Nannies with children

[Anonymous]

The smartest MBs don't take time from their families to post here.

[Anonymous]

I have been lucky enough to bring my children with me for two different families. My children are not close in age to each other at all so I've only brought one at a time. The first family my son was close in age to her children. We were both single moms and I required to work overnights often. It was understood from the beginning that my son would be with me. It worked pretty well, but issues did come up with rules etc. MB and I were very open and the kids are all now teenagers and still friends.

I currently bring my 2yo with me. I have been with this family for 5 years and hadn't planned on continuing to work after LO was born, but the replacement nanny didn't work out. I know MB would never allow another nanny to bring their child. It was a concession so that I would return. I am also incredibly lucky that I am still paid my full rate even with my son there. Having your own child come to work with you takes negotiation on everyone's part. If you are lucky enough to find a family who allows it, know you are lucky and don't take advantage of the situation. The PP who said her nanny insisted on napping with her child, ugh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you have child(ren) that aren't school aged do you bring them to work with you? If not, what are your child care arrangements? How do you feel if you can't bring your child to work but your caring for other kids. I currently bring my son but he's 7 months and the kids are school aged. Between household duties and after school activities it's becoming a lot to handle. I'm thinking of putting my son in care pt but I feel guilty!

Every working mother feels guilty. Do what you have to do to support your household.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It would be like if you were a doctor and instead of having your kids treated at your practice or by a pediatrician you're friends with, you sent them to the emergency clinic around the block. Or a lawyer leaving their pot-possessing kid to navigate the legal system on their own. You use your skills to better the lives of your children, whenever and wherever you can. My skill is caring for children, why would I want someone else to care for mine?!

The answer to your much-punctuated question would generally be "so I can keep my children fed and clothed". Never mind, you do what you like with your own children. But your assumption that nannies who leave their own kids in someone else's care while they go to work are somehow short-changing their babies is both short-sighted and insulting to women who earn an honest and good living providing childcare.

Your doctor and lawyer comparisons make zero sense. If a pediatrician treats no one else but their kids all day long, she won't have much of a practice soon. If a lawyer does nothing all day but defends their own kids in court, well, that may be a better option than a public defender, but it's also unsustainable financially.

Again, your basic issue is that someone else's kids get something better than yours, and they happen to get it from you. Tell me - do cooks at Le Bernardin get to feel resentful as they prepare these foie-gras-studded meals? No cook can afford a steady diet of ingredients they get to play with at work, after all.

The comparison I made was meant to illustrate that people use their skills to improve the lives of their children. If you are skilled in the medical field, it is a safe bet your kid will receive some high-quality healthcare. If you are skilled in the law, your teenagers are likely to benefit from that by increased understanding and (hopefully never needed) access to attorneys. If you are a skilled chef, your kids will grow up eating healthy and well-prepared meals and being comfortable with new foods.

Me? I am skilled in caring for kids. I am trained in their emotional, linguistic, and physical development. I am experienced in using positive discipline, in sleep training infants, and in potty training toddlers. How could I possibly feel good having someone else do all of those things with my children while I offer those SAME skills to someone else? Your kids will have the benefit of a good nanny (professional caregiver) and probably two professional parents who'll bring their own skills to their lives - doctoring, lawyering, politicking, whatever. Mine would have what, exactly?

Why is it that you can't offer these same things to your child even though you are away from them for some daytime hours? Can you not do this on the weekends, in the evenings?

I also hate how everyone is assuming that other childcare is subpar as well! I know families that have had children thrive more in a daycare setting that had a great person come in and teach lessons to the kids each day, compared to a nanny that just took the kids to the park and to other activities like music class, reading at the library and a toddler gym. The daycare did all of these things with them as well, the children didn't suffer from being at the daycare. They learned social skills, played outside and indoors with different play structures and toys, had music time, reading, started learning education stuff every day. You put a kid from a daycare like this up against one that was raised with a nanny, and you cannot say that the one with the nanny did any better. If anything, I have seen kids with nannies learn to rely on the nanny much more and have a harder time getting used to not having an adult as a permanent play friend. They seem to always want an adult doing something with them compared to other kids that will seek out more independent play or want a CHILD to play with them.

[Anonymous]

I'm also not liking the assumption that just because a child is in daycare, then it is 'subpar'. I'm a nanny, but of course I would be wrong to assume that all nannies are better than daycares. I don't know if pps are saying that to make nannies look better, but to me it's absolutely not true. There are positives and negatives to both.

[Anonymous]

I assume this thread was meant to be commentary on MBs, but I find it insulting to nannies. They are hard working skilled individuals, and I presume that they invest the same energy I did in deciding what care was (a) affordable for my family, and (b) best for my child. For anyone to say otherwise and imply these women give their children "less" by being a nanny is a simplistic and narrow view. Also, what's up with this race business? Black MB here, have hired white nanny with a little girl, now have a mixed nanny with no kids when white nanny moved. So what? Does that somehow make the people posting about poor brown nannies caring for rich white babies feel better? If so, you're ridiculous. If not, stop complaining about race. Your point is less effective for it (not that it was all that great to start), and this isn't a place for re-debating the plot of "The Help."

[Anonymous]

1. A nanny position is a job or profession like any other job. A woman may choose to work out of desire, economic necessity, or other reasons. She and her partner, not her employer, is responsible for finding the right childcare. The nanny is an adult.

2. If economic necessity isn't the driver, it is hard for people to understand why someone would desire to do something so similar with another child rather than their own. A teacher for example is with kids but doing classroom instruction not one on one care. Its understandable why a teacher would go to back work even if money was not needed but a nanny is less understandable. I don't think there are many nannies working who do not have an economic need to work.

