Message
Anonymous wrote:nannydebsays wrote:PP or PP's who have spent so much time complaining about the INA:
Perhaps you (all) should channel your energies into creating the nanny-only organization that you so desperately seem to want.
With all the passionate kvetching you've done here, you could instead have already completed paperwork to file as a business or a non-profit, started a publicity campaign, and elected a board of directors.
Why not address the problems being raised? Are you saying you feel it's hopeless and it will continue to be "business as usual"? The agency conflict of interest issue, for instance, is bound to explode as more and more nannies become informed.
If you have as a goal forcing the INA to completely change the way they operate because you, or 100 or 10000 people feel the way they operate is wrong, then yes, your goal is unachievable, and your cause is hopeless.
If you have as a goal establishing a new "nanny only" group that you and your fellow 100 or 10000 people who hate the INA will run without any agency involvement, you should go for it, get that new professional organization started, and let us all know the name, the names of the board of directors, and the membership requirements, organization rules, how the org will be funded, who the ubiquitous "lobbyists" will be, why your org is worth supporting...that is an amazing goal, and I would never dream of calling it "hopeless" because I like people who think big.
So, yeah, you have a lot to do if you're going to take a stand for change. Time to stop moaning about what you can't change, and doing something about what you might be able to change.
PP or PP's who have spent so much time complaining about the INA:
Perhaps you (all) should channel your energies into creating the nanny-only organization that you so desperately seem to want.
With all the passionate kvetching you've done here, you could instead have already completed paperwork to file as a business or a non-profit, started a publicity campaign, and elected a board of directors.
Perhaps you (all) should channel your energies into creating the nanny-only organization that you so desperately seem to want.
With all the passionate kvetching you've done here, you could instead have already completed paperwork to file as a business or a non-profit, started a publicity campaign, and elected a board of directors.
Care.com ad today offering a whopping $850/MONTH to care for a newborn 8 - 9 hours a day, 5 days a week. They'd up the pay to $950/MONTH if you also did grocery shopping, ran errands, and did housework.
It's not just that new parents are clueless, it's that care.com doesn't HELP clue them in. Care does NOT mandate minimum wage, they allow parents to offer $5 - $10/hour.[b] And care also offers a badly worded check box system for nannies to use that allows us to "ask" to be paid legally.
I'm no IT expert, but hard freaking hard could it be to do the following:
1) When parents want to post a job, the first thing they see from care after a basic registration page is care's "babysitter rate calculator" - there's a clue for the clueless right there - rates in your area are $12/hour? Don't post a $2/hour job!
2) When you post your job, you have to read and choose what pay option you will offer. Illegal pay will be called just that, and a warning will be included about IRS laws, FLSA laws, etc.
3) There is NO OPTION to choose wages below federal minimum. To cover care's a$$ on occasional work or true babysitter jobs, offer a "negotiable market rate" ticky box.
4) Allow caregivers to "review" families that offer illegal wages or refuse to pay legally. Nothing long needed, just more ticky boxes.
It's not just that new parents are clueless, it's that care.com doesn't HELP clue them in. Care does NOT mandate minimum wage, they allow parents to offer $5 - $10/hour.[b] And care also offers a badly worded check box system for nannies to use that allows us to "ask" to be paid legally.
I'm no IT expert, but hard freaking hard could it be to do the following:
1) When parents want to post a job, the first thing they see from care after a basic registration page is care's "babysitter rate calculator" - there's a clue for the clueless right there - rates in your area are $12/hour? Don't post a $2/hour job!
2) When you post your job, you have to read and choose what pay option you will offer. Illegal pay will be called just that, and a warning will be included about IRS laws, FLSA laws, etc.
3) There is NO OPTION to choose wages below federal minimum. To cover care's a$$ on occasional work or true babysitter jobs, offer a "negotiable market rate" ticky box.
4) Allow caregivers to "review" families that offer illegal wages or refuse to pay legally. Nothing long needed, just more ticky boxes.
IMO, switching monthly is better for all involved. Daily switching will be tough on the parents, since they would be responsible for packing all the equipment up and getting it from house to house and back again!
After realizing that a former employer tended to leave:
half-drunk bottles/sippies of milk, soiled wipes, open snack packages, and, on one memorable occasion, an outfit the child had poop-exploded all over
In her diaper bag, I insisted on having and using my own and politely asked that they not (freaking) TOUCH it, since I always left it stocked and they...didn't do the same for theirs.
half-drunk bottles/sippies of milk, soiled wipes, open snack packages, and, on one memorable occasion, an outfit the child had poop-exploded all over
In her diaper bag, I insisted on having and using my own and politely asked that they not (freaking) TOUCH it, since I always left it stocked and they...didn't do the same for theirs.
