Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So it's just fine for a MB to get pregnant while working and cause her employer all sorts of trouble because maybe someone else in her office can carry MB's workload for up to a year. But since a nanny works solo, she needs to never get pregnant because it will make her MB's life difficult.

Good God.

Correct. No one is telling nannies not to get pregnant, were telling them not to be nannies.

Are we also telling women not to be doctors, lawyers, executives, or entrepreneurs because they might gestate and cause their employers to be inconvenienced?

Perhaps all women who are capable of gestating should simply not work?

Excellent point.

This is one reason I don't feel bad charging families a high rate. We take extra risk in our job because there is no HR department to protect us. Nannies, let them have their petty ways and raise your rates. They can pay for the privilege of being jerks. Otherwise, you are on the short end because no one looks out for us.

Just so you know for future reference, HR departments do not exist to protect workers. They exist to protect the company's interest. The kind of issues being discussed here are common problems in most other industries. The employee needs to be very careful and educate themselves on their protections and on how to answer interview questions that border on the personal.

Frankly, I don't think OP asked a necessarily discriminatory question. She asked about future plans. Unfortunately, the nanny candidate gave her a detailed answer about her personal plans that introduced a factor that damaged the candidate in the mind of the employer. The insidious thing about this is that the OP can just pass on this candidate (as could any other company) and never indicate it was because of the pregnancy plan. She can just say, and believe, it is a "bad fit".

I would not necessarily pass on the candidate, OP. If the same situation happened to me and the candidate offered family planning info, thus opening the door to discuss this, I would ask followup questions. Sure, she can tell you one thing and ultimately do another, but, if I really liked her, I'd ask more. Would she be expecting paid maternity leave? Would she plan on returning to work after a set amount of time? Does she have childcare plans of her own? Sure, she doesn't have to answer any of those questions, but since the nanny brought up having a baby and I have worries that that disruption would be something I can't accommodate, yet I really like her as a potential nanny, I'd want to give her a chance to show she has thought out how to balance job and baby before writing her off.

I wouldn't worry about temporary nannies or changing caregivers for a few months, OP. Your children will have a lot of important people in their lives that will take maternity leave or sick leave. Kids are pretty resilient.

If she is a good candidate, and you can find a way to make it work, make it work. Don't avoid her just because she wants a family one day. It isn't right.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So it's just fine for a MB to get pregnant while working and cause her employer all sorts of trouble because maybe someone else in her office can carry MB's workload for up to a year. But since a nanny works solo, she needs to never get pregnant because it will make her MB's life difficult.

Good God.

Correct. No one is telling nannies not to get pregnant, were telling them not to be nannies.

Are we also telling women not to be doctors, lawyers, executives, or entrepreneurs because they might gestate and cause their employers to be inconvenienced?

Perhaps all women who are capable of gestating should simply not work?

I'm a physician and I was fired because I was pregnant. It doesn't just happen to nannies. It's completely unfair that women who want to have children have a significant disadvantage in the workplace. But it is what it is. Doesn't make it right but my DC was 1000% worth losing my job over.

And you would advocate doing the same to another woman, rather than breaking that cycle with, say, unpaid maternity leave but the guarantee of a job? Costing you little but treating her better than you were treated?

Or no, we should all just default to the lowest common denominator because "it is what it is."

The problem is that it doesn't cost me "little." It's not just about her maternity leave during which I may not have to pay her but my children have to get used to a new person who will then leave after a month or 2. It's also all the time she needs off for doctors appointments during which I also have to find a backup sitter which again is not good for the children. And what if she is like PPs nanny? It's honestly not about the cost or what I have to do. It's about what's best for my children and no matter how unfair I might think it is to discriminate based on a woman's desire for children, the bottom line is that my children have to come first.

I agree that your children should come first here. Do they have two parents, or are you single parenting?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So it's just fine for a MB to get pregnant while working and cause her employer all sorts of trouble because maybe someone else in her office can carry MB's workload for up to a year. But since a nanny works solo, she needs to never get pregnant because it will make her MB's life difficult.

Good God.

Correct. No one is telling nannies not to get pregnant, were telling them not to be nannies.

Are we also telling women not to be doctors, lawyers, executives, or entrepreneurs because they might gestate and cause their employers to be inconvenienced?

