Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Firing implies stopping employment for cause. When someone is fired for cause, they don't deserve severance. When someone is laid off, the average is a week's salary per year of employment. So ... you want your former nanny to get three days pay?

If three days will make or break her budget, she's got a budgeting problem.

Go check out "The Help". That might help you, but let's not hold our breath.

Dude, I read the book and saw the movie. A nanny is NOT at ALL like those women. They were left to other people in their "owner's" wills! A nanny can choose to quit any time they'd like to, for any reason. This comparison with slavery and almost-slavery really needs to stop already. If your grandma was a nanny and your mom was a nanny you do not also have to be a nanny too.

+1000

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While I understand firing a nanny for cause without notice or severance, I think what happens all too often is families firing nannies for minor offences without giving a warning first. Make it clear that nanny is not currently meeting your needs, and how you'd like her to change whatever behavior to make it a more satisfactory working relationship, and that if you don't see an improvement she's on thin ice.

IMO only the most severe offences (intentionally hurting a child, theft, substance abuse while on the job) deserve firing with no warning.

I agree with this. I'm the PP who posted above you who fired DS' nanny on the spot when she was not keeping an eye on him while she was doing the dishes/cleaning up the kitchen and he got himself into a dangerous situation. If DS' nanny had texted or called either one of us after the incident, or even if she had told me when I got home (instead of attempting to lie about it in an obvious way), I probably wouldn't have fired her. Accidents happen, I get it. Granted, it was two parts of negligence on her part (not keeping an eye on him and not closing the gate to the stairs), but again, accidents happen. Not letting someone know that a 17 month old took a header down the stairs and then trying to lie about how his injuries occurred is definitely cause for firing/no severance in my book.

+1. The only nanny we ever fired was let go after she gave DC an extra dose of Motrin. It was an accident but the reason we fired her (without severance) was because when I realized what happened she blew it off like it wasn't a big deal and tried to cover it up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Firing implies stopping employment for cause. When someone is fired for cause, they don't deserve severance. When someone is laid off, the average is a week's salary per year of employment. So ... you want your former nanny to get three days pay?

If three days will make or break her budget, she's got a budgeting problem.

Go check out "The Help". That might help you, but let's not hold our breath.

Dude, I read the book and saw the movie. A nanny is NOT at ALL like those women. They were left to other people in their "owner's" wills! A nanny can choose to quit any time they'd like to, for any reason. This comparison with slavery and almost-slavery really needs to stop already. If your grandma was a nanny and your mom was a nanny you do not also have to be a nanny too.

Anonymous wrote:While I understand firing a nanny for cause without notice or severance, I think what happens all too often is families firing nannies for minor offences without giving a warning first. Make it clear that nanny is not currently meeting your needs, and how you'd like her to change whatever behavior to make it a more satisfactory working relationship, and that if you don't see an improvement she's on thin ice.

IMO only the most severe offences (intentionally hurting a child, theft, substance abuse while on the job) deserve firing with no warning.

I agree with this. I'm the PP who posted above you who fired DS' nanny on the spot when she was not keeping an eye on him while she was doing the dishes/cleaning up the kitchen and he got himself into a dangerous situation. If DS' nanny had texted or called either one of us after the incident, or even if she had told me when I got home (instead of attempting to lie about it in an obvious way), I probably wouldn't have fired her. Accidents happen, I get it. Granted, it was two parts of negligence on her part (not keeping an eye on him and not closing the gate to the stairs), but again, accidents happen. Not letting someone know that a 17 month old took a header down the stairs and then trying to lie about how his injuries occurred is definitely cause for firing/no severance in my book.

While I understand firing a nanny for cause without notice or severance, I think what happens all too often is families firing nannies for minor offences without giving a warning first. Make it clear that nanny is not currently meeting your needs, and how you'd like her to change whatever behavior to make it a more satisfactory working relationship, and that if you don't see an improvement she's on thin ice.

IMO only the most severe offences (intentionally hurting a child, theft, substance abuse while on the job) deserve firing with no warning.

Anonymous wrote:I agree w/ others OP - you don't know both sides of the story. Support your former nanny however you see fit, but don't judge the other family too harshly without knowing what happened.

And, FWIW, if I fired someone without notice and without severance it would be because of a severe breach (as detailed in our contract) along the lines of a major safety issue, a violation of our trust, physically disciplining a child in a way we expressly do not allow, etc...

If I fired a valued, trusted nanny he/she would absolutely get lots of notice and severance.

Things can go wrong, even with people you personally trust greatly, perhaps even without intent.

