Anonymous wrote:Nanny here. IMO $2/hr increase is fair, $2.50 or $3 is better. Less than $2/hr increase is less than fair, and most nannies would just leave (as others have said, they'll likely be able to find an easier job for the same pay).

Anonymous wrote:

nannydebsays wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think that's pretty standard OP, and yes - adding to the gross pay, not net.

Also, it's fairly common for 3 yr olds to start going to some level of preschool so that can offset some of the additional work.

Yeah, because running the 3 yo to and from preschool 3 times a week is easy-peasy and preschools never have days off. And the 3 hours of the day the 3 yo is at school makes it even easier to get baby on a good schedule AND add household chores to make sure nanny stays busy! Because having 2 - 2.5 hours "free of caring for" the preschooler 3 days a week 35 - 40 weeks a year completely offsets the addition of an infant to the mix.

OP, are you paying nanny at or slightly above the market rate for a nanny with her education/experience? If so, $2 - $3 more gross per hour might work. If not, you need to offer a larger rate hike if you want to keep nanny.

Exactly. Otherwise she can get a MUCH easier job for the same money, if she's smart.

Anonymous wrote:

nannydebsays wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think that's pretty standard OP, and yes - adding to the gross pay, not net.

Also, it's fairly common for 3 yr olds to start going to some level of preschool so that can offset some of the additional work.

Yeah, because running the 3 yo to and from preschool 3 times a week is easy-peasy and preschools never have days off. And the 3 hours of the day the 3 yo is at school makes it even easier to get baby on a good schedule AND add household chores to make sure nanny stays busy! Because having 2 - 2.5 hours "free of caring for" the preschooler 3 days a week 35 - 40 weeks a year completely offsets the addition of an infant to the mix.

OP, are you paying nanny at or slightly above the market rate for a nanny with her education/experience? If so, $2 - $3 more gross per hour might work. If not, you need to offer a larger rate hike if you want to keep nanny.

Um, this seems kind of a strong reaction from you Nanny Deb. I said "can offset some...work". I also said a $1-2 increase per hour - which is likely somewhere in the neighborhood of a 10-15% raise for someone earning $15-20/hr (which is the likely range in this market.) Seems reasonable and in line with what we usually hear on these boards.

I don't negate the impact of adding a baby to the workload, but I think that continued employment (assuming all parties are happy with the relationship), combined with a 10-15% raise, and potentially a few hours of relief from entertaining a preschooler, is a reasonable proposition to offer a valued nanny.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

nannydebsays wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think that's pretty standard OP, and yes - adding to the gross pay, not net.

Also, it's fairly common for 3 yr olds to start going to some level of preschool so that can offset some of the additional work.

Yeah, because running the 3 yo to and from preschool 3 times a week is easy-peasy and preschools never have days off. And the 3 hours of the day the 3 yo is at school makes it even easier to get baby on a good schedule AND add household chores to make sure nanny stays busy! Because having 2 - 2.5 hours "free of caring for" the preschooler 3 days a week 35 - 40 weeks a year completely offsets the addition of an infant to the mix.

OP, are you paying nanny at or slightly above the market rate for a nanny with her education/experience? If so, $2 - $3 more gross per hour might work. If not, you need to offer a larger rate hike if you want to keep nanny.

Um, this seems kind of a strong reaction from you Nanny Deb. I said "can offset some...work". I also said a $1-2 increase per hour - which is likely somewhere in the neighborhood of a 10-15% raise for someone earning $15-20/hr (which is the likely range in this market.) Seems reasonable and in line with what we usually hear on these boards.

I don't negate the impact of adding a baby to the workload, but I think that continued employment (assuming all parties are happy with the relationship), combined with a 10-15% raise, and potentially a few hours of relief from entertaining a preschooler, is a reasonable proposition to offer a valued nanny.

Also, Nanny Deb, you make a lot of assumptions (nanny drops off/picks up at preschool and does housework). You're just looking for a fight. But that's how it works around here, right?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

nannydebsays wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think that's pretty standard OP, and yes - adding to the gross pay, not net.

Also, it's fairly common for 3 yr olds to start going to some level of preschool so that can offset some of the additional work.