Perhaps all women who are capable of gestating should simply not work?

I'm a physician and I was fired because I was pregnant. It doesn't just happen to nannies. It's completely unfair that women who want to have children have a significant disadvantage in the workplace. But it is what it is. Doesn't make it right but my DC was 1000% worth losing my job over.

And you would advocate doing the same to another woman, rather than breaking that cycle with, say, unpaid maternity leave but the guarantee of a job? Costing you little but treating her better than you were treated?

Or no, we should all just default to the lowest common denominator because "it is what it is."

Once again emotions trump logic. Just because your nanny gets pregnant doesn't mean you stop needing childcare, so you want to give her leave and let her come back to her job when she is ready... well who fills in in the meantime? Screw another nanny into a short term job? Plus is it that easy to find a replacement you can trust? This isn't data entry, this is care of your child. If you are going to plan to get pregnant you should not become a nanny, simple as that.

Any agency worth their salt will have a selection of nannies available for temporary positions. I said it wouldn't cost much, meaning not much more than you'd have paid her to work that time anyway - you'll just be paying it to your temp nanny. Or a grandparent, aunt, or cousin perhaps. Anyway I think you're a troll. I told DH what you said and he was shocked and appalled - said it was an unbelievably aggressive stance to take and I agree. Women work all kinds of jobs and women in all kinds of jobs decide to have children and that is something we should support between each other as best we can. Nowhere did I suggest every nanny employer should offer a year (or even any) paid maternity leave, but finding three to four month's worth of care is not difficult if you're willing to cough up fees to an agency.

Well I'm glad you are here to support all the pregnant nannies. I surely won't be hiring or supporting a nanny that gets pregnant or is planning too. We all make choices and you can't choose starting a family and caring for someone else's.

Ha, ha. As if you had the power to know who's trying to get pregnant. Who do you think you are? God? You're delusional. Get a grip on yourself, woman.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
While I agree in principle with the expressed sentiment,
we can all imagine the outrage if these same MBs
were themselves the target of such discrimination.

How ironic.
One more way how these women will fight for their own rights, but deny the same rights to another woman.

If any regular woman admitted to wanting a baby soon, during a job interview, she'd get laughed right out of her lean-in support group.
Don't be stupid, nannies. You NEVER go into personal matters. It's illegal for them to even ask.

False.

No, that's not false. http://hiring.monster.com/hr/hr-best-practices/small-business/conducting-an-interview/common-interview-questions.aspx

Also, I wouldn't get too cocky about a 39 year old nanny. I'm 39 and 30 weeks pregnant so yeah....

Nothing in your link applies. Hiring a nanny is not a "small business"

We can ask our potential nanny her exact age, her religion, if she plans to get pregnant and more. Those laws do not apply to us.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
While I agree in principle with the expressed sentiment,
we can all imagine the outrage if these same MBs
were themselves the target of such discrimination.

How ironic.
One more way how these women will fight for their own rights, but deny the same rights to another woman.

If any regular woman admitted to wanting a baby soon, during a job interview, she'd get laughed right out of her lean-in support group.
Don't be stupid, nannies. You NEVER go into personal matters. It's illegal for them to even ask.

False.

No, that's not false. http://hiring.monster.com/hr/hr-best-practices/small-business/conducting-an-interview/common-interview-questions.aspx

Also, I wouldn't get too cocky about a 39 year old nanny. I'm 39 and 30 weeks pregnant so yeah....

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So it's just fine for a MB to get pregnant while working and cause her employer all sorts of trouble because maybe someone else in her office can carry MB's workload for up to a year. But since a nanny works solo, she needs to never get pregnant because it will make her MB's life difficult.

Good God.

Correct. No one is telling nannies not to get pregnant, were telling them not to be nannies.

Are we also telling women not to be doctors, lawyers, executives, or entrepreneurs because they might gestate and cause their employers to be inconvenienced?

Perhaps all women who are capable of gestating should simply not work?

I'm a physician and I was fired because I was pregnant. It doesn't just happen to nannies. It's completely unfair that women who want to have children have a significant disadvantage in the workplace. But it is what it is. Doesn't make it right but my DC was 1000% worth losing my job over.

And you would advocate doing the same to another woman, rather than breaking that cycle with, say, unpaid maternity leave but the guarantee of a job? Costing you little but treating her better than you were treated?