Right now, you need to sit down and talk about a contract. Guaranteed hours are not a plush benefit, they are a basic benefit that is reality based. YOUR choice to leave town, you pay nanny just like you'd pay daycare of any type.
If you don't settle these issues now with a detailed contract, you will have more issues pop up down the line.
If you don't settle these issues now with a detailed contract, you will have more issues pop up down the line.
An honest question (actually several questions) for the poster(s) who seem intent on complaining about INA:
What would you do differently?
How would you run a nanny only organization?
How would you fund it?
What would you choose to do with the "voice" a professional organization gave you and your board members?
How much time would you devote to running your professional group?
Would you present conferences?
I'm sincerely curious. As someone who volunteers my time to run a local support group and also present a local conference, I find that I simply can't find the time to do more than I do now. As I mentioned in a previous post, many nannies work 50+ hours a week, already do volunteer work and/or have busy family lives, and simply can't or won't take on the additional work of running a huge group.
Hope to see your answers tomorrow!
What would you do differently?
How would you run a nanny only organization?
How would you fund it?
What would you choose to do with the "voice" a professional organization gave you and your board members?
How much time would you devote to running your professional group?
Would you present conferences?
I'm sincerely curious. As someone who volunteers my time to run a local support group and also present a local conference, I find that I simply can't find the time to do more than I do now. As I mentioned in a previous post, many nannies work 50+ hours a week, already do volunteer work and/or have busy family lives, and simply can't or won't take on the additional work of running a huge group.
Hope to see your answers tomorrow!
I'm a member of INA as well. I've gone to one conference, and would have gone this year if I wasn't busy working and planning NNTD for my area.
I believe that one of the reasons nannies aren't the only ones "allowed" to have a say in how the INA is run is the basic reason that most nannies work 50+ hours a week, and flat out don't have the time to devote to also working a second FT+ job running an international association.
Additionally, agency owners, payroll company owners, etc. have more actual *business experience* than many nannies. And the INA is a business. The effort expended to produce a yearly conference is huge, and it needs people with the experience and connections nanny related business owners have to make it all come together!
I can't really understand the venom directed at agency owners - agencies do actually help nannies find jobs. Good agencies (and I bet the agency owners who help run INA are also members of APNA!) can make a difference in whether a job is decent or crummy, so why shouldn't they have a say in how INA operates?
Without nannies, agencies will collapse. Without agencies, many nannies would not be able to find decent jobs. It's all interconnected, don't you think?
I believe that one of the reasons nannies aren't the only ones "allowed" to have a say in how the INA is run is the basic reason that most nannies work 50+ hours a week, and flat out don't have the time to devote to also working a second FT+ job running an international association.
Additionally, agency owners, payroll company owners, etc. have more actual *business experience* than many nannies. And the INA is a business. The effort expended to produce a yearly conference is huge, and it needs people with the experience and connections nanny related business owners have to make it all come together!
I can't really understand the venom directed at agency owners - agencies do actually help nannies find jobs. Good agencies (and I bet the agency owners who help run INA are also members of APNA!) can make a difference in whether a job is decent or crummy, so why shouldn't they have a say in how INA operates?
Without nannies, agencies will collapse. Without agencies, many nannies would not be able to find decent jobs. It's all interconnected, don't you think?
Anonymous wrote:This is OP. We are 100% certain this is going on; if we say nothing, it will presumably continue to go on for the next two months.
I haven't spoken with her as of now. Yesterday is a good example of why. She did everything we asked of her: Picked up something I needed that was out of her way before she got the kids from school. Made a big, healthy dinner from scratch for the whole family. Made sure the kids did their homework, practiced their instruments and played a game with them. Tidied the kids' rooms and play area.
It's hard to approach her and have this discussion when, for the most part, she is doing a good job. If she were going to be with us for another year, I absolutely would. Just not sure how it will help when the time remaining is so short.
"Hi nanny. We wanted to talk with you to let you know that we appreciate all the hard work you're doing for our family each day. The fact that your "to do" list is completed nearly 100% of the time is terrific. One thing we do need to discuss is that we have found out that you are scheduling yourself to work for another family during times you have committed to work for us. Is there a particular reason that you are double booking yourself?"
Then I would ask:
"How do you think we should handle this issue? We obviously are not happy that we have been paying you to spend time working for other people, but we value you and the time you have spent with our family and we feel the need to resolve this so that it doesn't negatively impact the last few months you spend with us."
And then take the discussion from there. You aren't attacking her, you are asking a perfectly reasonable question while emphasizing how pleased you have always been with her work ethic, and how sad you are to have found out about the "double billing". If she doesn't need all the time she spends with your family to do the work she has to do, offer to reduce her hours OR increase her work load so that she can stay busy.
