Oh my ... I used to do nanny share, but if one of the family decide not to bring their child or gone for a vacation , they paid me with no needs to put any other child for replacemen and if a older sibling needs care the parents ask me if I like to make an extra money and they paid the same amount as the other. Gosh some people don't respect the right of other .

Anonymous wrote:$30 an hour for two kids is ridiculous.

[b]

I get paid that and one is in school. Welcome to LA!

Anonymous wrote:Oh, I would have to love this nanny a lot to not start shopping around for a new arrangement. Maybe she has been reading some of these toxic dcum forums where nannies are encouraged to extort nanny families.

This is absolutely ridiculous. I would love to see my boss' face if, when one of our projects was completed and it was a lag week before we were working on something new if I just told him I expected to be paid more for working on a week that I expected to be "slow" even though it was *the exact same work load* I had been performing all along.

Hi, OP.

Your scenario doesn't match. In this case, you would be putting in the same number of hours but doing different work that would probably be more difficult. You'd be doing it without it being in your contract, i.e. Out of the goodness of your heart. Also, you'd have to be doing it during a week you were promised and contracted to have down time, a perk of the job you took. Consider it like working extra on a holiday and then come back. You'd also be pissing off one of your bosses by expecting them to pay you out of their project you aren't involved in, for your other bosses project.

Oh, I would have to love this nanny a lot to not start shopping around for a new arrangement. Maybe she has been reading some of these toxic dcum forums where nannies are encouraged to extort nanny families.

This is absolutely ridiculous. I would love to see my boss' face if, when one of our projects was completed and it was a lag week before we were working on something new if I just told him I expected to be paid more for working on a week that I expected to be "slow" even though it was *the exact same work load* I had been performing all along.

Anonymous wrote:OP here- She actually already watches the sibling on a scheduled basis so she is familiar with the child. The regular child in the nanny share is 2 and the sibling is 4. I'm not sure it is easier, but it would probably about equal.
I wouldn't mind paying a bit more just for her being flexible, but she requested a full share cost when she is already getting paid $20 an hour and this would bring her pay up to $30 an hour for 2 kids.

So basically you asked her a favor that isn't in her contract. She said yes, but not for free. You can take it or leave it. I mean, who normally provides care for that child?

Anonymous wrote:The OP already stated the sibling is watched by the nanny on a regular basis. If the nanny's two child rate is $20/hr, then she should get $20/hr for watching two children (which she already regularly watches). This is not like subbing a neighbor kid! It's her regular two child rate for two children she regularly watches! It's seriously nervey to demand extra money because the configuration of children is new.

It would be nice to take over the nanny's wage from the vacationing family. However, that's between you and your coemployer.

No where does it say nanny has a set "two child" rate. Nanny has a negotiated rate for two specific children. She is under no obligation to accommodate an extra.

This is probably the MB who didn't want to pay extra for a second child and swore up and down her nanny would never, ever be responsible, even for a minute.

Anonymous wrote:The OP already stated the sibling is watched by the nanny on a regular basis. If the nanny's two child rate is $20/hr, then she should get $20/hr for watching two children (which she already regularly watches). This is not like subbing a neighbor kid! It's her regular two child rate for two children she regularly watches! It's seriously nervey to demand extra money because the configuration of children is new.

It would be nice to take over the nanny's wage from the vacationing family. However, that's between you and your coemployer.

In that case, she should get $20/hr from the family with 2 kids. So in that case OP pays $20/hr. The money the vacationing share family provides is not relevant to the equation, and if they choose to keep paying (as I'm sure they will per their contract) that is between them and the nanny.

Or, I suppose, the share family can just refuse to pay, but it sounds like unlike the OP, they follow the contract.

PS, silly MB: she may regularly watch the kid, but not in the share and the kid clearly isn't part of the contract AT ALL or OP wouldn't be here. Why should it be assumed that she can have childcare for her extra child and the share family will pay for it?!