Well OK. I see. That does change things, of course, depending on how numerous these days are. We'd have to ask OP.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, your problem is that while your logic and arguments supporting a new rate for you as very good, for THIS PARTICULAR family it would be a very steep raise because they are looking at this through the lens of "what we used to pay before", not "what the market rate is." I am afraid, although it's not fair at all, that to get your fair market rate as a nanny for two kids, you may have to leave and look for another family as this one isn't likely to suddenly become able to pay you more.

Right.

But also, if OP's expectation is that she will still be able to bring her child to work with her on holidays or sick days, then she will still be a less than ideal candidate in the eyes of an employer who is able to pay top rates.

We don't know that. All working moms somehow deal with sick days and school holidays without bringing children to work. So maybe the nanny has a plan for that as well. We can't assume she wants to bring her child on these occasions.

See the last line of OP's original post.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, your problem is that while your logic and arguments supporting a new rate for you as very good, for THIS PARTICULAR family it would be a very steep raise because they are looking at this through the lens of "what we used to pay before", not "what the market rate is." I am afraid, although it's not fair at all, that to get your fair market rate as a nanny for two kids, you may have to leave and look for another family as this one isn't likely to suddenly become able to pay you more.

Right.

But also, if OP's expectation is that she will still be able to bring her child to work with her on holidays or sick days, then she will still be a less than ideal candidate in the eyes of an employer who is able to pay top rates.

We don't know that. All working moms somehow deal with sick days and school holidays without bringing children to work. So maybe the nanny has a plan for that as well. We can't assume she wants to bring her child on these occasions.

Anonymous wrote:OP, your problem is that while your logic and arguments supporting a new rate for you as very good, for THIS PARTICULAR family it would be a very steep raise because they are looking at this through the lens of "what we used to pay before", not "what the market rate is." I am afraid, although it's not fair at all, that to get your fair market rate as a nanny for two kids, you may have to leave and look for another family as this one isn't likely to suddenly become able to pay you more.

Right.

But also, if OP's expectation is that she will still be able to bring her child to work with her on holidays or sick days, then she will still be a less than ideal candidate in the eyes of an employer who is able to pay top rates.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I'm a parent. I could not afford a 25% increase - it would be a deal breaker. Whether or not it broke the bank right now, or in six months when I figured out an alternative on my own schedule.

A raise at a year, a raise for a new baby, sure. But 25%? Who among us has ever gotten that kind of a bump without changing jobs?



I have. you have to remember that they already got a discounted rate for the first year, now this raise would bump her up to standard nanny rates for two kids in the area. They are going to have a difficult time finding a quaility nanny for under $18 for two children. But honestly I'd just look for a different job that will pay my rate instead of sticking out for so cheap. Her kid is in preschool now so she won't have him and I bet she could probably find emergency care for the times he is sick if she absolutely had too. Or just reduce her rate only when her so comes to work with her. There are more families out there that at flexible than most realize, it just might take a longer search.

You have it wrong, PP. The NF did not get an advantage and a discounted rate...they participated in a nanny share and actually paid more than their fair share. It is the nanny, and only the nanny, who received a benefit. Now she doesn't need the benefit anymore. But we don't know why the parents agreed to the share. If it was due to financials, then they can just raise their standard rate by two dollars to accommodate the new baby and look for another share or get their own nanny. Considering their half of "share" was $15/hr, it will be very easy for the family to find a new, high quality nanny for $17-18/hr for two kids. If this nanny wants to stay with this family, she needs to drop the expectation that she is suddenly doing her employers some kind of favor by not bringing her kid anymore. She was well paid at $15/hr for one kid and the benefit of free childcare. A three dollar raise ($2/hr for new baby and $1/hr yearly raise) would be very good for her and unless she has other issues with the family, would be a foolish deal to give up.

This all depends on the rates in her areas. first of all, she IS doing her employers a favor by not bringing the kid anymore. I'm not sure why you would argue with this. Anyone would agree that one-on-one attention is worth more than the same amount of attention split two ways. It does not mean neglect, it simply reflects the reality that the nanny looking after two children gives each child less vs. a nanny giving all her time to one child. So a nanny divided is worth less PER CHILD than a nanny whole. That's not in dispute.

Secondly, if THIS particular nanny could find a job sans child for $19/hr for one child, her rates for two children would be at least $20. So market-wise, that's her benchmark, and possibly higher.

The problem is that it would be difficult to get with this particular family because they are too used to what they USED to pay. The nanny may have to go to the open market to get it, I'm sorry to say. But what this particular family is able to pay does not automatically make the nanny worth less (if she could get more with a new job).

OP, your problem is that while your logic and arguments supporting a new rate for you as very good, for THIS PARTICULAR family it would be a very steep raise because they are looking at this through the lens of "what we used to pay before", not "what the market rate is." I am afraid, although it's not fair at all, that to get your fair market rate as a nanny for two kids, you may have to leave and look for another family as this one isn't likely to suddenly become able to pay you more.