Anonymous wrote:Nannies can come up without whatever nonsense they want but bottom line is that is not a benefit to the employer. Its a benefit to the nanny.
If an employer wants a price reductions, its cheaper to find a share with another family. You get equal care for the kids, pay less money, and don't need to deal with any of other the nanny bringing a child problems.
Yes, except Nanny Share Family A doesn't EMPLOY Nanny Share Family B. They are absolute equals, which often means lots of polite fights about whose child gets priority. If Nanny Share Family A can afford $13/hour instead of $10/hour, why not bring in a nanny and child combo and actually BE the boss of the situation?
Here's an example:
2 Family Share, 2 infants:
Mom A "We have decided now that our baby needs to be home for all naps. We don't want nanny doing any outings at all."
Mom B "Oh. Well, that's a little more, um, inflexible than we would like to be. Can we plan to have nanny do an outing every Tuesday and Thursday?"
Mom A "No, that won't work for us. We feel really strongly about this. You should do it too. Oh wait, you HAVE TO do it too!"
Single employer with an infant and nanny who brings infant to work with her:
Mom: "We have decided that we want our baby home for all naps. We don't want you to do any outings anymore."
Nanny: "I think there is some benefit to going out twice a week. Can we re-visit the issue in a month and see how you feel?"
Mom: "I am ok with that."
So, which situation will be more likely to last?
The issue with your proposal that a nanny's wage be doubled, or at least increased by more than $1 - $2/hour when an additional child is added to the family is this:
Nannies press this issue. Nannies try to insist on 50% raises when a second baby arrives.
Parents say, well, OK, you have a point about the workload.
Then the nanny who once made $15/hour for one child is told that because the potential employers plan to have a second child "someday'" and can't afford to give a 50% raise when that happens, they will either start nanny at $10/hour and then give that 50% raise whenever baby #2 shows up, or they will pay nanny $15/hour now and fire her when they have baby number 2 so that they can hire a new nanny for $16/hour.
Nannies press this issue. Nannies try to insist on 50% raises when a second baby arrives.
Parents say, well, OK, you have a point about the workload.
Then the nanny who once made $15/hour for one child is told that because the potential employers plan to have a second child "someday'" and can't afford to give a 50% raise when that happens, they will either start nanny at $10/hour and then give that 50% raise whenever baby #2 shows up, or they will pay nanny $15/hour now and fire her when they have baby number 2 so that they can hire a new nanny for $16/hour.
Op, are you going to tell your nanny to stop double dipping, or are you just going to tolerate it for the next few months?
In this nanny's opinion, you should tell your nanny that you know what she's been doing and that you expect it to stop for the remainder of her time with you.
In this nanny's opinion, you should tell your nanny that you know what she's been doing and that you expect it to stop for the remainder of her time with you.
danaw wrote:I'm having a 3rd child in a few months and I pay my nanny $18.75 an hour for 40 hour weeks (M-Thurs) to watch my 6 year old (in kindergarten from 8:30 - 3) and a 2 year old. She gets every Federal holiday, 2 weeks vacation, 1 week sick, etc. We pay legally.
I was planning on increasing $1.25 per hour when the baby is here, bringing her to almost $20 an hour. She wants $2.50 an hour ($400 more a month!), which would bring her salary to nearly $21.50. I hired her 2.5 years ago at $16.50 -- and that turned out to not work for her so we negotiated at the year mark and I bumped her a lot because she is so good and been a nanny nearly 15 years. We didn't want to lose her.
As much as we love our nanny, we are beyond stretched and I simply can't go over the $1.25 increase.
My questions are: 1) Is this a reasonable increase (the $1.25)? 2) is her overall new salary, for 3 kids, at $20 gross in-line, too low, too high or just right? 3) am I wrong to think the add'l $2.50 is just an unreasonable request?
Thank you so much for any advise you can spare!
If you can't afford the sort of raise your nanny wants, you need to make that clear to her. Then she can choose whether to stay with you at the rate you can afford, or leave for another position.
1) Is this a reasonable increase (the $1.25)? It's about a 6.5% increase, which IMO is less than standard, but your finances mean you can't afford the "standard" new baby raise. She wants about a 13% raise, which isn't out of line if her employers can afford that raise. You can't.
2) is her overall new salary, for 3 kids, at $20 gross in-line, too low, too high or just right? She'll be making $800 a week. Do you pay her legally? If so, what is her net wage, and is it a livable wage? If you pay illegally, she's pocketing her gross wage each week, and has nothing to complain about, IMO.
