Anonymous wrote:Hire post-menopausal nannies. Our nanny is 55 and very fit and energetic. Her life is settled and her children in college. I have none of the same issues as mothers with younger nannies - no PMS moods to deal with, no pregnancy fears, no texting/cell phone addictions, no boyfriend fight fall-outs, etc. Older nannies have been working in the childcare, teaching or any other field for decades - the idea that they have to show up on time and perform their duties comes as no surprise to them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know women's rights is important but being a nanny is not the same as a basic "job". When your job is working at McDonalds, you are paid for the time you are there and that is it, you can easily be replaced with nearly anyone, you have coworkers, the company has enough staff, resources, and money to not be effected by your absence. Being a nanny is very different, you can't be replaced easily, the family doesn't have the resources to cover your absence, they can't hold your position for 2 months for maternity leave, the children bond with you, etc etc etc. Too bad that is how it is.

Bullshit.

Sorry, but there are plenty of jobs where it is a pain in the neck for employers to replace you, where organizations have limited resources, and where continuity of relationships are key. Teachers, doctors, and therapists, are just the first three of many jobs that come to mind. Nannying is far from unique in that respect. But anti-discrimination laws prohibit asking questions about pregnancy whether current or intended, with the intention of using that information to make employment decisions. Because it's discrimination, plain and simple. Too bad, that's how it is.

That's not entirely true. I'm a physician in a practice with 7 other physicians. When I was on maternity leave there were 7 other physicians to cover for me. Physicians who were already there, in my office who didn't need to be trained while I was out. If I had 7 other nannies to cover for mine who already worked in my home it wouldn't be a big deal at all. Same kind of thing goes for therapists. Teachers are more like nannies but a lot of teachers I know planned their pregnancies so they would deliver over the summer so it wouldn't be a problem with work. There are also a lot of substitute teachers that can be called in if someone is on maternity leave. It's not really a lot of extra work for a school to find a replacement. On the other hand it is A LOT of work for a family to find a temporary replacement for their nanny.

In an ideal world there would be no discrimination based on a woman's plans to have children but I don't see any way around it. Growing up my parents always taught me that I could have any career I wanted and STILL have the family life I want but sadly that just isn't the case. There are ALWAYS compromises and sacrifices. If I work (even part-time), I'm always going to miss some events, milestones etc in my children's lives. If I stay home I will lose my skills as a physician and never be able to work in my field again. I lost my very first job when I finished my training when they found out I was pregnant with my first child. I was out of work for 6 months while I was pregnant because it was difficult to find someone to hire a pregnant woman. Any woman I know who wants a family struggles with how to balance work and family, whether it's changing jobs or careers or giving up their profession completely because it's not compatible with a family life, being a mother and having a career, any career, is HARD and in some cases it's harder than others. I know people will say that because I'm a woman who has been discriminated against because I had children I should be more understanding about others (ie a nanny) wanting to have a family and maintain her career as well. But keep in mind that I am struggling too and need to do what is best for MY family and I have to put them first above all else. Just because I don't think it's fair or right doesn't mean I am willing to sacrifice my children's happiness for someone else's. I've risked my own job for the sake of my children (taking time off at the very last minute when DC was really sick knowing my job wouldn't like it and they could let me go). I would risk my job a thousand times if I had to for my children, that's the choice I made when I wanted to have children and that's unfortunately the choice many women have to make. If we already had a beloved nanny who happened to become pregnant I would absolutely work with her to keep her BUT if I have tons of excellent applicants for a position I would not knowingly hire someone who is going to put my family in a difficult situation. It just doesn't make sense to do that to my children, fair or not, my children ALWAYS come first.

I'm the person who posted that. I'm also a school administrator. I've found replacement nannies for my child, and I've found replacements for teachers on maternity leave. The latter is far more difficult. If you think you can just pick up a phone and call someone who will know your curriculum, have relationships with your students' parents, be up to date on all the IEPs, you're very naive. I could easily argue that hiring teachers that might be pregnant is bad for my family, as they're the ones who will see less of me at home as I add hours to my day to check references, interview candidates, coach the candidate on curriculum, talk down the anxious parents who think teachers shouldn't have babies etc . . . But I don't because I know the right thing to do.

I don't raise my kids to come first when it's a matter of discrimination. I raise them to know what's right, and to stand up for it, even when it doesn't benefit them directly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know women's rights is important but being a nanny is not the same as a basic "job". When your job is working at McDonalds, you are paid for the time you are there and that is it, you can easily be replaced with nearly anyone, you have coworkers, the company has enough staff, resources, and money to not be effected by your absence. Being a nanny is very different, you can't be replaced easily, the family doesn't have the resources to cover your absence, they can't hold your position for 2 months for maternity leave, the children bond with you, etc etc etc. Too bad that is how it is.

Bullshit.

