Not changes worth a raise, PP.

Normally, I would suggest a $1/hr raise for a new baby, but, since the nanny has a decreased workload, I would offer no more than $.05/hr. PPs are right. The market is swarming with experienced, legal nannies looking for work.

Anonymous wrote:NP here and I can see what nannydeb is saying. I think what you have to ask yourself OP is, with whatever raise you decide to offer (or don't offer as a pp suggested) what is the likelihood of your nanny finding an equal/better paying job with equal/less responsibilities? The greater this likelihood the greater chance you would lose your nanny. This is why I do not suggest offering no raise at all. Your nanny found a job with you at this rate. If you add another baby into the mix with no raise, chances are she CAN and WILL find a job with equal/more pay with less work.

I also agree with NannyDeb. One thing parents don't think about with kids that now go to school, is that the nanny usually will drop them off and bring them home. That is more driving involved than before, it means changes to the younger ones schedule than if they had no older siblings etc. These might not be big huge dramatic changes, but they are changes and yes once you factor in days the older kids need to stay home, maybe help with homework and organizing playdates, the "easy" schedule of having the older kids in school is no longer a convenience, it means changes to everything. Give the raise and your nanny will continue to stay with you and not look for something new quite so soon.

nannydebsays wrote:13:17, YOU know that's the economic reality, and *I* know it as well. But many nannies (and I'm going to sound snobbish here, but oh well...) don't look at economic realities. They can be shortsighted when it comes to wages, and if a family that they work for is paying $14/hour for 2 kids, and adds a 3rd child for $40 more per week, that nanny will choose to leave on the chance she can find work with either equal or better pay and fewer kids to care for.

Is it smart to job hop like that? No. Is it economically savvy? No. Does it still happen? Yes.

Does it put parents into a bind when they have to replace nanny after nanny after nanny because the wage the parents offer doesn't fit what the nanny feels the job is truly worth? Yes.

As a "seasoned" nanny, my advice to parents is to offer generous wage increases that fit into your budget, IF you have a nanny who you want to keep for the foreseeable future. If you aren't crazy about your nanny but don't really want to fire her, then offering low-ball raises will eventually solve your problem and force you into the hiring process when your nanny quits.

NOOOOO... A BIG NO NO. You need to offer a rate that is commensurate with the experience and capabilities of the nanny. Your budget has nothing to do with the rate except for if you can afford the nanny of the caliber you desire or not. The notion that nannies should be paid proportionately to how well the family is doing financially simply has to stop. This is how nannies WISH they got paid, similar to the inflated rates posted on this site here by nannies.

Nanny pay rates are set by the market with supply and demand. There is far more supply right now than demand and has been for many, many years, ever since the economy started to sour in the early 2000's. I know experienced nannies think that they have some kind of special skill but it is basically an unskilled job and all those sahm's whose husband's job took a pay cut and everybody else wanting a job and has some kind of affinity for kids are now nannies or wanna be nannies.

Do you walk into Target and go "This basket is $7 but I'm going to pay $5/$10 because I make more/less than the average person" No way in hell. Same applies for nanny pay.

Everyone needs to pay a competitive rate. That competitive rate is lower than nannies want right now. If you pay a "competitive" rate, then you don't have to worry about someone snagging your nanny.

Should be noted though, that those nannies who will leave a family for a better deal will probably leave you for a better deal anyway. It works the same in non-nanny profession. Those who have little loyalty to the company will job hop every year or so. Tons of behavioral/HR studies show it's not how much you pay but how much intrinsic value workers feel at their job that determines job satisfaction.

OP, I've been faced with this issue when we had our third child, after our nanny had been with us for 3 years and had been given good raises and - quite frankly - was being paid very well ($18.50/hour). We gave her a nominal pay raise - $0.50/hour - but not anything close 10%. An extra child, when older kids start going to school almost full time, should NOT result in a huge pay increase, especially if they are already well-paid.

