Starting a nannyshare with a family that has 2 kids and we have one
![[Post New]](/nanny-forum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
| We are thinking about starting a nannyshare with a family that has two children, 18 months and 3 months old. My child is 2 and goes to preschool 3 mornings a week from 9-12. While, we love the nanny and the other family. Should we be paying part of the hourly rate, while our child is in preschool? We want to be completely fair, however we also have the added expense of preschool. I am planning on driving my child to the preschool. So, we only need the pick up. I am curious about what other people do in this situation. No, I am not trying to penny pinch. However, the nanny will be solely working for the other family for 9 hours during the week. |
Anonymous
| If the nanny will not be responsible for the child before pre school and isn't on call in case of sickness, school closure, etc. then I would say no. If she is then, probably yes. But it's not a situation I've been in, so I'm curious what others will say. |
Anonymous
| Hope she's super nanny. If so, she should be well compensated. |
Anonymous
|
I think you need to tread very carefully here. Are there any expectations about how much the nanny's rate is going to increase? Or, about how you are going to split the increased rate?
When you are sole employer of a nanny and your child goes to preschool, it makes sense to continue paying for those hours. Most nannies can't afford to keep a job with drastically reduced hours, you may want the flexibility to have her watch your child when she is ill or when school is closed, and, you can negotiate other duties during the preschool time. In this sort of case, however, the nanny already has a job during those hours, and you will get zero ability to negotiate other duties. Personally, I'd first figure out with both the other family and nanny how much the nanny's rate will increase during the time she has three children. That increase should be somewhere between the standard 2$/hour new kid increase and 50% of what she is currently making. Then, figure out, with the other family, how much above that increase you will take on paying as your share. I would then set up a weekly minimum rate for the nanny, based on your using the share during your afternoon hours. I would also figure out what the cost would be if your child was in the share during the morning hours and put in writing the circumstances, notice period, and pay breakdown for when that would be acceptable. (Maybe only during school breaks, maybe the the family and nanny is ok with a more liberal sick policy than the school is...that sort of thing) |
nannydebsays
Member Offline
Member Offline
if you have any expectation at all that you may at some point need the nanny to either be available to get your child early at school (for example, if your child gets ill at 10 am)oir if you will need nanny to care for your child at all during school holidays/summers, then yes, you need to CYA by paying for her availability during the 9 hours your child is at school. If, on the other hand, you will NEVER need nanny to work those 3 days from 9a - noon, then you can skip paying her to keep that time open for your use. That means YOU do sick kid rescue, YOU do all coverage for no school days, etc. Honestly, unless you are for some reason paying $20/hour for your part of the share, I'd think the $$ would be pretty minimal. You're probably paying $8/hour, and the other family is paying $12+, or am I way off? My point is, to quibble over less than $100/week is either an indication you are penny pinching, or that you cannot in any way truly afford nanny care. |
Anonymous
|
PP. Why would she need to pay for the nanny's availability when the nanny is presumably already being paid to be at work?
$100/wk is over $5000/yr. That's not being cheap. Just sensible. |
Anonymous
| Lol - $100 a week is not chump change. |
Anonymous
| Don't do nanny share, it will be a horrible experience for you. You should try and find you own nanny and do it that way. |
Anonymous
If 20 bucks a day isn't chump change for you, you absolutely can't afford a nanny. Nannies are for rich people, lol. |
Anonymous
because she could be working for someone else and getting paid |
Anonymous
| Nannies are for rich people perhaps but shares are for upper middle class and OP is looking at a share. |
Anonymous
| Op here. Thanks for the feedback. It looks like most agree that we should still pay the full share. To those of you that said the nanny could be working for someone else, you clearly to did not understand my question. The nanny WILL be working for the other family and watching their 2 children while mine is in preschool. So, she will have a paid job! I was merely thinking, we could step in and pay more when the school closes or sick days, ect. Otherwise, we are just helping to pay for someone else child care. But, I still want to do the right thing by both our share family and the nanny, so we need to make a decision soon. Thanks again to everyone that responded. |
nannydebsays
Member Offline
Member Offline
As I outlined in my post, if OP wants nanny to be AVAILABLE to care for OP's child if needed during those 9 hours per week, then she needs to pay nanny to BE AVAILABLE. Yes, nanny is already being paid for those hours. She is paid to BE AVAILABLE to care for the other family's child, not the OP's child. Let's try this example. Nanny is NOT paid by OP to be available 3 days a week from 9a - 12p. Nanny arranges to take the other children (those she IS being paid to care for) on an outing from 9a - 12p. OP calls nanny at 10a and tells nanny she needs nanny to go and get OP's ill child at school. Nanny has EVERY RIGHT to refuse, because she is not being paid to BE AVAILABLE to care for OP's kid. However, if OP does pay nanny to be available, then nanny must leave her planned activity and take the other family's kids to go and get OP's child. And if OP is paying $8/hour x 9 hours a week for availability, that's $72/week, or $3744/year. If OP cannot afford to pay that amount to have the nanny "on call", she may need to consider daycare. |
Anonymous
|
[quote=nannydebsays][quote=Anonymous]PP. Why would she need to pay for the nanny's availability when the nanny is presumably already being paid to be at work?
