Nanny pay when nanny brings her own child to work RSS feed

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Didn't you know that the most successful MBs don't have time for this board, duh?

I will reserve judgment until I hear some MBs say that they tried this arrangement and it worked for them. Proof is in the pudding.

The proof, Einstein, is the child who became the type of adult most parents hope their own children will become, academically/professionally brilliant, but more important are the highly developed social qualities: confident and secure, engaging public speaker and sensitive listener, well-grounded yet inquisitive with an incredibly broad imagination, to name a few.

Considering your narrow mindedness, Einstein, it appears you are missing that last quality, if not more. You lack the ability to see past your own nose with regard to this issue. Why you hammer your 'nanny's child is always a negative' mantra, without ever having any experience with it, baffles the intelligent mind. Perhaps you hated having a sibling and that experience has left you traumatized. I don't know what could possibly be driving you with such negativity towards a concept which you know nothing of. Although that would help explain why you think your personal opinion should be the only opinion expressed. (You're the one screaming "troll" when there's a different opinion than your own, no?)

One typically places more credibility in thoughts of others who have some direct experience with the subject at hand. It's as if you're thinking of traveling to the Middle East, and you have some questions. Which people would you find more credible, the person who's been there several times (and loved the experience!), or the person who's read about it (and lives in fear with the thought of it)? While I may be interested in a discussion with both persons, the one who has actually been there is obviously the only one who is equipped to offer me firsthand knowledge, which is what I prefer to seek, for that is the person who really "knows" what he speaks.

Your crazy is beginning to show. But I will humor you and address you as if you are reasonable.

First, you have no way to demonstrate that someone's brilliance is in any way related to the kind of nanny they had. If there are studies demonstrating that kids who had nannies with children turn out better, please cite.

Second, I haven't called you a troll and didn't attack you personally. I have provided several arguments speaking against this arrangement related to transportation, schedule, activities etc. You are welcome to refute them specifically. What you think of me is irrelevant. Focus on the argument, not the person.

Thirdly, you are correct that people with actual relevant experience of the situation can speak to it with more authority, and that's why I said it would be best to hear from MBs who have tried and enjoyed this arrangement. In the absence of client testimonials, we are left with testimonials of providers who are inherently self-interested. We've heard from the taxi driver, now let's hear from the passenger. It's not up to nannies to love this experience. It's up to MBs. Let's hear from them.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:OP I would pass on this candidate. Its a huge negative for the employer with no benefit. Its also a HUGE benefit to the nanny hence the crazy rationalizations that nannies put forward to do it.

My neighbor is actually in the middle of a mess like this now. She hired a nanny bringing her 18 month old. Her own 3 children are older elementary school age and relatively self sufficient so she thought it wouldn't be a big problem. She was clear that the position was a nanny/light housekeeper position and involved taking the older kids to their various activities and hosting play dates etc.

The nanny is exhausted from running after 4 kids all day but the kid that requires the most care is hers. The older kids are disappointed that they can't go to the pool when their friends are there because of nap time. The eldest of the 3 kids ends up watching/entertaining the nanny's child while the nanny does the light housekeeping tasks. None of the kids can ever invite a friend along or car pool because the fourth seat in my neighbor's car is now taken by the nanny's child. She's pretty upset about all this and plans to let the nanny go at the end of the summer and never do this again.


It may be worth noting that the big problem here may be that the family's kids and nanny's kids make 4 charges. That is a lot for anyone, especially given the wide age distribution.

The OP has two kids vs. the poster's three. Are you saying it's the fourth kid that makes is unworkable?

As to the age distribution, the OP is looking at a similar spread - an infant vs. elementary school children. An 18-month old probably needs even more supervision than a 5-month old.
Anonymous
Good grief a 5 month old requires even MORE care than an 18 month old. Your dealing with 2 naps a day and very few babies this young are content to lay around quietly in their pack in play while they're awake. Either age doesn't synch with the schedules that older kids require.
Anonymous
"It's the FFN poster. We had best obey her commands or else!"

You call everyone that who you don't agree with. There are many people who don't agree with you.

Try to keep up.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:Good grief a 5 month old requires even MORE care than an 18 month old. Your dealing with 2 naps a day and very few babies this young are content to lay around quietly in their pack in play while they're awake. Either age doesn't synch with the schedules that older kids require.


It depends on the child. Mine did not. She was easy and sweet. She'd go anywhere, hang out and nap where ever we were and was a pure joy at that age. Come 18 months, no way we could do the same things or flexible schedule. No more eating out with friends for hours, shopping for hours, etc.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
$14- $15 an hour is ridiculously high for someone bringing a 5 month old along. You need to think of the liability..your car insurance and home insurance would not cover injury to her child in your car or property. The child is no longer covered as guest.