3) am I wrong to think the add'l $2.50 is just an unreasonable request? Yes. It is not unreasonable to expect a hefty raise when a child is added to the family. However, your nanny needs to understand that you CAN NOT AFFORD to pay more than $20/hour, which makes her request unreasonable as long as she is working for you.
If you want to keep your nanny, it's time for a talk with her. As long as she is informed about your childcare budget, she can then make a decision as to whether she'll stay or leave. If, however, you are talking "poor" while redecorating/remodeling/traveling overseas, nanny will likely decide you just don't care to pay HER instead of buying fun stuff, and she will likely leave. Please note I am not saying nanny would be RIGHT to quit in that scenario, but the reality is nannies see where their employers $$ go, and if there are only minimal raises when there is excellent performance, and employers buy dozens of goodies and toys for themselves, human nature will kick in.
So, is your absolute wage ceiling $20/hour? IOW, is nanny going to need to know there will be no more raises after this? If so, be honest. Consider if you can add additional benefits that are low cost but greatly appreciated. And prepare for a new nanny search.
Anonymous wrote:Nanny has over 5 years of experience, CPR/First Aid trained, a BA in an unrelated field, and drives.
We would like the nanny to care for one infant and a toddler full-time, light housekeeping mainly related to the kids and unloading/loading dishwasher as well as preparing dinner often.
What should we offer in terms of salary/hourly or benefits (if any)?
Thanks for any feedback!
OP here: Thanks so much for the feedback, but here is some clarification that may help a little.
Our location is the Chevy Chase area. In addition to the kids meal prep we would LOVE if she could prep dinner for our family occasionally. She will probably work overtime often.
We want to offer a reasonable, but an extremely competitive salary/package. As someone has mentioned, I will definitely ask each candidate, but I would like to have an idea.
Thanks!
I'll agree with those PP's who suggested you look at what you are budgeting for childcare, leave yourself room for yearly raises and new child raises if that may be a factor, and then break your yearly budget down to a weekly "salary" and then break it down to an hourly and an OT rate. don't forget to add about 10% to the gross "salary" to cover your share of taxes!
For example, you can afford to pay $52,000 total for a nanny each year, leaving room for raises. Backing that number down, you take $100 off the top to cover employer tax obligations.
$900 is your gross weekly "salary". If you need 60 hours a week of work, you take 40 hours at straight time and 20 hours at OT. 40+ (20 x 1.5) = 70 hours. Divide $900 by 70 to get your straight time hourly rate of $12.86. Your OT rate then becomes $19.29. Or, if a nanny wants to talk simply her "hourly" rate, ignoring OT laws, you tell her the rate is $15 per hour. YOU need to figure out whether the nanny candidates are talking gross weekly, hourly and OT, or straight hourly, and then you give them the numbers that match their mindset.
Generally speaking, if you want to retain your nanny, you will guarantee to pay her full wage 52 weeks per year.
Determine hours and specific duties. Cooking for kids is within nanny parameters. Cooking for parents is not so some candidates might want more money for that. List benefits you can offer (PTO, paid holidays, etc.)
Then, place your ad and evaluate the type of candidates you hear from. If they are suitable, start interviewing. If they are not what you hoped to find, reevaluate your budget and see if you can raise the rate a bit - that may or may not attract better candidates.
Then interview, screen, check and re-check references, make your offer to your favorite candidate, write and sign a work agreement with her (including the gross weekly rate broken down into straight time and OT), and start off your nanny/family relationship!
Well, I wouldn't advertise it as a nanny share, since there's no nanny involved. Instead, I would start looking for another new mom/new parents in your neighborhood, at your OB's office, at any childbirth classes or other classes you take to prepare for your baby's arrival, etc., and advertise yourself as a SAHM seeking to care for 1 or 2 other infants in your home.
Check the daycare regulations to make sure you won't be breaking any laws if you have 2 infants in addition to your own.
Then you'd need to figure out who pays for what when it comes to additional items like a double/triple stroller, high chairs, pack'n'plays, etc.
And I would have rules and regs just like a daycare does, about being paid 52 weeks/year, what constitutes a sick day, all that stuff.
IDK what one pays for infant daycare in a preschool type situation on your area, but IMO you could charge at least that much if not slightly more since the chances of illness would be smaller and the one-on-one attention would be more frequent.
Check the daycare regulations to make sure you won't be breaking any laws if you have 2 infants in addition to your own.
Then you'd need to figure out who pays for what when it comes to additional items like a double/triple stroller, high chairs, pack'n'plays, etc.
And I would have rules and regs just like a daycare does, about being paid 52 weeks/year, what constitutes a sick day, all that stuff.
IDK what one pays for infant daycare in a preschool type situation on your area, but IMO you could charge at least that much if not slightly more since the chances of illness would be smaller and the one-on-one attention would be more frequent.
|