My nanny actually suggested that we pay her $22/hour - which is pretty much unheard of in our area for 50 hours/week - for the new baby. We told her that we spoke to other families with 3 kids, in a similar situation, and that $19/hour was more than fair. She was free to look elsewhere, and I suspect she did. I also suspect she found out that there was no way she was going to be able to find another job that came close to what she was bringing home with us.

nannydebsays -- I am the first responder with the $40 example. Your critique of the formula I suggested seems somewhat knee-jerk. Let's pull out a calculator.

IN YOUR RESPONSE, you suggest 5-10% raise. Let's use your $14 an hour example:

$14/hr x 40 hours = $560/week

a $40/week increase = $600

A raise from $560/wk to $600/week = slightly more than 7%.


AND - let's use a more robust salary. Let's say someone has an average hourly rate of $15/hour for 50 hours. That is $750/week. A $40/hour raise results in $790/week. Again, this is a little more than 5%.

NP here and I can see what nannydeb is saying. I think what you have to ask yourself OP is, with whatever raise you decide to offer (or don't offer as a pp suggested) what is the likelihood of your nanny finding an equal/better paying job with equal/less responsibilities? The greater this likelihood the greater chance you would lose your nanny. This is why I do not suggest offering no raise at all. Your nanny found a job with you at this rate. If you add another baby into the mix with no raise, chances are she CAN and WILL find a job with equal/more pay with less work.

13:17, YOU know that's the economic reality, and *I* know it as well. But many nannies (and I'm going to sound snobbish here, but oh well...) don't look at economic realities. They can be shortsighted when it comes to wages, and if a family that they work for is paying $14/hour for 2 kids, and adds a 3rd child for $40 more per week, that nanny will choose to leave on the chance she can find work with either equal or better pay and fewer kids to care for.

Is it smart to job hop like that? No. Is it economically savvy? No. Does it still happen? Yes.

Does it put parents into a bind when they have to replace nanny after nanny after nanny because the wage the parents offer doesn't fit what the nanny feels the job is truly worth? Yes.

As a "seasoned" nanny, my advice to parents is to offer generous wage increases that fit into your budget, IF you have a nanny who you want to keep for the foreseeable future. If you aren't crazy about your nanny but don't really want to fire her, then offering low-ball raises will eventually solve your problem and force you into the hiring process when your nanny quits.

nannydebsays wrote:No, 15:33, I am trying to say that nanny raises are never cut and dried, since families all have different numbers and ages of kids, as well as different childcare needs.

I am also attempting to tactfully suggest to the OP that it's better to offer a slight bit more than what a PP suggested doing. Using a mathematical formula to determine exactly how many hours nanny will have each child is, IMO, pretty foolish, unless, as I said, there is NO WAY that nanny would EVER have more work to do than was mathematically determined.

Nannies know when they are being given minimal raises despite their having to exert maximum effort. If a family simply cannot afford to pay their nanny a reasonable rate, they need to examine other childcare options. If a family simply wishes to minimize what they pay their nanny because they feel they don't need to offer money equal to the job being done, then they need to make other childcare choices.

If the PP above could truly not afford to give a $2 per hour raise for all hours worked in a week, then she did the best she could, and her nanny can choose to stay or go. But if the PP could easily afford to give, say, a $100 ($2 x 50 hours) raise, and simply decided that she didn't feel like the work involved with the new baby was worth that much, even with older kids in school who may be home more often than her formula indicated, and chose to give $40 then she may be seeking new childcare.

Parents/employers don't seem to like to hear this, but nannies KNOW what you spend on yourselves/your house/your kids. Personally, I don't calculate my raise amounts based on what I see employers spending, but I am in the minority. Most nannies, faced with a minimal raise for a new baby and seeing huge expenditures on new electronics/home renovations/clothes, will decide their employers are cheap, and will leave for a better paying job.

That's just reality.