Or no, we should all just default to the lowest common denominator because "it is what it is."

Once again emotions trump logic. Just because your nanny gets pregnant doesn't mean you stop needing childcare, so you want to give her leave and let her come back to her job when she is ready... well who fills in in the meantime? Screw another nanny into a short term job? Plus is it that easy to find a replacement you can trust? This isn't data entry, this is care of your child. If you are going to plan to get pregnant you should not become a nanny, simple as that.

Any agency worth their salt will have a selection of nannies available for temporary positions. I said it wouldn't cost much, meaning not much more than you'd have paid her to work that time anyway - you'll just be paying it to your temp nanny. Or a grandparent, aunt, or cousin perhaps. Anyway I think you're a troll. I told DH what you said and he was shocked and appalled - said it was an unbelievably aggressive stance to take and I agree. Women work all kinds of jobs and women in all kinds of jobs decide to have children and that is something we should support between each other as best we can. Nowhere did I suggest every nanny employer should offer a year (or even any) paid maternity leave, but finding three to four month's worth of care is not difficult if you're willing to cough up fees to an agency.

Well I'm glad you are here to support all the pregnant nannies. I surely won't be hiring or supporting a nanny that gets pregnant or is planning too. We all make choices and you can't choose starting a family and caring for someone else's.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So it's just fine for a MB to get pregnant while working and cause her employer all sorts of trouble because maybe someone else in her office can carry MB's workload for up to a year. But since a nanny works solo, she needs to never get pregnant because it will make her MB's life difficult.

Good God.

Correct. No one is telling nannies not to get pregnant, were telling them not to be nannies.

Are we also telling women not to be doctors, lawyers, executives, or entrepreneurs because they might gestate and cause their employers to be inconvenienced?

Perhaps all women who are capable of gestating should simply not work?

I'm a physician and I was fired because I was pregnant. It doesn't just happen to nannies. It's completely unfair that women who want to have children have a significant disadvantage in the workplace. But it is what it is. Doesn't make it right but my DC was 1000% worth losing my job over.

And you would advocate doing the same to another woman, rather than breaking that cycle with, say, unpaid maternity leave but the guarantee of a job? Costing you little but treating her better than you were treated?

Or no, we should all just default to the lowest common denominator because "it is what it is."

Once again emotions trump logic. Just because your nanny gets pregnant doesn't mean you stop needing childcare, so you want to give her leave and let her come back to her job when she is ready... well who fills in in the meantime? Screw another nanny into a short term job? Plus is it that easy to find a replacement you can trust? This isn't data entry, this is care of your child. If you are going to plan to get pregnant you should not become a nanny, simple as that.

Any agency worth their salt will have a selection of nannies available for temporary positions. I said it wouldn't cost much, meaning not much more than you'd have paid her to work that time anyway - you'll just be paying it to your temp nanny. Or a grandparent, aunt, or cousin perhaps. Anyway I think you're a troll. I told DH what you said and he was shocked and appalled - said it was an unbelievably aggressive stance to take and I agree. Women work all kinds of jobs and women in all kinds of jobs decide to have children and that is something we should support between each other as best we can. Nowhere did I suggest every nanny employer should offer a year (or even any) paid maternity leave, but finding three to four month's worth of care is not difficult if you're willing to cough up fees to an agency.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
While I agree in principle with the expressed sentiment,
we can all imagine the outrage if these same MBs
were themselves the target of such discrimination.

How ironic.
One more way how these women will fight for their own rights, but deny the same rights to another woman.

If any regular woman admitted to wanting a baby soon, during a job interview, she'd get laughed right out of her lean-in support group.
Don't be stupid, nannies. You NEVER go into personal matters. It's illegal for them to even ask.

False.

Anonymous wrote:
While I agree in principle with the expressed sentiment,
we can all imagine the outrage if these same MBs
were themselves the target of such discrimination.

How ironic.
One more way how these women will fight for their own rights, but deny the same rights to another woman.

If any regular woman admitted to wanting a baby soon, during a job interview, she'd get laughed right out of her lean-in support group.
Don't be stupid, nannies. You NEVER go into personal matters. It's illegal for them to even ask.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So it's just fine for a MB to get pregnant while working and cause her employer all sorts of trouble because maybe someone else in her office can carry MB's workload for up to a year. But since a nanny works solo, she needs to never get pregnant because it will make her MB's life difficult.

