Anonymous wrote:

Most people understand that an "only child" is often a disadvantaged child, unless parents go out of their way to mitigate the unfortunate consequences of the circumstances. That's why my pediatric psychiatrist employer jump at the prospect of my bringing my child to work, even in spite of my well-established high rates.

Some of you wish to repeatedly downplay this reality. By no means is it the best solution for every single family, especially when there already are several children.

Oh my, you are delusional, as well as selfish.

An only child is not "disadvantaged" and there are are no "unfortunate consequences of the circumstances" that need mitigating by giving you free child care.

Give this nonsense up. It bears no resemblance to reality.

It's not quite the stigma that it used to be, to be an only child.

Anonymous wrote:

OP here-
I don't know if it is about a superiority complex, some yes, others I don't think so. I feel like some MBs have it in their head that if the nanny's child is there, theirs won't get enough nurturing because the nanny will pay attention to their own child more. And as we all know that is far from the truth.
The family made it clear, however, that they didn't want the prospective nanny to bring their own children and I accepted that. But now I am feeling very saddened at the lost time with my child.

MB here - I actually feel the same way. IMHO, blood runs thicker than a paycheck, so I do worry about this.

MB, here. It might work well for others but at the end of the day, I would have the fear that the nanny would preference the needs of her child over mine, and would be less likely to give the same weight to both children. Perhaps an irrational worry but a worry nonetheless. I'm in a nanny share with another baby right now, and I feel like both families are on "equal ground." I might have my worries assuaged if the nanny had already been working with my family for some time, and there was already a base level of trust there ... maybe not, not sure.

Most people understand that an "only child" is often a disadvantaged child, unless parents go out of their way to mitigate the unfortunate consequences of the circumstances. That's why my pediatric psychiatrist employer jump at the prospect of my bringing my child to work, even in spite of my well-established high rates.

Some of you wish to repeatedly downplay this reality. By no means is it the best solution for every single family, especially when there already are several children.

Oh my, you are delusional, as well as selfish.

An only child is not "disadvantaged" and there are are no "unfortunate consequences of the circumstances" that need mitigating by giving you free child care.

Give this nonsense up. It bears no resemblance to reality.

Anonymous wrote:

Most people understand that an "only child" is often a disadvantaged child, unless parents go out of their way to mitigate the unfortunate consequences of the circumstances. That's why my pediatric psychiatrist employer jump at the prospect of my bringing my child to work, even in spite of my well-established high rates.

Some of you wish to repeatedly downplay this reality. By no means is it the best solution for every single family, especially when there already are several children.

There is nothing a nanny's child provides that can not be done with playdates, classes and plain kids you meet at the playground, plus that way you get variety. Your "pediatric psychiatrist" employer probably knows that. Lots of people with only children had only one by choice. Why would they want to "mitigate" this?

The actual reality is that if your employer allows you to bring your child along, she's the one who's doing you a favor. Not the other way round. Don't make it sound like bringing your child along makes you a better-optioned package. It doesn't.

Most people understand that an "only child" is often a disadvantaged child, unless parents go out of their way to mitigate the unfortunate consequences of the circumstances. That's why my pediatric psychiatrist employer jump at the prospect of my bringing my child to work, even in spite of my well-established high rates.

Some of you wish to repeatedly downplay this reality. By no means is it the best solution for every single family, especially when there already are several children.

This is the biggest load bull shit. Geez, you make the point that nannies are so desperate to find this set up that they will make up any lie possible.

*jumped

Anonymous wrote:OP, your question was addressed on the first page.

To summarize:

Some people feel guilty, others do not. Your problem is not unique. All working mothers deal with leaving their kids for the day at some point. There's no magic way around those feelings. You deal with them, like everyone else. If they are worse because you work with kids, get a new job selling shoes or something.

Then you start thinking you might be happier if you started a share with you bringing your child. Many people tell you that's fine, but they wouldn't interested in a nanny bringing her own child, even if it's negotiated as a share. You decide to argue with someone who gave you reasons they wouldn't be interested and tell them their opinions aren't facts. You are right, but your opinion that such a share is a good idea is also not a fact.

That's it. No reason for you to reply to every post defending your nanny share idea. We get it. Give it a try if you can find someone willing to do it with you.

That's what the thread is about. Nothing more than nothing particularly useful in answer to a not very interesting question.

Most people understand that an "only child" is often a disadvantaged child, unless parents go out of their way to mitigate the unfortunate consequences of the circumstances. That's why my pediatric psychiatrist employer jump at the prospect of my bringing my child to work, even in spite of my well-established high rates.

Some of you wish to repeatedly downplay this reality. By no means is it the best solution for every single family, especially when there already are several children.

OP, your question was addressed on the first page.

To summarize:

Some people feel guilty, others do not. Your problem is not unique. All working mothers deal with leaving their kids for the day at some point. There's no magic way around those feelings. You deal with them, like everyone else. If they are worse because you work with kids, get a new job selling shoes or something.

Then you start thinking you might be happier if you started a share with you bringing your child. Many people tell you that's fine, but they wouldn't interested in a nanny bringing her own child, even if it's negotiated as a share. You decide to argue with someone who gave you reasons they wouldn't be interested and tell them their opinions aren't facts. You are right, but your opinion that such a share is a good idea is also not a fact.

That's it. No reason for you to reply to every post defending your nanny share idea. We get it. Give it a try if you can find someone willing to do it with you.

