s/o where are the $16-$20 jobs??

[Anonymous]

I make 25/ hr, one child, no housekeeping.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:19:01 The point that several employers are making is that you don't get a better nanny for $2-$4 more, you get an equal or more often a weaker nanny. I saw the same thing when I was interviewing. Many of the candidates asking for higher amounts had far fewer qualifications and/or good responses to questions than candidates who were asking in the $15 range. I also interviewed a few less experienced candidates that were looking for $12 but had better responses than the ones claiming to be the best. By less experience, I mean 2 years instead of 5-7 years not first time nanny job or just one year of experience.

I have a good amount of work experience hiring employees at different levels. I've learned never to just take what is on a resume as fact. I've learned that you need to conduct a thorough interview, make sure the candidate did what they actually claimed on the resume, question job history red flags, and verify that references are legit. The candidates asking for higher salaries had quite a few issues backing up what they put on a paper. A few were clearly fake. A few didn't realize that being in your early 20s with a community college degree, some short stints at preschools and some babysitting experience isn't the threshold for a high paying nanny job. A few that did have long job histories and job experience really couldn't hide their bitterness at former employers when they were drawn into a longer conversation. If you problems with most of your employers, chances are you are the problem. Interviewing for a nanny was an eye opening experience. I can see how MBs who don't have any hiring experience would fall for some of the candidates out there.

Of course you don't automatically get better if you pay more. One need not be especially trained to understand basic common sense. However, when one engages in due diligence, one normally finds better qualified candidates for better paid positions. This typically applies across the board in every field.

No ones denies anecdotal instances of an individual who feels her extraordinary competence is worthy of only average compensation. Perhaps she does her work more as a charity, rather than a means to climb the financial ladder of success. We cannot know each person's personal motivations or circumstances.

I can't imagine why some mb's don't get this, but many do. Thank goodness. They are the ones with fewer complaints on this board.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

19:01 The point that several employers are making is that you don't get a better nanny for $2-$4 more, you get an equal or more often a weaker nanny. I saw the same thing when I was interviewing. Many of the candidates asking for higher amounts had far fewer qualifications and/or good responses to questions than candidates who were asking in the $15 range. I also interviewed a few less experienced candidates that were looking for $12 but had better responses than the ones claiming to be the best. By less experience, I mean 2 years instead of 5-7 years not first time nanny job or just one year of experience.

I have a good amount of work experience hiring employees at different levels. I've learned never to just take what is on a resume as fact. I've learned that you need to conduct a thorough interview, make sure the candidate did what they actually claimed on the resume, question job history red flags, and verify that references are legit. The candidates asking for higher salaries had quite a few issues backing up what they put on a paper. A few were clearly fake. A few didn't realize that being in your early 20s with a community college degree, some short stints at preschools and some babysitting experience isn't the threshold for a high paying nanny job. A few that did have long job histories and job experience really couldn't hide their bitterness at former employers when they were drawn into a longer conversation. If you problems with most of your employers, chances are you are the problem. Interviewing for a nanny was an eye opening experience. I can see how MBs who don't have any hiring experience would fall for some of the candidates out there.

Very well said. I can't imagine why nannies here don't seem to understand this.

We understand that there are exceptions to every rule, but why do you propose that nannying is the only field in which the best candidates would be universally cheaper than the weaker candidates? I don't believe that at all. Like another PP said, if you do your due diligence you will find, on the whole, that there are better candidates vying for better paying positions - in any profession. Nannies included.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

19:01 The point that several employers are making is that you don't get a better nanny for $2-$4 more, you get an equal or more often a weaker nanny. I saw the same thing when I was interviewing. Many of the candidates asking for higher amounts had far fewer qualifications and/or good responses to questions than candidates who were asking in the $15 range. I also interviewed a few less experienced candidates that were looking for $12 but had better responses than the ones claiming to be the best. By less experience, I mean 2 years instead of 5-7 years not first time nanny job or just one year of experience.

I have a good amount of work experience hiring employees at different levels. I've learned never to just take what is on a resume as fact. I've learned that you need to conduct a thorough interview, make sure the candidate did what they actually claimed on the resume, question job history red flags, and verify that references are legit. The candidates asking for higher salaries had quite a few issues backing up what they put on a paper. A few were clearly fake. A few didn't realize that being in your early 20s with a community college degree, some short stints at preschools and some babysitting experience isn't the threshold for a high paying nanny job. A few that did have long job histories and job experience really couldn't hide their bitterness at former employers when they were drawn into a longer conversation. If you problems with most of your employers, chances are you are the problem. Interviewing for a nanny was an eye opening experience. I can see how MBs who don't have any hiring experience would fall for some of the candidates out there.

Very well said. I can't imagine why nannies here don't seem to understand this.

We understand that there are exceptions to every rule, but why do you propose that nannying is the only field in which the best candidates would be universally cheaper than the weaker candidates? I don't believe that at all. Like another PP said, if you do your due diligence
you will find, on the whole, that there are better candidates vying for better paying positions - in any profession. Nannies included.

Well said.