny or not, and so it is an ethical failing to choose to pay someone less than they need to live and you can afford, simply because you can. That is what Walmart does, and I'm positive you're better than them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP, we aren't talking about charitable pay, we're talking about a living wage. That is something I believe everyone is entitled to, nanny or not, and so it is an ethical failing to choose to pay someone less than they need to live and you can afford, simply because you can. That is what Walmart does, and I'm positive you're better than them.

+1000

You all can play dumb all you want but realize that your outrage over the wages and treatment of workers in other industries is exactly the same thing as paying a nanny the lowest you can get away with because "its what the market dictates". Bull Shit! I've heard some mothers look on in envy at the incredibly low wage others managed to negotiate with their awesome nanny. If you are out to pay the bare minimum to your nanny with no concern for the livability of the wage you ought to be ashamed of yourselves.

[Anonymous]

PP, we aren't talking about charitable pay, we're talking about a living wage. That is something I believe everyone is entitled to, nanny or not, and so it is an ethical failing to choose to pay someone less than they need to live and you can afford, simply because you can. That is what Walmart does, and I'm positive you're better than them.

Actually, charitable pay is exactly what you are talking about. You think a certain wage is a "living wage", because you think it is and that is the number you think is ethical. But, if the market doesn't value you at that rate, then, well, it's only your opinion and you should jump ship and get yourself a job where your skills are more valuable.

You are not owed what you think a "living wage" is. You are owed only what someone is willing to pay. Why can't you understand this simple economic concept?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

PP, we aren't talking about charitable pay, we're talking about a living wage. That is something I believe everyone is entitled to, nanny or not, and so it is an ethical failing to choose to pay someone less than they need to live and you can afford, simply because you can. That is what Walmart does, and I'm positive you're better than them.

Actually, charitable pay is exactly what you are talking about. You think a certain wage is a "living wage", because you think it is and that is the number you think is ethical. But, if the market doesn't value you at that rate, then, well, it's only your opinion and you should jump ship and get yourself a job where your skills are more valuable.

You are not owed what you think a "living wage" is. You are owed only what someone is willing to pay. Why can't you understand this simple economic concept?

I understand the concept, I just disagree with it.