Nanny pay when nanny brings her own child to work

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The top nannies will continue to earn high rates, with or without their own child.

Exactly.

A top nanny with child is worth less than the same nanny without.

Maybe, but no two nannies are identical, neither are any two parents identical. One nanny is always the overall preferred nanny by any particular parent.

On the other hand, just think of how many parents have a second child, just so the first one doesn't get spoiled rotten. I've had parents tell me they specifically wanted a nanny with child for that very reason.

Parents who are so bent on having a second child might as well just have it. Besides, it's not like company of small children is difficult to get. There are playdates, schoolmates, neighbors - no need to rent a baby by hiring its mother, especially when it's a virtual certainty that both baby and mother will eventually be gone from that child's life.

I also think parents don't have a second child JUST so that the first one doesn't get spoiled. There are usually quite a few more factors at play.

That's not to say that a nanny with child won't be able to find a good gig. Just that it will be progressively more difficult, and her options won't be abundant.

You sound angry and resentful. Why?

[Anonymous]

My nanny brought along her toddler daughter for a trial week after her MIL could no longer watch her for free. It was a disaster. The nanny's child hated sharing her mother with our twin babies and acted up constantly trying to get her attention. She regressed and wanted bottles like the babies and took away whatever toy they had started playing with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My nanny brought along her toddler daughter for a trial week after her MIL could no longer watch her for free. It was a disaster. The nanny's child hated sharing her mother with our twin babies and acted up constantly trying to get her attention. She regressed and wanted bottles like the babies and took away whatever toy they had started playing with.

Interesting. It was nice of you to allow this, but I'm a nanny to twins and I can't imagine how much it would complicate things to introduce a toddler into the picture, let alone a toddler who's mother is the nanny of said twins! I'm curious what happened; did you part ways with the nanny, or did she find another care arrangement for her child?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My nanny brought along her toddler daughter for a trial week after her MIL could no longer watch her for free. It was a disaster. The nanny's child hated sharing her mother with our twin babies and acted up constantly trying to get her attention. She regressed and wanted bottles like the babies and took away whatever toy they had started playing with.

Interesting. It was nice of you to allow this, but I'm a nanny to twins and I can't imagine how much it would complicate things to introduce a toddler into the picture, let alone a toddler who's mother is the nanny of said twins! I'm curious what happened; did you part ways with the nanny, or did she find another care arrangement for her child?

Our nanny had her husband pick up her daughter before the day's end without any input from me since it was going badly. They put her in day care after the husband tried to watch her unsucessfully at his business. We ended up parting ways after one year due to the nanny wanting a substantial increase in pay to cover the cost of daycare. That was more than we could afford and had agreed upon when she was hired so we parted ways amicably.

[Anonymous]

Someone wrote a book about poor women who abandon their own little children to watch a rich person's child for long hours.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Someone wrote a book about poor women who abandon their own little children to watch a rich person's child for long hours.

Someone also wrote a song about a dad who abandoned his son to work long hours for a living, only to find out that his son grew up to be just like him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Someone wrote a book about poor women who abandon their own little children to watch a rich person's child for long hours.

If not for that rich person, these poor women would have stayed poor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Someone wrote a book about poor women who abandon their own little children to watch a rich person's child for long hours.

If not for that rich person, these poor women would have stayed poor.

Is that what you tell yourself to justify the low wages you pay her? If so, shame on you.

[Anonymous]

AnyMB who hires a nanny with a child could have the pants sued off them if the child gets hurt in their house/car. Doesn't matter how well family and nanny get along now. A family's risk tolerance would have to be pretty high to overlook losing their home, their savings and their time given that there are no tangible benefits to the family at all of adding an extra child (other than cost savings)

On the topic of salary-Families do nanny shares because you pay a lot less when more kids are present (ie-10 per hour per family vs 15-20 for a single family)

If a nanny brings her kid, her rate goes down by as much as 30-40%. That is the only thing that makes the situation remotely attractive given the potential risk....

[Anonymous]

If the nanny's child were the same age as her charges, it would make sense. If you only had one child and wanted your child to have the experience of being around another child everyday, it might be okay for the child to be a few years younger or older to simulate a sibling relationship. But the only way that you would pay the same amount to a nanny who was bringing her child would be if you wanted her child there and actively screened for someone who was willing to do that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:AnyMB who hires a nanny with a child could have the pants sued off them if the child gets hurt in their house/car. Doesn't matter how well family and nanny get along now. A family's risk tolerance would have to be pretty high to overlook losing their home, their savings and their time given that there are no tangible benefits to the family at all of adding an extra child (other than cost savings)

On the topic of salary-Families do nanny shares because you pay a lot less when more kids are present (ie-10 per hour per family vs 15-20 for a single family)

If a nanny brings her kid, her rate goes down by as much as 30-40%. That is the only thing that makes the situation remotely attractive given the potential risk....

