Anonymous wrote:Sorry, OP, you have no case. You have not proved your MB lied to you or did anything nefarious to you. Fact is, you had an impossible clause in your contract and it was shown to be impossible. No problem. Don't worry.Get a new job. Not involving children, because you don't seem to understand that kids are little germ minefields.

As others have said, the problem is with you. Your request was crazy and you shouldn't work with children if you really have an immunocompromised relative with whom you live.

You're just not very smart, OP.

You're kind of rude.

I think your MB was wrong. I also think your situation/requirements preclude you from the basic reasons a family employs a nanny. Your MB is either a sucker to agree to the silly terms, or she never had any intention of following them. Either way, while I don't see the situation working out, if you are insistent upon staying, you should bring it up. Remind her of your agreement, and your relative. Let her know specific circumstances in which you will require a heads up (vomit, diarrhea, rash, etc)

Anonymous wrote:OP again.

Thanks for the feedback. I do realize how unusual my agreements are, and how they may not make sense to others. Do consider that my pay reflexes that, and their are other reasons why my contract is the way it is. I wish more of you would have answered my question, rather than just tell me how ridiculous I was being.

Well, sadly, this happens all the time here at DCUM.

Sorry, OP, you have no case. You have not proved your MB lied to you or did anything nefarious to you. Fact is, you had an impossible clause in your contract and it was shown to be impossible. No problem. Don't worry.Get a new job. Not involving children, because you don't seem to understand that kids are little germ minefields.

As others have said, the problem is with you. Your request was crazy and you shouldn't work with children if you really have an immunocompromised relative with whom you live.

You're just not very smart, OP.

OP again.

Thanks for the feedback. I do realize how unusual my agreements are, and how they may not make sense to others. Do consider that my pay reflexes that, and their are other reasons why my contract is the way it is. I wish more of you would have answered my question, rather than just tell me how ridiculous I was being.

Anonymous wrote:^^^+1
Exactly. As an MB before I leave the house I update my nanny on the day's activities, what children ate, moods and any potential worries. Why would it not occur to her as a mother to mention to her nanny whom she is leaving that a child was throwing up that day. I am also pretty sure the 4 year old wouldn't say he was sick all day if he just threw up once that morning after eating and jumping. Then after the nanny tells her about the child's continued sickness she still did not come back until bed time. I would never do that. Sounds intentional to me.

Exactly.

To the PP who said the mom might not have lied... she lied by omission. She knew the nanny would be likely to stay home if she found out about the vomiting so she didn't mention it. The right thing to do in any scenario like this is to call and give the person the option!

ALTERNATIVE SCENARIO: My charge's grandmother is immunocompromised. If I vomit the night before work, even if I'm sure it is food poisoning, I call my employers to let them know and then they decide what they want to do (have me come in, have me stay home, have me call again in the morning to discuss). This is basic courtesy which was lacking in OP's MB.

Anonymous wrote:

Actually OP said the child was throwing up before 30 minutes was up that the MB left, she told the MB she didn't come back until bedtime.

No the OP wrote that the baby threw up 30 minutes after the Mom left. The child looked fine enough to the nanny before the mom left for the nanny to not to notice. When the mom came home she took the baby even though this is what they OP would normally do.

You should really re-read the OP, you've got your facts all wrong and that's why you can't see our point.

From the OP:

I called MB and she said it was just something he ate, but he was running a low grade fever. I was pretty upset, mostly because she never told me he had been sick. She arrived home after they had gone to bed. She asked me to stay, since she was going to be up with the two-year-old and I agreed since I've already been exposed.

The child had been sick throughout the day and MB knew this. OP calls MB when child throws up on her watch, MB claims its something he ate but he has a fever MB then doesn't return home until the kids are already in bed, so she did NOT come home early to take the sick baby from OP. She then asks OP to stay because she knows she'll be up all night with the kid. Hmm, I thought it was just something he ate??? Then at midnight 4 year old gets sick and she can no longer pretend its not a bug.

Actually OP said the child was throwing up before 30 minutes was up that the MB left, she told the MB she didn't come back until bedtime.

No the OP wrote that the baby threw up 30 minutes after the Mom left. The child looked fine enough to the nanny before the mom left for the nanny to not to notice. When the mom came home she took the baby even though this is what they OP would normally do.

Actually OP said the child was throwing up before 30 minutes was up that the MB left, she told the MB she didn't come back until bedtime.

Anonymous wrote:There is a difference between a practical requirement and desirable requirement. For example, a nanny accepting a job that doesn't offer PTO is not be desirable to the nanny but it is a practical requirement because its clear whether she is able to work or not. A requirement that a nanny will not work with a contagious sick child is not a practical requirement because its often not clear whether the child is sick with something contagious or not. The OP is increasing her chances for getting ill by doing childcare. She will be exposed to many things long before the child exhibits symptoms. She's either lying about being concerned about catching something and just never wants to deal with a sick kid or she's an idiot. It just makes no sense.

OPs question has to do with her MB having her work and undermining the agreement. I see your rep sonar says nothing about the MBs actions and only the practicality of the nannies terms. She didn't ask if you think it is practical to do child care if you have a sick relative. Answer the question at hand and leave the unrelated advice for later.

I was responding to a PP that tried to draw an analogy between the OP's requirement and a nanny taking a job without PTO. I agree these are two different situation and not comparable..one is not a practical requirement and one is not a desirable requirement.

The point is that the MB didn't violate the agreement. The child wasn't necessarily sick before the nanny arrived and it is reasonable to assume a food reaction. When the nanny arrived before the parent went out, the child clearly wasn't sick for the nanny to notice. When the child did become sick the parent took over. This is why this requirement isn't practical. If the nanny is sent home every time the child might be sick or get sick in the next few hours rather than actually being sick, she would never have to work.