Sorry, but there are plenty of jobs where it is a pain in the neck for employers to replace you, where organizations have limited resources, and where continuity of relationships are key. Teachers, doctors, and therapists, are just the first three of many jobs that come to mind. Nannying is far from unique in that respect. But anti-discrimination laws prohibit asking questions about pregnancy whether current or intended, with the intention of using that information to make employment decisions. Because it's discrimination, plain and simple. Too bad, that's how it is.

That's not entirely true. I'm a physician in a practice with 7 other physicians. When I was on maternity leave there were 7 other physicians to cover for me. Physicians who were already there, in my office who didn't need to be trained while I was out. If I had 7 other nannies to cover for mine who already worked in my home it wouldn't be a big deal at all. Same kind of thing goes for therapists. Teachers are more like nannies but a lot of teachers I know planned their pregnancies so they would deliver over the summer so it wouldn't be a problem with work. There are also a lot of substitute teachers that can be called in if someone is on maternity leave. It's not really a lot of extra work for a school to find a replacement. On the other hand it is A LOT of work for a family to find a temporary replacement for their nanny.

In an ideal world there would be no discrimination based on a woman's plans to have children but I don't see any way around it. Growing up my parents always taught me that I could have any career I wanted and STILL have the family life I want but sadly that just isn't the case. There are ALWAYS compromises and sacrifices. If I work (even part-time), I'm always going to miss some events, milestones etc in my children's lives. If I stay home I will lose my skills as a physician and never be able to work in my field again. I lost my very first job when I finished my training when they found out I was pregnant with my first child. I was out of work for 6 months while I was pregnant because it was difficult to find someone to hire a pregnant woman. Any woman I know who wants a family struggles with how to balance work and family, whether it's changing jobs or careers or giving up their profession completely because it's not compatible with a family life, being a mother and having a career, any career, is HARD and in some cases it's harder than others. I know people will say that because I'm a woman who has been discriminated against because I had children I should be more understanding about others (ie a nanny) wanting to have a family and maintain her career as well. But keep in mind that I am struggling too and need to do what is best for MY family and I have to put them first above all else. Just because I don't think it's fair or right doesn't mean I am willing to sacrifice my children's happiness for someone else's. I've risked my own job for the sake of my children (taking time off at the very last minute when DC was really sick knowing my job wouldn't like it and they could let me go). I would risk my job a thousand times if I had to for my children, that's the choice I made when I wanted to have children and that's unfortunately the choice many women have to make. If we already had a beloved nanny who happened to become pregnant I would absolutely work with her to keep her BUT if I have tons of excellent applicants for a position I would not knowingly hire someone who is going to put my family in a difficult situation. It just doesn't make sense to do that to my children, fair or not, my children ALWAYS come first.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know women's rights is important but being a nanny is not the same as a basic "job". When your job is working at McDonalds, you are paid for the time you are there and that is it, you can easily be replaced with nearly anyone, you have coworkers, the company has enough staff, resources, and money to not be effected by your absence. Being a nanny is very different, you can't be replaced easily, the family doesn't have the resources to cover your absence, they can't hold your position for 2 months for maternity leave, the children bond with you, etc etc etc. Too bad that is how it is.

Bullshit.

Sorry, but there are plenty of jobs where it is a pain in the neck for employers to replace you, where organizations have limited resources, and where continuity of relationships are key. Teachers, doctors, and therapists, are just the first three of many jobs that come to mind. Nannying is far from unique in that respect. But anti-discrimination laws prohibit asking questions about pregnancy whether current or intended, with the intention of using that information to make employment decisions. Because it's discrimination, plain and simple. Too bad, that's how it is.

Sorry, none of those anti-discrimination laws apply to families hiring nannies.

The fact that it's not illegal doesn't change the fact that it's discriminatory.

It's discrimination that is and should be allowed for a reason. No family should have to make the choice of who cares for their child or even worse lives with them without considering sex, age, religion, stability, personality, and other factors.

Perfect argument why families traditionally care for their own babies and toddlers, rather than out-source this fundamental responsibility.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know women's rights is important but being a nanny is not the same as a basic "job". When your job is working at McDonalds, you are paid for the time you are there and that is it, you can easily be replaced with nearly anyone, you have coworkers, the company has enough staff, resources, and money to not be effected by your absence. Being a nanny is very different, you can't be replaced easily, the family doesn't have the resources to cover your absence, they can't hold your position for 2 months for maternity leave, the children bond with you, etc etc etc. Too bad that is how it is.

Bullshit.

Sorry, but there are plenty of jobs where it is a pain in the neck for employers to replace you, where organizations have limited resources, and where continuity of relationships are key. Teachers, doctors, and therapists, are just the first three of many jobs that come to mind. Nannying is far from unique in that respect. But anti-discrimination laws prohibit asking questions about pregnancy whether current or intended, with the intention of using that information to make employment decisions. Because it's discrimination, plain and simple. Too bad, that's how it is.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know women's rights is important but being a nanny is not the same as a basic "job". When your job is working at McDonalds, you are paid for the time you are there and that is it, you can easily be replaced with nearly anyone, you have coworkers, the company has enough staff, resources, and money to not be effected by your absence. Being a nanny is very different, you can't be replaced easily, the family doesn't have the resources to cover your absence, they can't hold your position for 2 months for maternity leave, the children bond with you, etc etc etc. Too bad that is how it is.

