Nanny that brings child to work RSS feed

post reply Forum Index » General Discussion
[Post New]04/14/2013 14:45
quote
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:My employer paid my regular high rates when I brought my child along. It really depends on how good you are.


Not all parents feel the same way about this issue.
[Post New]04/14/2013 14:51
quote
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
10:19 is in a sad state of delusion. Everyone knows that the more money you have, the more you can afford. The poor person does not get the biggest house in the best neighborhood.

Likewise, higher earning parents can afford the best childcare, whereas more middle class families simply have fewer options with the level of services they can afford.


She might be delusional. I don't know.

What I do know is that smart people with a lot of money have no interest in the nanny bringing her child. It brings nothing but problems, if you don't need the reduced rate you can get from such a nanny.


Not everyone feels that way.

It's fine if you do, but plenty of smart people with "a lot of money" do hire nannies who bring their own children. Perhaps not in your area, but this is not a universal sentiment you're expressing, however much you'd like to frame it as such.
[Post New]04/14/2013 20:09
quote
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:If you are in DC, OP, $9-$10/hr, tops. Same as one half of a nanny share.


How many times does it have to be said that it is not a true share, unless you're willing to acknowledge the nanny as an equal partner and her child as an equal priority? Otherwise you should not expect to pay only half a share rate. More like share rate plus $1-$3 more/hour.


Is this a joke? On what planet would the nanny POSSIBLY prioritize YOUR child over HERS???
[Post New]04/14/2013 20:31
quote
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:If you are in DC, OP, $9-$10/hr, tops. Same as one half of a nanny share.


How many times does it have to be said that it is not a true share, unless you're willing to acknowledge the nanny as an equal partner and her child as an equal priority? Otherwise you should not expect to pay only half a share rate. More like share rate plus $1-$3 more/hour.


Is this a joke? On what planet would the nanny POSSIBLY prioritize YOUR child over HERS???


In my post I meant your child would be the priority in that your child's needs dictate the schedule. For example if nanny has a toddler while you have an infant, your baby's nap schedule will dictate the flow of the day, and they will sleep in their crib for naps. We're it reversed, nanny's infant would likely end up taking many naps in the carrier or stroller while out and about doing things with your toddler. In a true share, schedules and activities are set to meet the needs of both children as equally as possible with some give and take on all sides. In this arrangement, the employer likely still wants to maintain control and preference, meaning the nanny and her child are not true share partners. This is while I feel that a decrease in rate is certainly fair, but paying a true share rate in most cases is not a true/fair assessment of the arrangement.

Also the argument that there is no benefit to the employer is false. Just as choosing not to guarantee hours will make you lose out on candidates who require this benefit, not being open to a nanny bringing her child will also make you lose out on some candidates. The benefit to the employer lies in the fact that if, for the candidate you otherwise love being open to this arrangement may get you THAT particular nanny, and at a rate far lower than she would normally cost you. I am a nanny who has received $17/hour watching one child and $20/hour in shares. I am considering starting a family and will lower my single child rate to $12-$13/hour with the benfit of bringing my child. Suddenly, I am now a viable option for the family that can only afford $12/hour but isn't happy with the quality of the candidates they are finding. Mutually beneficially. I get to bring my child to work, and they now can afford a nanny that otherwise would have been out of their league.
[Post New]04/14/2013 20:32
quote
Anonymous
*Mutually beneficial
[Post New]04/14/2013 20:38
quote
Anonymous
Kinda like lots of parents have trouble treating each child equally?
[Post New]04/14/2013 20:41
quote
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:Kinda like lots of parents have trouble treating each child equally?

I was responding to 20:09.
[Post New]04/14/2013 23:16
quote
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:10:19 is in a sad state of delusion. Everyone knows that the more money you have, the more you can afford. The poor person does not get the biggest house in the best neighborhood.

Likewise, higher earning parents can afford the best childcare, whereas more middle class families simply have fewer options with the level of services they can afford.


My dear...if the best nanny was as easy to spot as the biggest house...this board wouldn't have nearly as much material.
[Post New]04/15/2013 07:51
quote
Anonymous
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.
[Post New]04/15/2013 15:56
quote
nannydebsays

Member Offline
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?
[Post New]04/15/2013 16:52
quote
Anonymous
Do you think any of these moms get any real "work" done, beyond micromanaging the nanny? LOL.

No wonder they can't afford to pay the nanny much of anything.


[Post New]04/15/2013 17:38
quote
Anonymous
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.


It may not be a benefit to an employer who can otherwise afford a quality nanny, but for those who can't otherwise afford a quality nanny, it certainly is a benefit to you to allow her to bring her child at a reduced rate. You get the higher caliber nanny that you otherwise could not have afforded. It's not for everyone of course but for families who would like a personal nanny of a certain level, but its simply not achievable with their finances, its a great way to attract a better nanny. How is that not beneficial for them?
[Post New]04/15/2013 18:17
quote
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
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.


It may not be a benefit to an employer who can otherwise afford a quality nanny, but for those who can't otherwise afford a quality nanny, it certainly is a benefit to you to allow her to bring her child at a reduced rate. You get the higher caliber nanny that you otherwise could not have afforded. It's not for everyone of course but for families who would like a personal nanny of a certain level, but its simply not achievable with their finances, its a great way to attract a better nanny. How is that not beneficial for them?

I understand exactly what you want to say, but the point of fact is that employers in the nanny share follow the same logic. People go into shares because they can't afford one-on-one nannies. So in this sense, the nanny who brings her own child has no advantages over a nanny share.
[Post New]04/15/2013 18:23
quote
Anonymous
nannydebsays wrote:
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?

Why is it that in your share example one family feels entitled to order the other one around? I've been in a share and that never happened to us. Share parents tend to discuss these things ahead of time before entering into a childcare relationship.

You should have picked a better example, too, since essentially most moms would want their babies to go out. A better example would have been with classes and activities. In a share, parents would agree amongst themselves that Child A and Child B will take music, dance, swimming or whatever class on a certain time and day. A family with a nanny who brings her own child and works with the employer's schedule as a priority may simply inform a nanny that their child will take a class on a certain time and day, and if the nanny doesn't want to enroll her child in the same activity, well, too bad, he has to sit it out anyway. In practice, I don't think this would work either, because nanny shares tend to serve age brackets where kids take the most basic activities imaginable (story times, public parks etc.) By the time each child begins to specialize in some activities but not others, they would have typically age out of nanny shares anyway.
[Post New]04/15/2013 18:25
quote
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
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.


It may not be a benefit to an employer who can otherwise afford a quality nanny, but for those who can't otherwise afford a quality nanny, it certainly is a benefit to you to allow her to bring her child at a reduced rate. You get the higher caliber nanny that you otherwise could not have afforded. It's not for everyone of course but for families who would like a personal nanny of a certain level, but its simply not achievable with their finances, its a great way to attract a better nanny. How is that not beneficial for them?

I understand exactly what you want to say, but the point of fact is that employers in the nanny share follow the same logic. People go into shares because they can't afford one-on-one nannies. So in this sense, the nanny who brings her own child has no advantages over a nanny share.


I understand your premise as well but disagree. If we're speaking in generalities, yes perhaps you're right. But case by case, family by family, given the choice between a share (which has its own down sides and challenges) and a particular nanny they would like to hire but can't afford, this is an arrangement that might be preferable for that family to be able to have that nanny. You personally see no benefit here for your situation, but to say it can't benefit a family, is in my opinion a fallacy.
post reply Forum Index » General Discussion
Message Quick Reply
Go to: 

Search   Recent Topics   Hottest Topics