I'm salaried, and get 3% raises each year. Have roughly the same amount of hours per week, sometimes win some other times lose some. Not a big deal, I am there to help, take care of the kids and make my boss' lives easier.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our nanny is on salary too.
Here raise is in March when I know my raise, which is usually cost of living. Whatever my % raise is, that is her raise.
Our second child came when our older child was already in 6 hour pre-school so no $1 or whatever raise. Plus again, our nanny is salaried, not hourly.

FYI - that isn't legal. Legally your nanny is an hourly employer. You may employ her on a the basis of a negotiated salary but that must be calculated out to an hourly rate.

Not difficult at all.
40 hours*X+10 hours*1.5*X = my weekly salary put in my bank account after taxes via Breedlove.

What's illegal? This is beyond typical in Manhattan.

That's not salary. Salary is getting paid the same amount if you work 10 or 100 hours in a week with no OT. You are getting paid for all of the hours you work, including OT.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our nanny is on salary too.
Here raise is in March when I know my raise, which is usually cost of living. Whatever my % raise is, that is her raise.
Our second child came when our older child was already in 6 hour pre-school so no $1 or whatever raise. Plus again, our nanny is salaried, not hourly.

FYI - that isn't legal. Legally your nanny is an hourly employer. You may employ her on a the basis of a negotiated salary but that must be calculated out to an hourly rate.

Not difficult at all.
40 hours*X+10 hours*1.5*X = my weekly salary put in my bank account after taxes via Breedlove.

What's illegal? This is beyond typical in Manhattan.

Anonymous wrote:
I'm a parent. I could not afford a 25% increase - it would be a deal breaker. Whether or not it broke the bank right now, or in six months when I figured out an alternative on my own schedule.

A raise at a year, a raise for a new baby, sure. But 25%? Who among us has ever gotten that kind of a bump without changing jobs?



I have. you have to remember that they already got a discounted rate for the first year, now this raise would bump her up to standard nanny rates for two kids in the area. They are going to have a difficult time finding a quaility nanny for under $18 for two children. But honestly I'd just look for a different job that will pay my rate instead of sticking out for so cheap. Her kid is in preschool now so she won't have him and I bet she could probably find emergency care for the times he is sick if she absolutely had too. Or just reduce her rate only when her so comes to work with her. There are more families out there that at flexible than most realize, it just might take a longer search.

You have it wrong, PP. The NF did not get an advantage and a discounted rate...they participated in a nanny share and actually paid more than their fair share. It is the nanny, and only the nanny, who received a benefit. Now she doesn't need the benefit anymore. But we don't know why the parents agreed to the share. If it was due to financials, then they can just raise their standard rate by two dollars to accommodate the new baby and look for another share or get their own nanny. Considering their half of "share" was $15/hr, it will be very easy for the family to find a new, high quality nanny for $17-18/hr for two kids. If this nanny wants to stay with this family, she needs to drop the expectation that she is suddenly doing her employers some kind of favor by not bringing her kid anymore. She was well paid at $15/hr for one kid and the benefit of free childcare. A three dollar raise ($2/hr for new baby and $1/hr yearly raise) would be very good for her and unless she has other issues with the family, would be a foolish deal to give up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our nanny is on salary too.
Here raise is in March when I know my raise, which is usually cost of living. Whatever my % raise is, that is her raise.
Our second child came when our older child was already in 6 hour pre-school so no $1 or whatever raise. Plus again, our nanny is salaried, not hourly.

FYI - that isn't legal. Legally your nanny is an hourly employer. You may employ her on a the basis of a negotiated salary but that must be calculated out to an hourly rate.

i am sure that you on DCUM and charging hours is just as illegal.

I don't think your logic is unreasonable, OP. You took a job for a reduced rate, due to the fact that your child would accompany you. It makes sense to me that your rate should be reevaluated given that the situation is completely different than when you accepted the position. Calling it a "raise" is going to get you the same response from your employer as you are getting here. This is not a question of a raise, this is negotiating a completely new job.

Sit down with your employers and explain everything you have explained here. The situation is much different than when you were hired, and you would like to negotiate terms that are more in line with the market for their current needs, and what you are bringing (or aren't bringing) to the table. You are essentially giving them first refusal of your new rates, given the new details of the position. They may say that it is too much of an increase, and that's fine, but given the reduction you took for the benefit of bringing your child, 1) They are unlikely to find a nanny with your qualifications to work for your current (below market) rate, and 2) Without your child, you should have no problem going back to commanding your previous rates. I would be prepared to look for a new position, but don't let anyone here convince you that you somehow owe your employers the continued benefit of paying share rates for what is no longer a share.

Anonymous wrote:Our nanny is on salary too.
Here raise is in March when I know my raise, which is usually cost of living. Whatever my % raise is, that is her raise.
Our second child came when our older child was already in 6 hour pre-school so no $1 or whatever raise. Plus again, our nanny is salaried, not hourly.

FYI - that isn't legal. Legally your nanny is an hourly employer. You may employ her on a the basis of a negotiated salary but that must be calculated out to an hourly rate.

Our nanny is on salary too.
Here raise is in March when I know my raise, which is usually cost of living. Whatever my % raise is, that is her raise.
Our second child came when our older child was already in 6 hour pre-school so no $1 or whatever raise. Plus again, our nanny is salaried, not hourly.