That's what the thread is about. Nothing more than nothing particularly useful in answer to a not very interesting question.

Anonymous wrote:No, OP you asked "But there are also families who would agree to a share but would not agree for the nanny to being her own child for a pay decrease. So how would you explain that?" and employers answered you. The previous posts were answering YOUR question.

Yes and that was to answer a PP who commented about having another child there and the issues with that. What is your point, they have addressed their concerns, I have addressed my my thoughts about what they said. What are you doing now? Would you like to continue to speak about who said what when, as it is STILL not the point of the thread. I am not trying to be rude, honestly, I am frustrated however because everyone seems to want to pick apart one thing or the other. Yet no one has expressed a similar situation, and what they do to ameliorate it.

No, OP you asked "But there are also families who would agree to a share but would not agree for the nanny to being her own child for a pay decrease. So how would you explain that?" and employers answered you. The previous posts were answering YOUR question.

Anonymous wrote:No 11:44, you're just not correct but you are a nanny who wants to bring her child. You asked why parents do not want that arrangement and several posters answered you.

The employers aren't wrong these are issues. Some may be able to be addressed to with certain candidates but most will not. A nanny bringing her child represents an extra set of hassle and diminished value with no real benefit.

OP here- actually I have not asked that question. My post was geared to nannies, as I have said countless times I am not going to ask my family to bring my child. I wanted to hear from other nannies in similar situations. The thread was then hit with attacks from nannies on MBs, and MBs on nannies. I was responding to the above posters who stated their opinions as fact. I addressed that. My question that asked about share vs nanny's child was a rhetorical side note not the point of the thread.

And here you come with the same attitude "no real benefit" as many earlier posters who did bring their child have shared, their MBs have professed the benefit it has brought them. But like I said, NOT the point of the thread.

No 11:44, you're just not correct but you are a nanny who wants to bring her child. You asked why parents do not want that arrangement and several posters answered you.

The employers aren't wrong these are issues. Some may be able to be addressed to with certain candidates but most will not. A nanny bringing her child represents an extra set of hassle and diminished value with no real benefit.

Anonymous wrote:
I wanted to comment on your question on why some families would not agree to nanny bringing her own child even for a pay decrease (but would consider a share). Shares are different in that sense because the nanny is presumed to treat both kids on an equal footing. In a share there is also no need to have a meeting of the mind on things like parenting philosophies, what is allowed, not allowed, schedules etc. - these negotiations take place between share partners and not employer/nanny. The nanny just follows whatever the parents have agreed upon. So it's easier with the share because the personal element is removed from this scenario; the relationship is purely employer/employee with no maternal feelings brought into it.

Op here- I'm not sure if your a MB/nanny and how you interview. But I only take positions where my philosophies and approach to parenting is shared with the family. Since that is a big part of compatibility. That being said, there would not be an issue of philosophies not being mirrored in the care for each child. But for those who do not, is this not also the case in a share? Many nannies have to adapt to methods for one families child and another for the other family. (What they eat, how long they nap, what they wear, discipline methods etc). Any good nanny would be well versed in adaptability and adhering to what a parent wants for their child. At the same time, I can understand if some parents just simply want to tell the nanny what to do and never consult on anything. But that is a horrible approach to begin with. There has always been a meeting of the minds in every position I have had to discuss what is right for the child, and I find that such an approach is most successful for the child's relationship with nanny and parents and the employer/employee relationship as well.

Anonymous wrote:I agree with the points raised by 12:52. In addition, a nanny bringing her child often costs more than a traditional nanny share but offers less benefits. OP- using your own language a nanny bringing her child for a slight pay reduction is not a balanced trade by any means.

*There is more liability and complexity in dealing with home and car insurance if your employee brings her child than a traditional share.
*A traditional share costs less.
*In a traditional share it is clear that each family bears the cost of activities, food, etc for their own child as opposed to having to pay for the nanny's child too.
*In a traditional share, a nanny can be honest about issues, kid's schedules, and what is not working. If she is bringing her child, she will not bring anything up that could jeopardize her ability to bring her child. You will only hear that everything is wonderful when its not.

Nannies don't care about any of the above issues because they affect the employers not them.

OP here-
Nothing you said is a fact.
1. Many nannies have their own car and pay their own insurance. You are referring to a specific arrangements which can easily be amended. The only aspect that is possibly difficult is insurance for accidents within the home, which each share family has to attain for the children involved anyway, and can also be negotiated on nanny's salary and benefits.
2. As I have said before I see many instances where the average is $10/hr, correct me if I'm wrong, but this is also an average rate for a share. (And yes I have been in shares and such was the case)
3. Because a nanny brings her child does not mean the family pays for that child. Just as the nanny could take her child to daycare or another family bringing their child to another's home, there is something called a diaper bag and lunchboxes. Most nannies also partake in activities that are free, so still no cost to employers.
4. The nanny does not have to lie about compatibility because she is bringing her child, that is an issue of character and has no bearing on the presence of said nanny's child. In fact any issues that may occur with scheduling, etc can be discussed between nanny and MB easily and solutions can be found for napping, feeding etc that will be beneficial to both parties since both parties are affected by it and in reality paying the costs for it.

Your response was riddled with bias and has no factual content, just your what-if worst case scenario, that could easily happen in a share as well. If your personal opinion is that you do not like such an arrangement leave it at that. Don't misrepresent opinions as facts.