Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The top nannies will continue to earn high rates, with or without their own child.

Exactly.

A top nanny with child is worth less than the same nanny without.

Maybe, but no two nannies are identical, neither are any two parents identical. One nanny is always the overall preferred nanny by any particular parent.

On the other hand, just think of how many parents have a second child, just so the first one doesn't get spoiled rotten. I've had parents tell me they specifically wanted a nanny with child for that very reason.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The top nannies will continue to earn high rates, with or without their own child.

Exactly.

A top nanny with child is worth less than the same nanny without.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The top nannies will continue to earn high rates, with or without their own child.

Exactly.

Anonymous wrote:The top nannies will continue to earn high rates, with or without their own child.

Anonymous wrote:

$14- $15 an hour is ridiculously high for someone bringing a 5 month old along. You need to think of the liability..your car insurance and home insurance would not cover injury to her child in your car or property. The child is no longer covered as guest.

Is your house baby proofed? How do you deal with conflicts between naps and activities that your older need to be driven to during the day? Older kids can be outside or go to the pool when its hot while a 5 month old can not stay out for long in the heat. This is not a situation to walk into without being very aware of the downsides which are numerous.

This. You do, realize, OP, that your children will take a back seat to a 5month olds schedule, right? Naps alone will limit your nanny's ability to make your children a priority. Don't do this unless you have to. If you have to, pay no more than $9/hr.

Why would you pay someone top dollar when you know they are taking advantage of you?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
$14- $15 an hour is ridiculously high for someone bringing a 5 month old along. You need to think of the liability..your car insurance and home insurance would not cover injury to her child in your car or property. The child is no longer covered as guest.

Is your house baby proofed? How do you deal with conflicts between naps and activities that your older need to be driven to during the day? Older kids can be outside or go to the pool when its hot while a 5 month old can not stay out for long in the heat. This is not a situation to walk into without being very aware of the downsides which are numerous.

This. I am generally not opposed to sharing nannies, but the age difference makes this arrangement suspect, and if the nanny is asking for $17/hr WITH her child, she's out of touch with reality. The needs of an infant are so different from a 7-year old that it will be extremely difficult to do both well.

You'll need a different car (your sedan may accommodate two elementary school kids, but for them plus an infant you'd need a large car). A 5-month old requires significant care, supervision and investment of time for feeding, napping and comforting. You can tell a 7-year old to wait a bit for his sandwich, but are you going to ask a wailing 5-month old to wait while the nanny tends to her charges? What if the boys want to go to the pool, is she going to get in with them or watch her baby at the side?

I don't doubt that this nanny is great if you say so, but the fact of the matter is she's trying to sell half a nanny at a full nanny rate. No matter how great the apartment is, renting it with a roommate is cheaper than renting it for yourself alone.

These two posters are correctly. The ranting poster who thinks its a good idea is the minority here. Don't do it, OP.

+1. Very few MBs, if any, would be comfortable with this given the age difference between the kids. Even fewer would pay anything close to what this nanny is asking. $12 per hour would be a more reasonable rate for this situation, which is essentially a share. However, I wouldn't consider it even at that rate due to the liability issues and inevitable interference with your kids' needs. If you can afford to hire a nanny in the $16-17 range as opposed to the nanny share pay range, I'd suggest you keep looking and find someone who does not need to bring her child to work. There are many great nannies out there.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
$14- $15 an hour is ridiculously high for someone bringing a 5 month old along. You need to think of the liability..your car insurance and home insurance would not cover injury to her child in your car or property. The child is no longer covered as guest.

Is your house baby proofed? How do you deal with conflicts between naps and activities that your older need to be driven to during the day? Older kids can be outside or go to the pool when its hot while a 5 month old can not stay out for long in the heat. This is not a situation to walk into without being very aware of the downsides which are numerous.

This. I am generally not opposed to sharing nannies, but the age difference makes this arrangement suspect, and if the nanny is asking for $17/hr WITH her child, she's out of touch with reality. The needs of an infant are so different from a 7-year old that it will be extremely difficult to do both well.

You'll need a different car (your sedan may accommodate two elementary school kids, but for them plus an infant you'd need a large car). A 5-month old requires significant care, supervision and investment of time for feeding, napping and comforting. You can tell a 7-year old to wait a bit for his sandwich, but are you going to ask a wailing 5-month old to wait while the nanny tends to her charges? What if the boys want to go to the pool, is she going to get in with them or watch her baby at the side?

I don't doubt that this nanny is great if you say so, but the fact of the matter is she's trying to sell half a nanny at a full nanny rate. No matter how great the apartment is, renting it with a roommate is cheaper than renting it for yourself alone.

These two posters are correctly. The ranting poster who thinks its a good idea is the minority here. Don't do it, OP.

Anonymous wrote:$14- $15 an hour is ridiculously high for someone bringing a 5 month old along. You need to think of the liability..your car insurance and home insurance would not cover injury to her child in your car or property. The child is no longer covered as guest.

Is your house baby proofed? How do you deal with conflicts between naps and activities that your older need to be driven to during the day? Older kids can be outside or go to the pool when its hot while a 5 month old can not stay out for long in the heat. This is not a situation to walk into without being very aware of the downsides which are numerous.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
$14- $15 an hour is ridiculously high for someone bringing a 5 month old along. You need to think of the liability..your car insurance and home insurance would not cover injury to her child in your car or property. The child is no longer covered as guest.

Is your house baby proofed? How do you deal with conflicts between naps and activities that your older need to be driven to during the day? Older kids can be outside or go to the pool when its hot while a 5 month old can not stay out for long in the heat. This is not a situation to walk into without being very aware of the downsides which are numerous.

This. I am generally not opposed to sharing nannies, but the age difference makes this arrangement suspect, and if the nanny is asking for $17/hr WITH her child, she's out of touch with reality. The needs of an infant are so different from a 7-year old that it will be extremely difficult to do both well.

You'll need a different car (your sedan may accommodate two elementary school kids, but for them plus an infant you'd need a large car). A 5-month old requires significant care, supervision and investment of time for feeding, napping and comforting. You can tell a 7-year old to wait a bit for his sandwich, but are you going to ask a wailing 5-month old to wait while the nanny tends to her charges? What if the boys want to go to the pool, is she going to get in with them or watch her baby at the side?

I don't doubt that this nanny is great if you say so, but the fact of the matter is she's trying to sell half a nanny at a full nanny rate. No matter how great the apartment is, renting it with a roommate is cheaper than renting it for yourself alone.

These two posters are correctly. The ranting poster who thinks its a good idea is the minority here. Don't do it, OP.

It's the FFN poster. We had best obey her commands or else!

Anonymous wrote:Good grief a 5 month old requires even MORE care than an 18 month old. Your dealing with 2 naps a day and very few babies this young are content to lay around quietly in their pack in play while they're awake. Either age doesn't synch with the schedules that older kids require.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP I would pass on this candidate. Its a huge negative for the employer with no benefit. Its also a HUGE benefit to the nanny hence the crazy rationalizations that nannies put forward to do it.

My neighbor is actually in the middle of a mess like this now. She hired a nanny bringing her 18 month old. Her own 3 children are older elementary school age and relatively self sufficient so she thought it wouldn't be a big problem. She was clear that the position was a nanny/light housekeeper position and involved taking the older kids to their various activities and hosting play dates etc.

The nanny is exhausted from running after 4 kids all day but the kid that requires the most care is hers. The older kids are disappointed that they can't go to the pool when their friends are there because of nap time. The eldest of the 3 kids ends up watching/entertaining the nanny's child while the nanny does the light housekeeping tasks. None of the kids can ever invite a friend along or car pool because the fourth seat in my neighbor's car is now taken by the nanny's child. She's pretty upset about all this and plans to let the nanny go at the end of the summer and never do this again.

It may be worth noting that the big problem here may be that the family's kids and nanny's kids make 4 charges. That is a lot for anyone, especially given the wide age distribution.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Didn't you know that the most successful MBs don't have time for this board, duh?

I will reserve judgment until I hear some MBs say that they tried this arrangement and it worked for them. Proof is in the pudding.

The proof, Einstein, is the child who became the type of adult most parents hope their own children will become, academically/professionally brilliant, but more important are the highly developed social qualities: confident and secure, engaging public speaker and sensitive listener, well-grounded yet inquisitive with an incredibly broad imagination, to name a few.

Considering your narrow mindedness, Einstein, it appears you are missing that last quality, if not more. You lack the ability to see past your own nose with regard to this issue. Why you hammer your 'nanny's child is always a negative' mantra, without ever having any experience with it, baffles the intelligent mind. Perhaps you hated having a sibling and that experience has left you traumatized. I don't know what could possibly be driving you with such negativity towards a concept which you know nothing of. Although that would help explain why you think your personal opinion should be the only opinion expressed. (You're the one screaming "troll" when there's a different opinion than your own, no?)

One typically places more credibility in thoughts of others who have some direct experience with the subject at hand. It's as if you're thinking of traveling to the Middle East, and you have some questions. Which people would you find more credible, the person who's been there several times (and loved the experience!), or the person who's read about it (and lives in fear with the thought of it)? While I may be interested in a discussion with both persons, the one who has actually been there is obviously the only one who is equipped to offer me firsthand knowledge, which is what I prefer to seek, for that is the person who really "knows" what he speaks.