Agree with this. We fired a nanny without notice and with no severance when she claimed she was just cleaning up after lunch and doing the dishes and only took her eyes off 17 month old DS for a couple of minutes, but during those couple of minutes that he wasn't in her line of sight, DS got himself into a fairly dangerous situation. The only reason we knew what happened was because DS had an egg sized welt on his forehead and a skinned knee/shin and she finally admitted what happened.

I'm betting our former nanny didn't go around telling the whole story of why she was fired.

Six months is not a long time. I would not expect severance for six months. Agree with others that you don't know the other side and you've said enough that its likely the nanny was on her phone a little more than just a few times. My suspicion is that she was caught on her phone too much and the family realized she was cleaning up when the toddler was awake so she could nap, watch TV or surf the web while the toddler was napping.

I agree w/ others OP - you don't know both sides of the story. Support your former nanny however you see fit, but don't judge the other family too harshly without knowing what happened.

And, FWIW, if I fired someone without notice and without severance it would be because of a severe breach (as detailed in our contract) along the lines of a major safety issue, a violation of our trust, physically disciplining a child in a way we expressly do not allow, etc...

If I fired a valued, trusted nanny he/she would absolutely get lots of notice and severance.

Things can go wrong, even with people you personally trust greatly, perhaps even without intent.

Anonymous wrote:Firing implies stopping employment for cause. When someone is fired for cause, they don't deserve severance. When someone is laid off, the average is a week's salary per year of employment. So ... you want your former nanny to get three days pay?

If three days will make or break her budget, she's got a budgeting problem.

Go check out "The Help". That might help you, but let's not hold our breath.

I believe you OP. unfortunately there are some awful self-centered people in this town. I am bending over backward to make sure my nanny gets a new job when we have to let her go - I hate the thought of her next family screwing her over!

OP, you do not know the WHOLE story...Only HER side of things.

I would stay out of it and let her work it out between her and this other family.

I understand you love her, but this really is her issue w/this other family and she needs to deal w/it on her own.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Firing implies stopping employment for cause. When someone is fired for cause, they don't deserve severance. When someone is laid off, the average is a week's salary per year of employment. So ... you want your former nanny to get three days pay?

If three days will make or break her budget, she's got a budgeting problem.

Agree with this. You're hearing it from your former nanny's side. OF COURSE she's not going to admit to doing anything that would seriously warrant being fired for cause. Maybe there is much more to the "taking her eyes of the kid for a few seconds" than the nanny is going to share with you. Perhaps it was longer and it happened daily. Perhaps the kid got into something dangerous. Perhaps there was an incident. Anyways, I'm betting the family has a different take on the firing for cause.

I also agree. I also think you're feeling particularly bad because she's like a family member to you. Are you feeling like you need to help her out with funds to get through this time?

Anonymous wrote:Firing implies stopping employment for cause. When someone is fired for cause, they don't deserve severance. When someone is laid off, the average is a week's salary per year of employment. So ... you want your former nanny to get three days pay?

If three days will make or break her budget, she's got a budgeting problem.

Agree with this. You're hearing it from your former nanny's side. OF COURSE she's not going to admit to doing anything that would seriously warrant being fired for cause. Maybe there is much more to the "taking her eyes of the kid for a few seconds" than the nanny is going to share with you. Perhaps it was longer and it happened daily. Perhaps the kid got into something dangerous. Perhaps there was an incident. Anyways, I'm betting the family has a different take on the firing for cause.

Firing implies stopping employment for cause. When someone is fired for cause, they don't deserve severance. When someone is laid off, the average is a week's salary per year of employment. So ... you want your former nanny to get three days pay?

If three days will make or break her budget, she's got a budgeting problem.

Our wonderful former nanny went to work for another family when our kids got too old to need her. This is a woman who worked for us for six years, part of that time in nanny shares with other families, and every one of the familes that worked with her during those years loved her. I mean: LOVED her. Anyway, she worked for this new family for more than six months, and last week they fired her with no notice and no severance pay.

Stated reason? She inconvnienced them by taking one day off (with two weeks advance notice), she occasionally glanced at texts on her phone while toddler was playing, and she sometimes cleaned up in the ktchen while toddler played in the next room. Yes, you got it: she took her eyes off him for seconds at a time!

I can understand that in very rare circumstances, it might be appropriate to fire a nanny with no severance pay (because she stole, hit your child, or did some other sudden and egregious thing). But barring such situations, anyone who fires a nanny should give notice or severance pay. It's beyond appalling to fire a middle-aged women with dependents of her own without the basic human decency to give notice or severance pay.

I'd like to think the family that did this would read this and repent, but I doubt they will see it. But maybe it will inspire other families to remember that even if a nanny is a poor fit for you -- even if you feel she's not handling things the way you want-- she should still be treated as you yourself would want to be treated if you lost a job. It's fine to decide to let someone go if the fit isn't good, but that's not excuse to not treat an employee decently.