Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
General Discussion
Reply to "Lying about sick children."
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=Anonymous][quote]Anonymous wrote:There is a difference between a practical requirement and desirable requirement. For example, a nanny accepting a job that doesn't offer PTO is not be desirable to the nanny but it is a practical requirement because its clear whether she is able to work or not. [b]A requirement that a nanny will not work with a contagious sick child is not a practical requirement because its often not clear whether the child is sick with something contagious or not[/b]. The OP is increasing her chances for getting ill by doing childcare. She will be exposed to many things long before the child exhibits symptoms. She's either lying about being concerned about catching something and just never wants to deal with a sick kid or she's an idiot. It just makes no sense.[/quote] [quote]OPs question has to do with her MB having her work and undermining the agreement. I see your rep sonar says nothing about the MBs actions and only the practicality of the nannies terms. She didn't ask if you think it is practical to do child care if you have a sick relative. Answer the question at hand and leave the unrelated advice for later.[/quote] I was responding to a PP that tried to draw an analogy between the OP's requirement and a nanny taking a job without PTO. I agree these are two different situation and not comparable..one is not a practical requirement and one is not a desirable requirement. The point is that the MB didn't violate the agreement. The child wasn't necessarily sick before the nanny arrived and it is reasonable to assume a food reaction. When the nanny arrived before the parent went out, the child clearly wasn't sick for the nanny to notice. When the child did become sick the parent took over. This is why this requirement isn't practical. If the nanny is sent home every time the child might be sick or get sick in the next few hours rather than actually being sick, she would never have to work. [/quote]
Options
Disable HTML in this message
Disable BB Code in this message
Disable smilies in this message
Review message
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics