Anonymous wrote:Sounds like the same two posters on this entire thread, trying to make the same points over and over.

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like the same two posters on this entire thread, trying to make the same points over and over.

Anonymous wrote:Seeing that it's now come to light that neither the INA, nor APNA has a policy about their members posting online unclothed children, it's crucial to promptly address this problem, as it applies to work ethics.

Anonymous wrote:INA has always been more about the agency and not the nanny.

Anonymous wrote:Anyone part of the DEMA organization? Thoughts?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:APNA, how about allowing a little diversity on your board? Why are nannies forbidden from membership in your club? What is there to be afraid of? Please address these questions. Thank you. We know you're on this forum.

Seems like a good question

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:INA has never been exclusively for nannies, agencies have always been part of it. There was a organization exclusively nannies, but it went under several years ago.

I have no problem with agencies at INA. I actually really enjoyed networking with agency owners and placement coordinators. I think it's good to have an agency with diverse interests represented.

Diverse Interests = Agency Profits
How is this useful?
Why doesn't APNA, the agency organization, allow the "diverse interests" of nannies on their board? They don't even allow nannies to become members. Why is that?

I think it's useful because I utilize agencies to search for jobs. In my experience the agencies that attend an INA conference are some of the best in the business. The ones that attend seem to be the ones that really care about their nannies and want to support them. Networking with these agency reps was very useful in my last job search. I felt that they got to know me better at conference and really were able to help find me the perfect job for me. 18 months later and I've never been happier.

Additionally I find that interacting with agency owners, placement coordinators, etc. to be educational and beneficial. It's really nice to be able to have discussions about things that we all deal with and get multiple perspectives. I don't see any agencies getting rich or making a profit off INA.

One other thing is that there are a lot of former and/or current nannies who go on the start or work for agencies. Having the agency/business track available at the INA conference is really helpful for these nannies just to learn different business and marketing strategies. I know a friend of mine really benefitted last year from several of the agency workshops as she was just starting her business.

Here are a couple of examples of the Agencies I've personally enjoyed at INA:

Stanford Park Nannies. 100% of their placements are legal on the books jobs. All of the staff I've met are very nice and helpful to both nannies and the families they are working with.

Mahler Private Staffing: They actually meet with families face to face to assess their needs and develop a comprehensive job description. The background checks they do on their nannies are excellent. They literally speak with every past employer and check every single reference. They then take all of that information and develop an in depth portfolio on their nannies (and other household staff).

I bet you're an agency. You're trying to darn hard to sound like a nanny, but go ahead and deny it.

Anonymous wrote:APNA, how about allowing a little diversity on your board? Why are nannies forbidden from membership in your club? What is there to be afraid of? Please address these questions. Thank you. We know you're on this forum.