Bullshit.

Sorry, but there are plenty of jobs where it is a pain in the neck for employers to replace you, where organizations have limited resources, and where continuity of relationships are key. Teachers, doctors, and therapists, are just the first three of many jobs that come to mind. Nannying is far from unique in that respect. But anti-discrimination laws prohibit asking questions about pregnancy whether current or intended, with the intention of using that information to make employment decisions. Because it's discrimination, plain and simple. Too bad, that's how it is.

Sorry, none of those anti-discrimination laws apply to families hiring nannies.

The fact that it's not illegal doesn't change the fact that it's discriminatory.

It's discrimination that is and should be allowed for a reason. No family should have to make the choice of who cares for their child or even worse lives with them without considering sex, age, religion, stability, personality, and other factors.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know women's rights is important but being a nanny is not the same as a basic "job". When your job is working at McDonalds, you are paid for the time you are there and that is it, you can easily be replaced with nearly anyone, you have coworkers, the company has enough staff, resources, and money to not be effected by your absence. Being a nanny is very different, you can't be replaced easily, the family doesn't have the resources to cover your absence, they can't hold your position for 2 months for maternity leave, the children bond with you, etc etc etc. Too bad that is how it is.

Bullshit.

Sorry, but there are plenty of jobs where it is a pain in the neck for employers to replace you, where organizations have limited resources, and where continuity of relationships are key. Teachers, doctors, and therapists, are just the first three of many jobs that come to mind. Nannying is far from unique in that respect. But anti-discrimination laws prohibit asking questions about pregnancy whether current or intended, with the intention of using that information to make employment decisions. Because it's discrimination, plain and simple. Too bad, that's how it is.

Sorry, none of those anti-discrimination laws apply to families hiring nannies.

The fact that it's not illegal doesn't change the fact that it's discriminatory.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know women's rights is important but being a nanny is not the same as a basic "job". When your job is working at McDonalds, you are paid for the time you are there and that is it, you can easily be replaced with nearly anyone, you have coworkers, the company has enough staff, resources, and money to not be effected by your absence. Being a nanny is very different, you can't be replaced easily, the family doesn't have the resources to cover your absence, they can't hold your position for 2 months for maternity leave, the children bond with you, etc etc etc. Too bad that is how it is.

Bullshit.

Sorry, but there are plenty of jobs where it is a pain in the neck for employers to replace you, where organizations have limited resources, and where continuity of relationships are key. Teachers, doctors, and therapists, are just the first three of many jobs that come to mind. Nannying is far from unique in that respect. But anti-discrimination laws prohibit asking questions about pregnancy whether current or intended, with the intention of using that information to make employment decisions. Because it's discrimination, plain and simple. Too bad, that's how it is.

Sorry, none of those anti-discrimination laws apply to families hiring nannies.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know women's rights is important but being a nanny is not the same as a basic "job". When your job is working at McDonalds, you are paid for the time you are there and that is it, you can easily be replaced with nearly anyone, you have coworkers, the company has enough staff, resources, and money to not be effected by your absence. Being a nanny is very different, you can't be replaced easily, the family doesn't have the resources to cover your absence, they can't hold your position for 2 months for maternity leave, the children bond with you, etc etc etc. Too bad that is how it is.

Bullshit.

Sorry, but there are plenty of jobs where it is a pain in the neck for employers to replace you, where organizations have limited resources, and where continuity of relationships are key. Teachers, doctors, and therapists, are just the first three of many jobs that come to mind. Nannying is far from unique in that respect. But anti-discrimination laws prohibit asking questions about pregnancy whether current or intended, with the intention of using that information to make employment decisions. Because it's discrimination, plain and simple. Too bad, that's how it is.

Anonymous wrote:I know women's rights is important but being a nanny is not the same as a basic "job". When your job is working at McDonalds, you are paid for the time you are there and that is it, you can easily be replaced with nearly anyone, you have coworkers, the company has enough staff, resources, and money to not be effected by your absence. Being a nanny is very different, you can't be replaced easily, the family doesn't have the resources to cover your absence, they can't hold your position for 2 months for maternity leave, the children bond with you, etc etc etc. Too bad that is how it is.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know women's rights is important but being a nanny is not the same as a basic "job". When your job is working at McDonalds, you are paid for the time you are there and that is it, you can easily be replaced with nearly anyone, you have coworkers, the company has enough staff, resources, and money to not be effected by your absence. Being a nanny is very different, you can't be replaced easily, the family doesn't have the resources to cover your absence, they can't hold your position for 2 months for maternity leave, the children bond with you, etc etc etc. Too bad that is how it is.

If your child's stability is so important (as it should be,) perhaps you should reconsider your family priorities.