Am I Expecting Too Much From My Nanny?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, I think you have been overly generous from the get-go and your nanny sees no reason to extend herself in any way for you. Why should she? You are way overpaying (you should not be paying her for 8 extra hours not worked every week) and giving her significant perks. The birthday gift was too much given how long she'd been with you. We learned all this the hard way. I would have a sit down talk with her and explain that duties will change as time goes on, baby food clearly falls under her general duties, and you expect her to take this on. She should do this without batting an eye and the fact that she won't is concerning.

Insane post. OP is paying $5 less an hour than I am and in no overpaying her nanny. A nanny is not a child. OP should actually talk to her nanny and tell her that this is part of her duties.

[Anonymous]

OP, it may be that she has a hangup about this specific duty (i.e., she just does not cook, ever), or it may be a job creep paranoia issue, or she may just be lazy. You need to talk with her further to determine which is the case.

“Larla, I was a little taken aback when I asked you to help prepare food for Baby and you were unwilling to take that on. Can you tell me more about what you were thinking and feeling?”

Listen for a bit.

Follow up with questions:
“Do you feel that your current list of duties is appropriate for your compensation?”
“How do you see your role changing as Baby grows?”

Depending on how it goes you will likely feel much more certain about whether you want to work things out with her or move on.

I will add: the pressure others are putting on younto move on “while you still can!!!” is a little absurd. She is a 32-hour-per-week nanny, not the primary attachment figure. While it is certainly easier to make changes when nanny is still new and when child is not in the middle of a separation anxiety bout, for a position like yours it is the difference between taking 2-3 weeks to fully adjust or 4-6 weeks. Either way, it will be a blip in the grand scheme of childhood.

[Anonymous]

This response is so insulting. Do you seriously think that a nanny works for perks like a trained dog? While I certainly think this nanny should include making baby food in her duties, I promise you that she is not not doing it because there were too many perks. This nanny accepted the position offered.

Nannies work for compensation, which equals pay and other perks, so yes, a nanny's perks should reflect her contributions/value in the position. This is similar to all jobs in the marketplace where compensation is merit-based. It should not be insulting to anyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

This response is so insulting. Do you seriously think that a nanny works for perks like a trained dog? While I certainly think this nanny should include making baby food in her duties, I promise you that she is not not doing it because there were too many perks. This nanny accepted the position offered.

Nannies work for compensation, which equals pay and other perks, so yes, a nanny's perks should reflect her contributions/value in the position. This is similar to all jobs in the marketplace where compensation is merit-based. It should not be insulting to anyone.

Agreed. The point people are making here is that the way to attract a terrific nanny isn’t always the same as the way to keep a terrific nanny. To attract a terrific nanny, your compensation needs to be market-competitive and you need to be respectful, up front and not crazy. To KEEP a nanny, add perks specifically as a way to acknowledge her awesomeness and be appreciative and considerate. If your job has over-the-top perks from the get-go then a) you have no room to thank her later with added perks and b) you are going to attract lazy princess types. As a pretty phenomenal nanny myself, I would be heaistant to take a job in Great Falls (which tends to be a little isolated and spread out), with only one infant and nothing else to do. Sounds boring as hell. I joke with my bosses that someday when I retire I will nanny for just one baby. The kind of nanny who jumps at this job is going to be someone who can sell herself well but doesn’t actually want to do too much.

[Anonymous]

As a nanny, I assume making baby food to be one of my duties, even if it is not specifically listed in the contract. It is impossible to list every single thing in the contract. Making baby food is still childcare for which she was hired - with a lovely package, too. Is she going to refuse to take him to the park when he walks because it wasn't part of her original duties?

You need to talk to her to try to figure out why she refused. If she is adamant that it isn't part of her work, ask her about potential new changes to her duties when the baby is older, and how she envisions this? Tbh she sounds lazy... so if she maintains that her duties cannot be changed over time, I would say get rid of her and hire someone who understands that baby's needs change over time, and so will her duties.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

This response is so insulting. Do you seriously think that a nanny works for perks like a trained dog? While I certainly think this nanny should include making baby food in her duties, I promise you that she is not not doing it because there were too many perks. This nanny accepted the position offered.