Is your house baby proofed? How do you deal with conflicts between naps and activities that your older need to be driven to during the day? Older kids can be outside or go to the pool when its hot while a 5 month old can not stay out for long in the heat. This is not a situation to walk into without being very aware of the downsides which are numerous.

This. I am generally not opposed to sharing nannies, but the age difference makes this arrangement suspect, and if the nanny is asking for $17/hr WITH her child, she's out of touch with reality. The needs of an infant are so different from a 7-year old that it will be extremely difficult to do both well.

You'll need a different car (your sedan may accommodate two elementary school kids, but for them plus an infant you'd need a large car). A 5-month old requires significant care, supervision and investment of time for feeding, napping and comforting. You can tell a 7-year old to wait a bit for his sandwich, but are you going to ask a wailing 5-month old to wait while the nanny tends to her charges? What if the boys want to go to the pool, is she going to get in with them or watch her baby at the side?

I don't doubt that this nanny is great if you say so, but the fact of the matter is she's trying to sell half a nanny at a full nanny rate. No matter how great the apartment is, renting it with a roommate is cheaper than renting it for yourself alone.



These two posters are correctly. The ranting poster who thinks its a good idea is the minority here. Don't do it, OP.

It's the FFN poster. We had best obey her commands or else!

Nice try, FFN, but you're the only one. You even tried to hide your silly command. So sad you are.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:$14- $15 an hour is ridiculously high for someone bringing a 5 month old along. You need to think of the liability..your car insurance and home insurance would not cover injury to her child in your car or property. The child is no longer covered as guest.

Is your house baby proofed? How do you deal with conflicts between naps and activities that your older need to be driven to during the day? Older kids can be outside or go to the pool when its hot while a 5 month old can not stay out for long in the heat. This is not a situation to walk into without being very aware of the downsides which are numerous.


+1.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
$14- $15 an hour is ridiculously high for someone bringing a 5 month old along. You need to think of the liability..your car insurance and home insurance would not cover injury to her child in your car or property. The child is no longer covered as guest.

Is your house baby proofed? How do you deal with conflicts between naps and activities that your older need to be driven to during the day? Older kids can be outside or go to the pool when its hot while a 5 month old can not stay out for long in the heat. This is not a situation to walk into without being very aware of the downsides which are numerous.

This. I am generally not opposed to sharing nannies, but the age difference makes this arrangement suspect, and if the nanny is asking for $17/hr WITH her child, she's out of touch with reality. The needs of an infant are so different from a 7-year old that it will be extremely difficult to do both well.

You'll need a different car (your sedan may accommodate two elementary school kids, but for them plus an infant you'd need a large car). A 5-month old requires significant care, supervision and investment of time for feeding, napping and comforting. You can tell a 7-year old to wait a bit for his sandwich, but are you going to ask a wailing 5-month old to wait while the nanny tends to her charges? What if the boys want to go to the pool, is she going to get in with them or watch her baby at the side?

I don't doubt that this nanny is great if you say so, but the fact of the matter is she's trying to sell half a nanny at a full nanny rate. No matter how great the apartment is, renting it with a roommate is cheaper than renting it for yourself alone.



These two posters are correctly. The ranting poster who thinks its a good idea is the minority here. Don't do it, OP.


+1. Very few MBs, if any, would be comfortable with this given the age difference between the kids. Even fewer would pay anything close to what this nanny is asking. $12 per hour would be a more reasonable rate for this situation, which is essentially a share. However, I wouldn't consider it even at that rate due to the liability issues and inevitable interference with your kids' needs. If you can afford to hire a nanny in the $16-17 range as opposed to the nanny share pay range, I'd suggest you keep looking and find someone who does not need to bring her child to work. There are many great nannies out there.

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
$14- $15 an hour is ridiculously high for someone bringing a 5 month old along. You need to think of the liability..your car insurance and home insurance would not cover injury to her child in your car or property. The child is no longer covered as guest.

Is your house baby proofed? How do you deal with conflicts between naps and activities that your older need to be driven to during the day? Older kids can be outside or go to the pool when its hot while a 5 month old can not stay out for long in the heat. This is not a situation to walk into without being very aware of the downsides which are numerous.

This. I am generally not opposed to sharing nannies, but the age difference makes this arrangement suspect, and if the nanny is asking for $17/hr WITH her child, she's out of touch with reality. The needs of an infant are so different from a 7-year old that it will be extremely difficult to do both well.