[Anonymous]

My nanny has family who can watch her kids. For free. She could stay home with them if she wanted to, but she and her husband have decided it's better for them to earn two fulltime salaries. I think a lot of nannies with kids have an option other than daycare.

[Anonymous]

The comparison I made was meant to illustrate that people use their skills to improve the lives of their children. If you are skilled in the medical field, it is a safe bet your kid will receive some high-quality healthcare. If you are skilled in the law, your teenagers are likely to benefit from that by increased understanding and (hopefully never needed) access to attorneys. If you are a skilled chef, your kids will grow up eating healthy and well-prepared meals and being comfortable with new foods.

Me? I am skilled in caring for kids. I am trained in their emotional, linguistic, and physical development. I am experienced in using positive discipline, in sleep training infants, and in potty training toddlers. How could I possibly feel good having someone else do all of those things with my children while I offer those SAME skills to someone else? Your kids will have the benefit of a good nanny (professional caregiver) and probably two professional parents who'll bring their own skills to their lives - doctoring, lawyering, politicking, whatever. Mine would have what, exactly?

They would have food, clothing, and shelter. Nannying is a job. If you can afford to stay home with those skills and have your child benefit, good for you. Most people, though, need to work to meet all the needs of their families. I think it's pretty insulting to nannies to disrespect their choice to work at what they are skilled at and interested in because you think they should be at home.

[Anonymous]

The same posters bitching about not being able to bring kids to a nanny position would blow up if parents chose to never hire nannies with kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm also not liking the assumption that just because a child is in daycare, then it is 'subpar'. I'm a nanny, but of course I would be wrong to assume that all nannies are better than daycares. I don't know if pps are saying that to make nannies look better, but to me it's absolutely not true. There are positives and negatives to both.

What I mean is : any care anyone else gives to my child is not as good as the care I could provide. Nannies are the most expensive form of child are for a reason: they provide the most attentive care with the lowest ratios. A nanny can't afford her own so her child will attend a daycare, which would be fine if she weren't a nanny. She is perfectly capable of performing her job with her child present and it benefits not just the nanny but ALSO HER CHILD. Or we only care about the quality of care rich kids get?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm also not liking the assumption that just because a child is in daycare, then it is 'subpar'. I'm a nanny, but of course I would be wrong to assume that all nannies are better than daycares. I don't know if pps are saying that to make nannies look better, but to me it's absolutely not true. There are positives and negatives to both.

What I mean is : any care anyone else gives to my child is not as good as the care I could provide. Nannies are the most expensive form of child are for a reason: they provide the most attentive care with the lowest ratios. A nanny can't afford her own so her child will attend a daycare, which would be fine if she weren't a nanny. She is perfectly capable of performing her job with her child present and it benefits not just the nanny but ALSO HER CHILD. Or we only care about the quality of care rich kids get?

You are conflating your personal and professional roles. The reason you are the best form of care for your child is not because you are a nanny, it's because you are his or her mother. A lawyer, banker, teacher, nurse, drywall hanger is likewise the best form of care for their children, even though they happen to do something other than childcare for a living. You do not provide better care than a mother, no matter what the mother's job is. So let's stop with this nonsense that you, because of your line of work, have this very special entitlement to have your child with you. Any working mother leaves her child in someone else's care. If you want to call this sad, that's fine, but it's doesn't become extra super special sad because the working mother in question is a nanny.

[Anonymous]

Last year, Paul Piff, a psychologist at UC Berkeley, published research that correlated wealth with an increase in unethical behavior: “While having money doesn’t necessarily make anybody anything,” Piff later told New York magazine, “the rich are way more likely to prioritize their own self-interests above the interests of other people.” They are, he continued, “more likely to exhibit characteristics that we would stereotypically associate with, say, assholes.” Colorful statements aside, Piff’s research on the giving habits of different social classes—while not directly refuting the asshole theory—suggests that other, more complex factors are at work. In a series of controlled experiments, lower-income people and people who identified themselves as being on a relatively low social rung were consistently more generous with limited goods than upper-class participants were.*

Food for thought, for some.

*The quote is from an article in The Atlantic about how people in the bottom 20% of earners donate a higher percentage (3.2%) of their income to charity than the top 20% donate from theirs (1.3%).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Last year, Paul Piff, a psychologist at UC Berkeley, published research that correlated wealth with an increase in unethical behavior: “While having money doesn’t necessarily make anybody anything,” Piff later told New York magazine, “the rich are way more likely to prioritize their own self-interests above the interests of other people.” They are, he continued, “more likely to exhibit characteristics that we would stereotypically associate with, say, assholes.” Colorful statements aside, Piff’s research on the giving habits of different social classes—while not directly refuting the asshole theory—suggests that other, more complex factors are at work. In a series of controlled experiments, lower-income people and people who identified themselves as being on a relatively low social rung were consistently more generous with limited goods than upper-class participants were.*

Food for thought, for some.

*The quote is from an article in The Atlantic about how people in the bottom 20% of earners donate a higher percentage (3.2%) of their income to charity than the top 20% donate from theirs (1.3%).

We see this played out on this board all the time. So many of the parents here have a true inability to see beyond their own desires, and have a laundry list of reasons why its perfectly okay for them to behave this way. They don't see their nannies as worthwhile people, worthy of the same level of respect as anyone else, but rather a tool they can use to suit their whims. Like the MB who is going on an extra vacation this year and wants to know if she make nanny work extra hours to make up for it, and worse yet the MBs who said yeah sure! Or just take it from her "bonus" *wink* *wink*.

[Anonymous]

Yes! And before anyone defensively says "but we donated xyz to charity!" this is a greater issue of how the rich view the world and their fellow human beings in it, not SPECIFICALLY how much you donate or pay your nanny etc

Not being able to see your nanny's children as equally deserving of her care as your kids are is one of many illustrations of this