Nannies work for compensation, which equals pay and other perks, so yes, a nanny's perks should reflect her contributions/value in the position. This is similar to all jobs in the marketplace where compensation is merit-based. It should not be insulting to anyone.

I am a well-paid nanny who enjoys many perks in my current position. I go over and above my duties daily because doing so is in the best interest of my charge - not to get more perks. I am not a trained dog who jumps for treats.

Yes, I agree that this is insulting.

[Anonymous]

If you to get rid of her you can hire I’m looking for a new family I have 20 years of experience.

[Anonymous]

It's not hard to be "amazing" with a 4 month old baby.
It's not rocket science.
She should be making the baby food if you want her to.
Find a new nanny. There are plenty of "amazing" baby nannies that will make baby food.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's not hard to be "amazing" with a 4 month old baby.
It's not rocket science.
She should be making the baby food if you want her to.
Find a new nanny. There are plenty of "amazing" baby nannies that will make baby food.

also think long and hard about ALL the duties you want your next nanny to do. Definitely add more tasks to the list to make your life easier- use the 40 hours if you're paying for it.
Employees just don't like when you add tasks or responsibilities after they are hired. They feel like you are taking advantage, even though you simply didn't think far enough ahead.

[Anonymous]

OP, there's no reason you can't schedule the extra 8 hours as non-childcare duties, as long as the hours are still used for the child's environment. If she has had Fridays off, let her know that you will now be using those hours. Fridays are the day when she needs to change the crib sheet and do the baby's laundry, go shopping and make baby food for the next week, sterilize toys, pull anything the baby no longer needs or clothes which don't fit, order (or update) the supplies the baby needs (diapers, wipes, formula, lotion, shampoo), etc. Any leftover time may be used at the house to look up classes for when the baby is 6 months, look up play groups, generally look up articles about early childhood. If she argues, she's gone. Find someone else who welcomes 32 hours childcare with very little child-related cleaning, and who also won't mind one day of other tasks, still related to their charge. I know that I would LOVE to have certain hours set aside every week solely to do those types of things!

[Anonymous]

Making baby food IS part of the job. Your benefits for your comp package is good. 6 month olds are EASY. They sleep a lot. I’d get a new nanny.

[Anonymous]

$23 an hour, 40 hours pay? She better be amazing. I think the ability to speak English fluently is necessary only after 1.5 years, frankly. Unless your HHI is so high $50k in nanny costs is no big deal.

I’m considering upping the hourly to $22 but mine also does light housework, preschool drop offs for older child. Her English is okay, some grammatical errors. It has not hindered either child.

[Anonymous]

I suppose this should have been asked earlier on, but in what ways has she been "amazing," that would justify this generous compensation package in light of the unwillingness to be flexible in regards to her duties? At this point, I would be reviewing the contract to be sure that future needs are not outside the contract, things like driving the child to classes, appointments, toilet training. Baby food is sort of a short stage. Your child will probably be eating finger foods in 5 months. But this "no can do" attitude is a concern as the child's and your needs evolve. What happens if there is another child down the road?

What if you ask her to work the 40 hours instead of only 32? Will she balk at that?

Bottom line: She has an unusually cushy job now. Just because you are well off financially doesn't mean you should allow yourself to be taken advantage of.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is job creep, OP. Cut it out now if you will lose a very good nanny.

Making baby food is totally acceptable job creep!

OP, I would talk to her about why you want her to do it. Our nanny has been with us since our twins were born and they're now 4.5, so a lot has changed in that time. She has transitioned flawlessly from one stage to the next, and even offered when they started daycare to start cleaning our house in place of our maid. If you're getting push back about that at this stage, just imagine how the next few years are going to go. Kids' needs change so much in the first couple of years, so her job needs to change as well. If she's not willing to do that, find another nanny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are you paying her for 32 hours when she is only working 40?

I mean the reverse, obviously.

We pay our nanny for more hours than she works as well. She needs a livable salary, and we didn't want her to be stretched thin with two jobs, so we paid her enough so that she only had to have one. She's happier and healthier than she's ever been (she was working 10-12 hours a day and babysitting most nights and every weekend before working for us), and, as a consequence, she's amazing and our kids love her.