Anonymous wrote:The PP is exactly right. By law (FLSA), even the best, most experienced, college-educated nannies are not true ("learned") professionals. If they were, they could be paid a salary instead of an hourly wage and they would be exempt from overtime.

Some people use the term "professional" nanny to refer to a "career" nanny, meaning someone with several years of experience. Of course, strictly speaking, anyone who gets paid to work in a particular field is a professional in that field.

I think nannies and nanny-employers alike would benefit from a legal system that recognized nannying as an early childhood education specialty with a formal education requirement and a licensure requirement. However, and sadly, Congress just doesn't see nannying as skilled labor.

The PP is exactly right. By law (FLSA), even the best, most experienced, college-educated nannies are not true ("learned") professionals. If they were, they could be paid a salary instead of an hourly wage and they would be exempt from overtime.

Some people use the term "professional" nanny to refer to a "career" nanny, meaning someone with several years of experience. Of course, strictly speaking, anyone who gets paid to work in a particular field is a professional in that field.

I think nannies and nanny-employers alike would benefit from a legal system that recognized nannying as an early childhood education specialty with a formal education requirement and a licensure requirement. However, and sadly, Congress just doesn't see nannying as skilled labor.


Nannies are designated hourly employees to prevent abuses you fool. It has nothing to do with being a professional. I do agree that this industry could certainly do with more regulation, but because nannies are employed by single employers, the government has neither the care or the resources to police individual household employers. Because of that, it is best for nannies to remain hourly employers. If they weren't none of the MBs on this board would be paying anywhere near a fair wage. You all already do everything you can to skirt the FLSA and OT. Nannies would be on the call essentially 24/7, making little more than you pay for daycare; $15-$25k/year.

nannydebsays wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have two children and are considering a third. I've never had a nanny before, and I would need to hire one if we have a third child.

I've read posts about different compensation packages, and I've seen posts about nannies who are educated commanding a larger salary. How much are we talking about, fully loaded (taxes, health care)? $60K, $70K, $80K, or more?

How old are your children, OP, and how old might they be if you have a third child?

Anonymous wrote:My established hourly rates start at 25/hr for one child.

Anonymous wrote:My established hourly rates start at 25/hr for one child.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The PP is exactly right. By law (FLSA), even the best, most experienced, college-educated nannies are not true ("learned") professionals. If they were, they could be paid a salary instead of an hourly wage and they would be exempt from overtime.

Some people use the term "professional" nanny to refer to a "career" nanny, meaning someone with several years of experience. Of course, strictly speaking, anyone who gets paid to work in a particular field is a professional in that field.

I think nannies and nanny-employers alike would benefit from a legal system that recognized nannying as an early childhood education specialty with a formal education requirement and a licensure requirement. However, and sadly, Congress just doesn't see nannying as skilled labor.

Nannies are designated hourly employees to prevent abuses you fool. It has nothing to do with being a professional. I do agree that this industry could certainly do with more regulation, but because nannies are employed by single employers, the government has neither the care or the resources to police individual household employers. Because of that, it is best for nannies to remain hourly employers. If they weren't none of the MBs on this board would be paying anywhere near a fair wage. You all already do everything you can to skirt the FLSA and OT. Nannies would be on the call essentially 24/7, making little more than you pay for daycare; $15-$25k/year.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My established hourly rates start at 25/hr for one child.

Families who hire me say they want my proven ability to appropriately manage any situation that may arise. Anything. I can also solve virtually any parenting dilemma (so far). Of course not every parent will like my solutions, but they are successful, both in the short term and longterm. There needs to be an overall agreement of goals and methods. We are a team.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The PP is exactly right. By law (FLSA), even the best, most experienced, college-educated nannies are not true ("learned") professionals. If they were, they could be paid a salary instead of an hourly wage and they would be exempt from overtime.

Some people use the term "professional" nanny to refer to a "career" nanny, meaning someone with several years of experience. Of course, strictly speaking, anyone who gets paid to work in a particular field is a professional in that field.

I think nannies and nanny-employers alike would benefit from a legal system that recognized nannying as an early childhood education specialty with a formal education requirement and a licensure requirement. However, and sadly, Congress just doesn't see nannying as skilled labor.

Nannies are designated hourly employees to prevent abuses you fool. It has nothing to do with being a professional. I do agree that this industry could certainly do with more regulation, but because nannies are employed by single employers, the government has neither the care or the resources to police individual household employers. Because of that, it is best for nannies to remain hourly employers. If they weren't none of the MBs on this board would be paying anywhere near a fair wage. You all already do everything you can to skirt the FLSA and OT. Nannies would be on the call essentially 24/7, making little more than you pay for daycare; $15-$25k/year.

Um, no. You're just wrong. Read the FLSA. The fact that nannies are classed as non-exempt, hourly workers has nothing to do with the fact that they work for single employers and everything to do with the fact that nannying is presumed not to require discretion, judgment or advanced knowledge in a specific field gained through a prolonged course of specialized academic training. Teachers are considered "learned professionals" because there is an education requirement to enter the trade, and thus, they are exempt from FLSA overtime rules. Nannies are not. Read the FLSA.

The idea that nannies would be abused but for their non-exempt, hourly worker status reveals the extent to which this country--including YOU--devalues childcare providers by treating them as unskilled or at best low-skilled workers. If nannies were true professionals with an education and licensure requirement, they would not be statutorily entitled to overtime pay at time and a half the base rate, but there would be fewer professional nannies to go around, and that would cause pay to increase and work conditions to improve without protectionism from the Department of Labor. In the long run, professional nannies would likely get paid more because parents would know that the title means something. An underclass of paraprofessionals would probably also emerge to fill the need for less qualified, less expensive care, but these people would not be entitled to market themselves as professional nannies.

But make no mistake: The fact that nannies are hourly workers is a direct result of the fact that nannying has no educational barriers to entry and is, therefore, nannies are classified by law as per se non-professionals. This systematic devaluation is even more explicit under US immigration law where (at least last time I checked) even a nanny with a two-year degree from an accredited nanny program is classed as an unskilled domestic servant or "child monitor" for immigration purposes.

Instead of attacking other posters for pointing out that the emperor in this case has no clothes on, y'all should really start lobbying to change the structure and legal status of your trade.

Anonymous wrote:

nannydebsays wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have two children and are considering a third. I've never had a nanny before, and I would need to hire one if we have a third child.

I've read posts about different compensation packages, and I've seen posts about nannies who are educated commanding a larger salary. How much are we talking about, fully loaded (taxes, health care)? $60K, $70K, $80K, or more?

How old are your children, OP, and how old might they be if you have a third child?

OP here. The kids are 6 and 1. We hope to have a third in the next year or two, in which case they would possibly be 8, 3, and an infant.

The Arlington poster, for example, sounds as though she has a great arrangement. I would be happy with a situation in which I felt my kids were well-cared for, ideally with enriching activities and a nanny who engaged them. I'm sorry to dig up a tired trope, but I hate seeing nannies or any caregiver ignoring the kids at the park while the caregiver is on the phone. I would need a driver and of course someone who has proper documentation to work. We wouldn't need more than 50 hours per week.

What I'm getting at is that I want a great nanny (who doesn't), and DH and I would be willing to pay for someone who does an outstanding job. I've seen posts - I should probably dig up the threads - in which parents or nannies have said that nannies who are highly qualified career nannies can command a high salary. I'm hoping to attract someone who is energetic and enthusiastic about nannying, and we can afford to pay more for a nanny who brings a lot to the table. I'm wondering how much we should expect to pay