$100/wk is over $5000/yr. That's not being cheap. Just sensible.[/quote] As I outlined in my post, if OP wants nanny to be AVAILABLE to care for OP's child if needed during those 9 hours per week, then she needs to pay nanny to BE AVAILABLE. Yes, nanny is already being paid for those hours. She is paid to BE AVAILABLE to care for the other family's child, not the OP's child. Let's try this example. Nanny is NOT paid by OP to be available 3 days a week from 9a - 12p. Nanny arranges to take the other children (those she IS being paid to care for) on an outing from 9a - 12p. OP calls nanny at 10a and tells nanny she needs nanny to go and get OP's ill child at school. Nanny has EVERY RIGHT to refuse, because she is not being paid to BE AVAILABLE to care for OP's kid. However, if OP does pay nanny to be available, then nanny must leave her planned activity and take the other family's kids to go and get OP's child. And if OP is paying $8/hour x 9 hours a week for availability, that's $72/week, or $3744/year. If OP cannot afford to pay that amount to have the nanny "on call", she may need to consider daycare.[/quote] Sorry, that doesn't make any sense. It's one thing if a nanny is not being paid at all and might have personal plans. In that case, you paying a nanny to be 100% available to come into work. In most cases, I would assume she'd even have some duties during that time. However, in this share, the nanny is already at work. If her employers agree that she needs to maintain the flexibility to take on care of the third child, then that is her job. If her employers agree that she needs to be able to do this with a weeks notice (say for school holidays, but not for a sick child) then that is her job. Obviously, if she is taking care of all three children, she will be paid the full share rate. But I'd run from this share if the nanny and other family won't provide this type of flexibility /within the nanny's already paid and scheduled work hours/. Honestly, as the other family, I'd be embarrassed to even consider this. Don't forget, when the full share rate is paid, the other family is also getting a discount. I would never ask another family to subsidize my nanny care by over $1000/yr so that they could have some flexibility in the hours they use in an emergency. (Btw, with my two kids, in the past 10 years, I have twice had to pick up one in the middle of the school day. And those were both full school days. If you don't send a sick kid to daycare, the odds they will come down with an illness where they must be picked up before a 3 hour session ends is pretty miniscule. It's a flimsy excuse to base several thousand dollar per year flexibility fee on) |
nannydebsays
Member Offline
Member Offline
|
PP, the nanny is working for the family that is paying her. If a family chooses not to pay for some hours, then nanny isn't working for them during those hours, and she owes them nada.
What it boils down to is either OP is taking advantage of the other family by expecting them to subsidize her emergency childcare needs, or the other family is taking advantage of OP by expecting her to "pay to play" in case of any days off from school. Logistically speaking, when it comes to tax implications this sort of arrangement, where pay and hours could very well shift every other week (with days off of school, etc.) fluctuating rates will be a nightmare. Unless OP's child will NEVER need care those 9 hours a week, OP needs to suck it up and pay for availability. That way, nanny will be aware that her schedule is subject to change, and that she is paid to be around if the OP needs her. |