You'll need a different car (your sedan may accommodate two elementary school kids, but for them plus an infant you'd need a large car). A 5-month old requires significant care, supervision and investment of time for feeding, napping and comforting. You can tell a 7-year old to wait a bit for his sandwich, but are you going to ask a wailing 5-month old to wait while the nanny tends to her charges? What if the boys want to go to the pool, is she going to get in with them or watch her baby at the side?

I don't doubt that this nanny is great if you say so, but the fact of the matter is she's trying to sell half a nanny at a full nanny rate. No matter how great the apartment is, renting it with a roommate is cheaper than renting it for yourself alone.



These two posters are correctly. The ranting poster who thinks its a good idea is the minority here. Don't do it, OP.


+1. Very few MBs, if any, would be comfortable with this given the age difference between the kids. Even fewer would pay anything close to what this nanny is asking. $12 per hour would be a more reasonable rate for this situation, which is essentially a share. However, I wouldn't consider it even at that rate due to the liability issues and inevitable interference with your kids' needs. If you can afford to hire a nanny in the $16-17 range as opposed to the nanny share pay range, I'd suggest you keep looking and find someone who does not need to bring her child to work. There are many great nannies out there.


Where?
nannydebsays

Member Offline
Anonymous wrote:
$14- $15 an hour is ridiculously high for someone bringing a 5 month old along. You need to think of the liability..your car insurance and home insurance would not cover injury to her child in your car or property. The child is no longer covered as guest.

Is your house baby proofed? How do you deal with conflicts between naps and activities that your older need to be driven to during the day? Older kids can be outside or go to the pool when its hot while a 5 month old can not stay out for long in the heat. This is not a situation to walk into without being very aware of the downsides which are numerous.


This. You do, realize, OP, that your children will take a back seat to a 5month olds schedule, right? Naps alone will limit your nanny's ability to make your children a priority. Don't do this unless you have to. If you have to, pay no more than $9/hr.

Why would you pay someone top dollar when you know they are taking advantage of you?


If the nanny is serious about bringing her child with her, she will have already decided that her child's nap needs will have to be met with naps in the car or while out and about, because nanny will recognize that her child is like a "3rd sibling" in your family. 2nd and 3rd babies don't get to stay home to nap when their older siblings have activities, even if that means going to the pool.

If nanny has not already thought all that through, then she is not a good choice. But if she has, and she has a plan for making sure your kids get quality care, you should give it a try. Offer her a trial week and see how it goes. Obviously, your kids are old enough to self-report any issues, and you should be able to tell if "Nanny didn't take us to the pool!" is due to nanny's baby taking a nap or to your kids losing that pool time for some other reason.

As far as pay goes, IMO $17 is pretty high. $13 - $14 sounds more appropriate. $9 - $10 is ridiculously low.
Anonymous
I have kids in the OP age ranges and haven't seen any infants at the pool for several hours or all day. If the baby WAS the 3rd sibling, the kid's schedule would be reduced or they would resort to carpooling with friends.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:The top nannies will continue to earn high rates, with or without their own child.

Exactly.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:The top nannies will continue to earn high rates, with or without their own child.

Exactly.

A top nanny with child is worth less than the same nanny without.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:The top nannies will continue to earn high rates, with or without their own child.

Exactly.

A top nanny with child is worth less than the same nanny without.

Maybe, but no two nannies are identical, neither are any two parents identical. One nanny is always the overall preferred nanny by any particular parent.

On the other hand, just think of how many parents have a second child, just so the first one doesn't get spoiled rotten. I've had parents tell me they specifically wanted a nanny with child for that very reason.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:The top nannies will continue to earn high rates, with or without their own child.

Exactly.

A top nanny with child is worth less than the same nanny without.

Maybe, but no two nannies are identical, neither are any two parents identical. One nanny is always the overall preferred nanny by any particular parent.

On the other hand, just think of how many parents have a second child, just so the first one doesn't get spoiled rotten. I've had parents tell me they specifically wanted a nanny with child for that very reason.

Parents who are so bent on having a second child might as well just have it. Besides, it's not like company of small children is difficult to get. There are playdates, schoolmates, neighbors - no need to rent a baby by hiring its mother, especially when it's a virtual certainty that both baby and mother will eventually be gone from that child's life.

I also think parents don't have a second child JUST so that the first one doesn't get spoiled. There are usually quite a few more factors at play.

That's not to say that a nanny with child won't be able to find a good gig. Just that it will be progressively more difficult, and her options won't be abundant.
post reply Forum Index » Employer Issues
Message Quick Reply
Go to: