Thank you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP can check with her own insurance about any questions. Not rocket science, pp.

Clearly she can. But I'd like to hear what others have already learned about this issue, and I suspect the OP would too. Insurance salepeople are not lawyers, and it is ultimately litigation that determines what gets covered under what policies, based on particular riders and exclusions. If calling an insurer or insurance company yielded clear and accurate answers, there would be far fewer attorneys who spend their careers fighting, after a claim has arisen, over what is covered by a particular policy.

Stop trying to shut down all dialogue that threatens to expose the defects in your position.

Did you miss your therapy appointment this week, SW?

Oh, please. I'll be signing off now and letting your cute posts speak for themselves about the source of your brilliant opinions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP can check with her own insurance about any questions. Not rocket science, pp.

Clearly she can. But I'd like to hear what others have already learned about this issue, and I suspect the OP would too. Insurance salepeople are not lawyers, and it is ultimately litigation that determines what gets covered under what policies, based on particular riders and exclusions. If calling an insurer or insurance company yielded clear and accurate answers, there would be far fewer attorneys who spend their careers fighting, after a claim has arisen, over what is covered by a particular policy.

Stop trying to shut down all dialogue that threatens to expose the defects in your position.

Did you miss your therapy appointment this week, SW?

The person posted a valid question, and telling people to ask their insurance company seems like a way to get out of dealing with a possibly large con to a nanny bringing her child. If there have been so many nannies that have brought their children to work (either a good experience or bad for their MBs), then SOMEONE should be able to answer this. Unless they never actually checked it out themselves, which if no one has, then this is a very important thing to bring to the discussion of someone possibly hiring a nanny that will bring a child with her to work. If everyone else didn't think to check this info out, then maybe the OP would have forgotten to do this as well.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP can check with her own insurance about any questions. Not rocket science, pp.

Clearly she can. But I'd like to hear what others have already learned about this issue, and I suspect the OP would too. Insurance salepeople are not lawyers, and it is ultimately litigation that determines what gets covered under what policies, based on particular riders and exclusions. If calling an insurer or insurance company yielded clear and accurate answers, there would be far fewer attorneys who spend their careers fighting, after a claim has arisen, over what is covered by a particular policy.

Stop trying to shut down all dialogue that threatens to expose the defects in your position.

Did you miss your therapy appointment this week, SW?

Anonymous wrote:OP can check with her own insurance about any questions. Not rocket science, pp.

Clearly she can. But I'd like to hear what others have already learned about this issue, and I suspect the OP would too. Insurance salepeople are not lawyers, and it is ultimately litigation that determines what gets covered under what policies, based on particular riders and exclusions. If calling an insurer or insurance company yielded clear and accurate answers, there would be far fewer attorneys who spend their careers fighting, after a claim has arisen, over what is covered by a particular policy.

Stop trying to shut down all dialogue that threatens to expose the defects in your position.

OP can check with her own insurance about any questions. Not rocket science, pp.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
There is nothing toxic about the post or poster you urge OP to disregard.

Well, then we disagree on a fundamental point. If you can't recognize the toxicity of that poster then you're either dumb, new around here, or just as fricking ignorant as the PP was.

And again, a nanny who brings her own child does cost less, but it is NOT a true share. A true share balances the needs of both parents and both children evenly. A nanny's child takes backseat to her employer's child. Those are completely different scenarios. How hard is it to see that?

I'd kill myself if I had to work for MBs as dumb as some of the ones that post here. Jesus.

Nanny, there is no basis for concluding that an MB is dumb because she disagrees with your self-interested perspective. I don't agree with everything she says (e.g., the conclusions about professionalism seem unfair to me), but her perspective is otherwise rational and well-explained and I think she fairly captures many aspects of how many MBs feel about the issues surrounding employment of a nanny who brings her child to work. On the other hand, your post is highly toxic and, frankly, very childlike.

Similarly, there is no basis for your conclusion that a nanny's child always takes backseat to her employer's child. I'm sure that is true for some nannies, and I am equally sure that other nannies who expect their own child's needs to be balanced with the needs of her employer's child. At the end of the day, regardless of what the nanny says, when the four year old is getting into danger and the infant is screaming, the infant is going to be put down so the nanny can attend to the four year old. NO ONE would fault the nanny for that, but the reality is that when one adult has to balance the needs of two kids, compromises will be made. This reality lowers what many MBs are willing to pay for a nanny with child in tow.

If you want to contribute to productive dialogue, stop calling MBs dumb because they disagree with you and your sense of your own market value, and help the OP figure out what questions she needs to ask the nanny and herself to see if they have a common vision for the arrangement.

On another note, has anyone out there actually researched what insurance would apply if a nanny's child were injured at the employer's hours or during the nanny's work hours. MBs are required to buy worker's comp insurance to cover the nanny, but the nanny's child is not an employee, so I'm guessing she wouldn't be covered. To what extent would any such liability be covered by standard homeowners? Would a homeowner's policy cover injuries to the child that occurred during the nanny's work hours but off site?

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, but no. Your nanny is ALWAYS going to put her own child's needs before yours.

Liar.

Sorry, but no. Your nanny is ALWAYS going to put her own child's needs before yours.

Anonymous wrote:FYI, 17:23 is our hateful control freak. You'll soon come to recognize her as our perpetual doom and gloom imaginary "market rate" know-it-all. In reality there's no such thing as "market rate" in the nanny world until we begin to collect actual data. Random polls among your girlfriends or neighbors does not translate into "market rate".

Uh, random polls among friends and neighbors in a particular area is a far better indicator of market value than responses, which may or may not be true, from the small subset of nannies who frequent DCUM. Also, the only thing hateful about 17:23's posts is your reaction to them. Instead of trying to shut down everyone whose opinion conflicts with yours, why not just let the OP hear a variety of perspectives and form her own opinion based on a wide range of insights.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FYI, 17:23 is our hateful control freak. You'll soon come to recognize her as our perpetual doom and gloom imaginary "market rate" know-it-all. In reality there's no such thing as "market rate" in the nanny world until we begin to collect actual data. Random polls among your girlfriends or neighbors does not translate into "market rate".

+1000000000

Thank you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would ask specific questions in the interview about how she will handle various situations:

- Both kids are crying / being needy for different reasons
- Infant napping, toddler wants to play. Is your baby going to be home for all naps, or napping in stroller so toddler doesn't get bored?
- Classes / commitments that she needs to bring toddler to
- As the kids get older, if you want her to take your baby to a class / activity, will you have to pay for both kids?
- Food for toddler

This is a good list of questions for the nanny. Also consider the following:

What she will do if her child is sick. Do you want the illness brought into your home and around your infant, or would you prefer that the nanny use sick leave to care for her child at her own home?

Is it okay with you if the nanny takes your child along to her child's MD appointments, shopping for her child's needs, etc.

Do you want the nanny to take on meal preparation for your toddler or other housekeeping tasks. If so, given that four year olds don't nap much, how will will the nanny accomplish these things while your child naps but hers is awake, so that the chores don't cut into her ability to engage with your child during his or her awake hours.

I would also add: What happens if your child is sick? Will the nanny come to work? Will she bring her child? If she is unavailable when she, her kid, or your kid is sick, then you will need a lot of backup coverage.

Anonymous wrote:
There is nothing toxic about the post or poster you urge OP to disregard.

Well, then we disagree on a fundamental point. If you can't recognize the toxicity of that poster then you're either dumb, new around here, or just as fricking ignorant as the PP was.

And again, a nanny who brings her own child does cost less, but it is NOT a true share. A true share balances the needs of both parents and both children evenly. A nanny's child takes backseat to her employer's child. Those are completely different scenarios. How hard is it to see that?

I'd kill myself if I had to work for MBs as dumb as some of the ones that post here. Jesus.

Anonymous wrote:PP again. Forgot to mention that I agree that a nanny who brings her child is not necessarily any less professional than one who doesn't, provided that this doesn't interfere with her ability to treat the job like a job and provided further that she is reasonable enough to recognize that being permitted to bring her child is a perk for her, not a benefit for you.

You are relentless, 18:02, with your utter nonsense. Just because you couldn't make it work out for you, doesn't mean that it doesn't work out very well for many other families, especially those with only one child.

It's called a mutual benefit, otherwise known as win-win-win, for MB, Nanny, and most of all the children, who both get the best possible care.

PP again. Forgot to mention that I agree that a nanny who brings her child is not necessarily any less professional than one who doesn't, provided that this doesn't interfere with her ability to treat the job like a job and provided further that she is reasonable enough to recognize that being permitted to bring her child is a perk for her, not a benefit for you.