Is your fear tactic of the nanny bringing her own child based on any actual fact? No.

On the contrary, the share scenario poses the real law suit potential for the hosting family. You aren't too bright, my friend. Furthermore, you should really mention which town you speak of, as the laws are not uniform in the greater DC area.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AnyMB who hires a nanny with a child could have the pants sued off them if the child gets hurt in their house/car. Doesn't matter how well family and nanny get along now. A family's risk tolerance would have to be pretty high to overlook losing their home, their savings and their time given that there are no tangible benefits to the family at all of adding an extra child (other than cost savings)

On the topic of salary-Families do nanny shares because you pay a lot less when more kids are present (ie-10 per hour per family vs 15-20 for a single family)

If a nanny brings her kid, her rate goes down by as much as 30-40%. That is the only thing that makes the situation remotely attractive given the potential risk....

Is your fear tactic of the nanny bringing her own child based on any actual fact? No.

On the contrary, the share scenario poses the real law suit potential for the hosting family. You aren't too bright, my friend. Furthermore, you should really mention which town you speak of, as the laws are not uniform in the greater DC area.

This is not true. A share child is an "invited guest" of the homeowner who would be covered by homeowners insurance whereas an employee bringing another client (here her own child) is not. At least, that was how the law was explained to me when I looked into this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hi, OP here. I am the employer. A person I interviewed today (who is great, by the way) wants to bring her 5 month old daughter. I am not opposed to it, my kids are 7 and 8 but she said her rate is $17 an hour, but I was thinking more along the lines of $14 or $15 an hour if she is bringing her own child.

$17 an hour is ridiculous for that. The majority of her time will be spent with her own baby.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AnyMB who hires a nanny with a child could have the pants sued off them if the child gets hurt in their house/car. Doesn't matter how well family and nanny get along now. A family's risk tolerance would have to be pretty high to overlook losing their home, their savings and their time given that there are no tangible benefits to the family at all of adding an extra child (other than cost savings)

On the topic of salary-Families do nanny shares because you pay a lot less when more kids are present (ie-10 per hour per family vs 15-20 for a single family)

If a nanny brings her kid, her rate goes down by as much as 30-40%. That is the only thing that makes the situation remotely attractive given the potential risk....

Is your fear tactic of the nanny bringing her own child based on any actual fact? No.

On the contrary, the share scenario poses the real law suit potential for the hosting family. You aren't too bright, my friend. Furthermore, you should really mention which town you speak of, as the laws are not uniform in the greater DC area.

This is not true. A share child is an "invited guest" of the homeowner who would be covered by homeowners insurance whereas an employee bringing another client (here her own child) is not. At least, that was how the law was explained to me when I looked into this.

What "law" explained it to you like that? Link? What town?
Never mind, I'll just say it:
You are astoundingly stupid. Sorry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:AnyMB who hires a nanny with a child could have the pants sued off them if the child gets hurt in their house/car. Doesn't matter how well family and nanny get along now. A family's risk tolerance would have to be pretty high to overlook losing their home, their savings and their time given that there are no tangible benefits to the family at all of adding an extra child (other than cost savings)

On the topic of salary-Families do nanny shares because you pay a lot less when more kids are present (ie-10 per hour per family vs 15-20 for a single family)

If a nanny brings her kid, her rate goes down by as much as 30-40%. That is the only thing that makes the situation remotely attractive given the potential risk....

Is your fear tactic of the nanny bringing her own child based on any actual fact? No.

On the contrary, the share scenario poses the real law suit potential for the hosting family. You aren't too bright, my friend. Furthermore, you should really mention which town you speak of, as the laws are not uniform in the greater DC area.

This is not true. A share child is an "invited guest" of the homeowner who would be covered by homeowners insurance whereas an employee bringing another client (here her own child) is not. At least, that was how the law was explained to me when I looked into this.

What "law" explained it to you like that? Link? What town?
Never mind, I'll just say it:
You are astoundingly stupid. Sorry.

Actually, PP is mostly correct. Where she might be incorrect is whether a share child would be considered an invited guest by her insurance company.