Illegal questions for nannies...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would think that age and nanny's children are relevant to the decision to hire someone. If they don't have the energy or physical ability to care for your toddlers, that's important. If they want to bring their child to work, they're necessarily distracted from the task for which they were hired. (which, btw, why is that ever considered ok in the nanny community?)

Believe it or not, some parents of only children actually want another child around.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Inappropriate questions are a clear indication of boundary issues. Beware.

This.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would think that age and nanny's children are relevant to the decision to hire someone. If they don't have the energy or physical ability to care for your toddlers, that's important. If they want to bring their child to work, they're necessarily distracted from the task for which they were hired. (which, btw, why is that ever considered ok in the nanny community?)

Believe it or not, some parents of only children actually want another child around.

Parents might want their child socialized, but if they're opting for private nanny care (not a share) then they are paying for individual one on one attention to their child(ren). They're not paying for the most expensive form of childcare in order to have their child(ren) get only part of the nanny's attention.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: Every nanny can produce her doctor's note
stating her fitness to perform as a nanny,
and decline to entertain any further questions
with regard to her ability to perform
her job related duties.

At which point, she can kiss any chance of that job good-bye.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would think that age and nanny's children are relevant to the decision to hire someone. If they don't have the energy or physical ability to care for your toddlers, that's important. If they want to bring their child to work, they're necessarily distracted from the task for which they were hired. (which, btw, why is that ever considered ok in the nanny community?)

Believe it or not, some parents of only children actually want another child around.

Parents might want their child socialized, but if they're opting for private nanny care (not a share) then they are paying for individual one on one attention to their child(ren). They're not paying for the most expensive form of childcare in order to have their child(ren) get only part of the nanny's attention.

Speak for yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would think that age and nanny's children are relevant to the decision to hire someone. If they don't have the energy or physical ability to care for your toddlers, that's important. If they want to bring their child to work, they're necessarily distracted from the task for which they were hired. (which, btw, why is that ever considered ok in the nanny community?)

Believe it or not, some parents of only children actually want another child around.

Parents might want their child socialized, but if they're opting for private nanny care (not a share) then they are paying for individual one on one attention to their child(ren). They're not paying for the most expensive form of childcare in order to have their child(ren) get only part of the nanny's attention.

Speak for yourself.

Aren't we all?

Getting to have another child around is pretty easy. You don't have to pay for the privilege.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Every nanny can produce her doctor's note
stating her fitness to perform as a nanny,
and decline to entertain any further questions
with regard to her ability to perform
her job related duties.

At which point, she can kiss any chance of that job good-bye.

That's for sure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Inappropriate questions are a clear indication of boundary issues. Beware.

This.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would think that age and nanny's children are relevant to the decision to hire someone. If they don't have the energy or physical ability to care for your toddlers, that's important. If they want to bring their child to work, they're necessarily distracted from the task for which they were hired. (which, btw, why is that ever considered ok in the nanny community?)

For smart parents (and nannies!), the primary task is to help raise the child in the best possible way.

Only the dumb ones think that means complete hovering over the child every. single. second.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would think that age and nanny's children are relevant to the decision to hire someone. If they don't have the energy or physical ability to care for your toddlers, that's important. If they want to bring their child to work, they're necessarily distracted from the task for which they were hired. (which, btw, why is that ever considered ok in the nanny community?)

For smart parents (and nannies!), the primary task is to help raise the child in the best possible way.

Only the dumb ones think that means complete hovering over the child every. single. second.

Why are you reviving a 1+ year old thread?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would think that age and nanny's children are relevant to the decision to hire someone. If they don't have the energy or physical ability to care for your toddlers, that's important. If they want to bring their child to work, they're necessarily distracted from the task for which they were hired. (which, btw, why is that ever considered ok in the nanny community?)

Believe it or not, some parents of only children actually want another child around.

Parents might want their child socialized, but if they're opting for private nanny care (not a share) then they are paying for individual one on one attention to their child(ren). They're not paying for the most expensive form of childcare in order to have their child(ren) get only part of the nanny's attention.

Speak for yourself.

Aren't we all?

Getting to have another child around is pretty easy. You don't have to pay for the privilege.

Making it a plus for both children is a skill few people have. If you can pull that off, you deserve to be well-compensated. Most parents consider it to be a daily struggle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This makes me angry. Why are we excluded from these laws, if we can all agree they are good laws. Why should we not be protected?

Activist parents don't want the help to have any protections.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This makes me angry. Why are we excluded from these laws, if we can all agree they are good laws. Why should we not be protected?

Republicans have been doing everything they can for four decades to harm workers and enrich billionaires. And then they lie about it on rightwing media. If Republicans actually wanted to help workers (they don't) then we'd have better laws for nannies and other domestic workers. Just keep in mind the problem isn't the lawyer family in DC making $300k a year. The problem is the billionaire who owns Fox News and makes 100 times that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This makes me angry. Why are we excluded from these laws, if we can all agree they are good laws. Why should we not be protected?

Republicans have been doing everything they can for four decades to harm workers and enrich billionaires. And then they lie about it on rightwing media. If Republicans actually wanted to help workers (they don't) then we'd have better laws for nannies and other domestic workers. Just keep in mind the problem isn't the lawyer family in DC making $300k a year. The problem is the billionaire who owns Fox News and makes 100 times that.

Wow. You’re a hateful liar. I’ve have quite a employers, and the Liberal ones took advantage of me the worst.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This makes me angry. Why are we excluded from these laws, if we can all agree they are good laws. Why should we not be protected?

Republicans have been doing everything they can for four decades to harm workers and enrich billionaires. And then they lie about it on rightwing media. If Republicans actually wanted to help workers (they don't) then we'd have better laws for nannies and other domestic workers. Just keep in mind the problem isn't the lawyer family in DC making $300k a year. The problem is the billionaire who owns Fox News and makes 100 times that.

Wow. You’re a hateful liar. I’ve have quite a employers, and the Liberal ones took advantage of me the worst.

*quite a few...