Anonymous wrote:OP you may want to look at this from the financial angle and compare it against other job offers that you have/reasonably expect to find. Nannies and employers fail to realize that time off paid or not is just another form of compensation that has a monetary value. If the weekly gross for a job is even a little bit more than the amount of time off when comparing jobs, the higher weekly rate job ends up giving you more money and time off over a year. Psychologically, the job offering more standard PTO may seem more attractive (hence all the walk away posts from nannies) but if you're smart you should look at the numbers between your job offers.

Job A pays 550 a week for 50 weeks a year (i.e. out of 52 week 2 weeks are PTO, 2 weeks are unpaid) and no sick leave. This job would yield you 27,500 in one year and give you four weeks off.

Job B pays 500 a week for 52 weeks (includes 2 weeks/one of your choosing and one of theirs plus 3 sick/PTO days), this job would yield you 26,000 in one year and give you 2 weeks off plus 3 possible sick days.

Lets say you need to take 3 sick offs. This would not change the yield for Job B ($26,000) but it would change Job A to $27,200 to subtract 3 days of unpaid time. You would still yield $1200 more from Job A than Job B. You would have 4 weeks off for Job A rather than 2 weeks for Job B.

If you are comparing Job A (better rate, non-standard benefits) to Job B (lesser rate, standard benefits), Job A is much better with the caveat that you don't get to choose one of the weeks. You would need to decide if getting to choose the dates for one week of vacation is worth giving up $1200 and 2 extra weeks off.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

MBs that are looking for any way to get a better deal. They have a pretty good idea of what the market range is and will do their best to pay on the lower end, while also skimping on PTO and sick time by offering lopsided deals such as this one.

So what. Even if this is true, who cares. You have to stop looking at things from an emotional perspective that you should get as much out of your employer as possible. What matters is what you actually get not what % of your MB's net worth is going to you.

If the job's rate is higher than other jobs that this nanny is being offered then the nanny gets to be the smarter one. The MB thinks she is paying less or not paying for time when she doesn't need the nanny while the nanny is making more than she would at the other job and getting an extra 2 weeks off.

I'm not being emotional. I pointed out the fact that most of these jobs lacking PTO are the same MBs that pay on the low end of the range. Again, I agree that your suggestion makes mathematical sense, but the fact remains that it is unlikely that OP would come away with more here. She's probably being offered the same or less of an hourly rate than other prospective jobs, but this MB also wants to skimp on PTO. I said nothing about the MBs net worth or OP being entitled to it so direct your usual talking points at someone else because I didn't even go there.

Anonymous wrote:

MBs that are looking for any way to get a better deal. They have a pretty good idea of what the market range is and will do their best to pay on the lower end, while also skimping on PTO and sick time by offering lopsided deals such as this one.

So what. Even if this is true, who cares. You have to stop looking at things from an emotional perspective that you should get as much out of your employer as possible. What matters is what you actually get not what % of your MB's net worth is going to you.

If the job's rate is higher than other jobs that this nanny is being offered then the nanny gets to be the smarter one. The MB thinks she is paying less or not paying for time when she doesn't need the nanny while the nanny is making more than she would at the other job and getting an extra 2 weeks off.

MBs that are looking for any way to get a better deal. They have a pretty good idea of what the market range is and will do their best to pay on the lower end, while also skimping on PTO and sick time by offering lopsided deals such as this one.

Anonymous wrote:OP you may want to look at this from the financial angle and compare it against other job offers that you have/reasonably expect to find. Nannies and employers fail to realize that time off paid or not is just another form of compensation that has a monetary value. If the weekly gross for a job is even a little bit more than the amount of time off when comparing jobs, the higher weekly rate job ends up giving you more money and time off over a year. Psychologically, the job offering more standard PTO may seem more attractive (hence all the walk away posts from nannies) but if you're smart you should look at the numbers between your job offers.

Job A pays 550 a week for 50 weeks a year (i.e. out of 52 week 2 weeks are PTO, 2 weeks are unpaid) and no sick leave. This job would yield you 27,500 in one year and give you four weeks off.

Job B pays 500 a week for 52 weeks (includes 2 weeks/one of your choosing and one of theirs plus 3 sick/PTO days), this job would yield you 26,000 in one year and give you 2 weeks off plus 3 possible sick days.

Lets say you need to take 3 sick offs. This would not change the yield for Job B ($26,000) but it would change Job A to $27,200 to subtract 3 days of unpaid time. You would still yield $1200 more from Job A than Job B. You would have 4 weeks off for Job A rather than 2 weeks for Job B.

If you are comparing Job A (better rate, non-standard benefits) to Job B (lesser rate, standard benefits), Job A is much better with the caveat that you don't get to choose one of the weeks. You would need to decide if getting to choose the dates for one week of vacation is worth giving up $1200 and 2 extra weeks off.

Anonymous wrote:Don't take this job!!! That MB is beyond entitled and she is going to nickel and dime you every step of the way.

To answer your question though - of course it is reasonable! Your package should be two weeks of vacation (one of their choosing) plus 5 PTO days. Their vacation schedule is not relevant - you deserve the opportunity to schedule your own holiday and take a sick day when you need it.

Anonymous wrote:OP you may want to look at this from the financial angle and compare it against other job offers that you have/reasonably expect to find. Nannies and employers fail to realize that time off paid or not is just another form of compensation that has a monetary value. If the weekly gross for a job is even a little bit more than the amount of time off when comparing jobs, the higher weekly rate job ends up giving you more money and time off over a year. Psychologically, the job offering more standard PTO may seem more attractive (hence all the walk away posts from nannies) but if you're smart you should look at the numbers between your job offers.

Job A pays 550 a week for 50 weeks a year (i.e. out of 52 week 2 weeks are PTO, 2 weeks are unpaid) and no sick leave. This job would yield you 27,500 in one year and give you four weeks off.

Job B pays 500 a week for 52 weeks (includes 2 weeks/one of your choosing and one of theirs plus 3 sick/PTO days), this job would yield you 26,000 in one year and give you 2 weeks off plus 3 possible sick days.

Lets say you need to take 3 sick offs. This would not change the yield for Job B ($26,000) but it would change Job A to $27,200 to subtract 3 days of unpaid time. You would still yield $1200 more from Job A than Job B. You would have 4 weeks off for Job A rather than 2 weeks for Job B.

If you are comparing Job A (better rate, non-standard benefits) to Job B (lesser rate, standard benefits), Job A is much better with the caveat that you don't get to choose one of the weeks. You would need to decide if getting to choose the dates for one week of vacation is worth giving up $1200 and 2 extra weeks off.

Anonymous wrote:I am in the process of negotiating terms for a new job. When I spoke to the prospective MB she said with their holiday and vacation schedules there will be 4 weeks during the year where they will not need me. She proposed only paying for two of those but I am going to say that isn't an option for me. I still have bills to pay and it's not my fault they are taking 4 weeks of vacation.

My question is, is it unreasonable for me to ask for 5 additional days of PTO? If I get sick a day or two during the year I don't want to take it off without pay just because there are 4 weeks they don't need me. Also, there may be a time when I'd like to take a day or two off of my choosing. Yes, 4 weeks off is great, but it doesn't seem fair that none of it is at my choosing.

I am spoiled with the job I have now. I've never taken a sick day or vacation day without pay. I'm also incredibly flexible with them so it's a mutual respect thing. Neither of us takes advantage of the other.