That is, IF there is a better paying job. The reality is that there is a glut of nannies right now looking for jobs. I just posted an ad looking for a Mother's helper with rate at $12 per hour and almost every applicant (dozens) is a nanny, not a high school student like I was expecting, saying they will work for $12/hr as a nanny or a mother's helper. There are posts on this site(former nanny board) talking about "why I can't find a job when I have been looking for 6 months." I think a lot of nannies are upset at this and vent on this board talking about how employers need to "get it" and that they will leave if paid badly or whatever. The reality is that the global economy is down and the nanny professional is typically a low wage job. That's the reality. There may be one or two "better paying jobs" out there, sure, depending on what you are paying but it doesn't seem like the OP is paying low.

If your nanny is paid well and treated well, I see no reason for change since your new baby is offset by older children going to school longer.

I think automatic cost of living increases are really generous. Your needs will change and the workloads change as the kids get older and the goodness of fit changes. Even major employers, although are expected to give cost of living increases don't make it automatic for this reason.

Perhaps you should consider a one time bonus (paid out quarterly perhaps so she doesn't take it and run) to offset the increase in workload for an infant but keeps your overall rate down for future years when the infant is no longer an infant anymore. Pay can be creative.

I can see being annoyed by the family's wealth if you are being paid below market but not otherwise. We can "afford" to pay a nanny $100,000 a year but we don't.

No, 15:33, I am trying to say that nanny raises are never cut and dried, since families all have different numbers and ages of kids, as well as different childcare needs.

I am also attempting to tactfully suggest to the OP that it's better to offer a slight bit more than what a PP suggested doing. Using a mathematical formula to determine exactly how many hours nanny will have each child is, IMO, pretty foolish, unless, as I said, there is NO WAY that nanny would EVER have more work to do than was mathematically determined.

Nannies know when they are being given minimal raises despite their having to exert maximum effort. If a family simply cannot afford to pay their nanny a reasonable rate, they need to examine other childcare options. If a family simply wishes to minimize what they pay their nanny because they feel they don't need to offer money equal to the job being done, then they need to make other childcare choices.

If the PP above could truly not afford to give a $2 per hour raise for all hours worked in a week, then she did the best she could, and her nanny can choose to stay or go. But if the PP could easily afford to give, say, a $100 ($2 x 50 hours) raise, and simply decided that she didn't feel like the work involved with the new baby was worth that much, even with older kids in school who may be home more often than her formula indicated, and chose to give $40 then she may be seeking new childcare.

Parents/employers don't seem to like to hear this, but nannies KNOW what you spend on yourselves/your house/your kids. Personally, I don't calculate my raise amounts based on what I see employers spending, but I am in the minority. Most nannies, faced with a minimal raise for a new baby and seeing huge expenditures on new electronics/home renovations/clothes, will decide their employers are cheap, and will leave for a better paying job.

That's just reality.

But Nanny Deb are you saying that Nanny A, who has to take care of a new baby and a toddler at home all the time should get the same raise, and no larger, than Nanny B, who has the new baby but most days out of the year only has the other child for a few hours a day?

I think we both agree that both those nannies should get more than Nanny C who has only one charge all day long.

As a nanny, I would suggest that you look at a 5 - 10% new baby raise, regardless of how long older kids will be in school.

Why? Because generally a nanny is STILL responsible for the care of older kids even if they attend school. For example, if one of the older kids is ill and doesn't go to school, will a parent be staying home with that ill child, or will nanny be responsible for that kid as well as the infant? If an older child is on school break, will a parent be skipping work to care for that older kid, or will nanny be in charge?

The sole exception to this rule is for a nanny who is more of a "mother's helper" to a SAHM, and will truly not see any time "on duty" with older kids when they haven't got school.

If you simply can't afford to give a new baby raise that covers all of nanny's working hours, you will need to explain that to her and give her your reasoning. If you simply offer a small raise that doesn't compare to what she has gotten before or to what her nanny friends get, you may find that she will seek greener pastures when she can.

we figured out the number of hours per week that workload could actually increase. For us, that was 20 hours per week when older child not in school and nanny would have both baby and school kid. We then added $2/hr for those hours - or $40 per week.

We have a great nanny and we think we pay well. A cost-of-living increase will be automatic. She also gets a bonus, well-deserved.

How do we calculate the proper raise for a new baby when the older children are in school more than they were before the last raise?