Yeah, because running the 3 yo to and from preschool 3 times a week is easy-peasy and preschools never have days off. And the 3 hours of the day the 3 yo is at school makes it even easier to get baby on a good schedule AND add household chores to make sure nanny stays busy! Because having 2 - 2.5 hours "free of caring for" the preschooler 3 days a week 35 - 40 weeks a year completely offsets the addition of an infant to the mix.

OP, are you paying nanny at or slightly above the market rate for a nanny with her education/experience? If so, $2 - $3 more gross per hour might work. If not, you need to offer a larger rate hike if you want to keep nanny.

Um, this seems kind of a strong reaction from you Nanny Deb. I said "can offset some...work". I also said a $1-2 increase per hour - which is likely somewhere in the neighborhood of a 10-15% raise for someone earning $15-20/hr (which is the likely range in this market.) Seems reasonable and in line with what we usually hear on these boards.

I don't negate the impact of adding a baby to the workload, but I think that continued employment (assuming all parties are happy with the relationship), combined with a 10-15% raise, and potentially a few hours of relief from entertaining a preschooler, is a reasonable proposition to offer a valued nanny.

Also, Nanny Deb, you make a lot of assumptions (nanny drops off/picks up at preschool and does housework). You're just looking for a fight. But that's how it works around here, right?

Ok, Ms Nasty.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

nannydebsays wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think that's pretty standard OP, and yes - adding to the gross pay, not net.

Also, it's fairly common for 3 yr olds to start going to some level of preschool so that can offset some of the additional work.

Yeah, because running the 3 yo to and from preschool 3 times a week is easy-peasy and preschools never have days off. And the 3 hours of the day the 3 yo is at school makes it even easier to get baby on a good schedule AND add household chores to make sure nanny stays busy! Because having 2 - 2.5 hours "free of caring for" the preschooler 3 days a week 35 - 40 weeks a year completely offsets the addition of an infant to the mix.

OP, are you paying nanny at or slightly above the market rate for a nanny with her education/experience? If so, $2 - $3 more gross per hour might work. If not, you need to offer a larger rate hike if you want to keep nanny.

Um, this seems kind of a strong reaction from you Nanny Deb. I said "can offset some...work". I also said a $1-2 increase per hour - which is likely somewhere in the neighborhood of a 10-15% raise for someone earning $15-20/hr (which is the likely range in this market.) Seems reasonable and in line with what we usually hear on these boards.

I don't negate the impact of adding a baby to the workload, but I think that continued employment (assuming all parties are happy with the relationship), combined with a 10-15% raise, and potentially a few hours of relief from entertaining a preschooler, is a reasonable proposition to offer a valued nanny.

Also, Nanny Deb, you make a lot of assumptions (nanny drops off/picks up at preschool and does housework). You're just looking for a fight. But that's how it works around here, right?

Ok, Ms Nasty.

Mrs. Nasty

Anonymous wrote:Is $1-2 more per hour reasonable? And that is for gross pay, right?

Anonymous wrote:
Is $1-2 more per hour reasonable? And that is for gross pay, right?



If your duties/responsibilities at your office were increased 100 percent, would you be content with with $1 to $2/ he raise? No, you would not. If one kid is $18/an hour and you think you should only pay $2.00 an hour more for twice as much work?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Is $1-2 more per hour reasonable? And that is for gross pay, right?



If your duties/responsibilities at your office were increased 100 percent, would you be content with with $1 to $2/ he raise? No, you would not. If one kid is $18/an hour and you think you should only pay $2.00 an hour more for twice as much work?

False dichotomy. A nanny's workload doesn't increase by 100% and any nanny who thinks so is not a very good nanny.

The standard is $1-2/hr for a reason.

Anonymous wrote:Nannies should charge by the child. $18-$20/hr for taking care of two kids or more is ridiculous.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Is $1-2 more per hour reasonable? And that is for gross pay, right?



If your duties/responsibilities at your office were increased 100 percent, would you be content with with $1 to $2/ he raise? No, you would not. If one kid is $18/an hour and you think you should only pay $2.00 an hour more for twice as much work?

False dichotomy. A nanny's workload doesn't increase by 100% and any nanny who thinks so is not a very good nanny.

The standard is $1-2/hr for a reason.