Good God.

Correct. No one is telling nannies not to get pregnant, were telling them not to be nannies.

Are we also telling women not to be doctors, lawyers, executives, or entrepreneurs because they might gestate and cause their employers to be inconvenienced?

Perhaps all women who are capable of gestating should simply not work?

I'm a physician and I was fired because I was pregnant. It doesn't just happen to nannies. It's completely unfair that women who want to have children have a significant disadvantage in the workplace. But it is what it is. Doesn't make it right but my DC was 1000% worth losing my job over.

And you would advocate doing the same to another woman, rather than breaking that cycle with, say, unpaid maternity leave but the guarantee of a job? Costing you little but treating her better than you were treated?

Or no, we should all just default to the lowest common denominator because "it is what it is."

Once again emotions trump logic. Just because your nanny gets pregnant doesn't mean you stop needing childcare, so you want to give her leave and let her come back to her job when she is ready... well who fills in in the meantime? Screw another nanny into a short term job? Plus is it that easy to find a replacement you can trust? This isn't data entry, this is care of your child. If you are going to plan to get pregnant you should not become a nanny, simple as that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So it's just fine for a MB to get pregnant while working and cause her employer all sorts of trouble because maybe someone else in her office can carry MB's workload for up to a year. But since a nanny works solo, she needs to never get pregnant because it will make her MB's life difficult.

Good God.

Correct. No one is telling nannies not to get pregnant, were telling them not to be nannies.

Are we also telling women not to be doctors, lawyers, executives, or entrepreneurs because they might gestate and cause their employers to be inconvenienced?

Perhaps all women who are capable of gestating should simply not work?

I'm a physician and I was fired because I was pregnant. It doesn't just happen to nannies. It's completely unfair that women who want to have children have a significant disadvantage in the workplace. But it is what it is. Doesn't make it right but my DC was 1000% worth losing my job over.

And you would advocate doing the same to another woman, rather than breaking that cycle with, say, unpaid maternity leave but the guarantee of a job? Costing you little but treating her better than you were treated?

Or no, we should all just default to the lowest common denominator because "it is what it is."

The problem is that it doesn't cost me "little." It's not just about her maternity leave during which I may not have to pay her but my children have to get used to a new person who will then leave after a month or 2. It's also all the time she needs off for doctors appointments during which I also have to find a backup sitter which again is not good for the children. And what if she is like PPs nanny? It's honestly not about the cost or what I have to do. It's about what's best for my children and no matter how unfair I might think it is to discriminate based on a woman's desire for children, the bottom line is that my children have to come first.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So it's just fine for a MB to get pregnant while working and cause her employer all sorts of trouble because maybe someone else in her office can carry MB's workload for up to a year. But since a nanny works solo, she needs to never get pregnant because it will make her MB's life difficult.

Good God.

Correct. No one is telling nannies not to get pregnant, were telling them not to be nannies.

Are we also telling women not to be doctors, lawyers, executives, or entrepreneurs because they might gestate and cause their employers to be inconvenienced?

Perhaps all women who are capable of gestating should simply not work?

I'm a physician and I was fired because I was pregnant. It doesn't just happen to nannies. It's completely unfair that women who want to have children have a significant disadvantage in the workplace. But it is what it is. Doesn't make it right but my DC was 1000% worth losing my job over.

And you would advocate doing the same to another woman, rather than breaking that cycle with, say, unpaid maternity leave but the guarantee of a job? Costing you little but treating her better than you were treated?

Or no, we should all just default to the lowest common denominator because "it is what it is."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So it's just fine for a MB to get pregnant while working and cause her employer all sorts of trouble because maybe someone else in her office can carry MB's workload for up to a year. But since a nanny works solo, she needs to never get pregnant because it will make her MB's life difficult.

Good God.

Correct. No one is telling nannies not to get pregnant, were telling them not to be nannies.

Are we also telling women not to be doctors, lawyers, executives, or entrepreneurs because they might gestate and cause their employers to be inconvenienced?

Perhaps all women who are capable of gestating should simply not work?

I'm a physician and I was fired because I was pregnant. It doesn't just happen to nannies. It's completely unfair that women who want to have children have a significant disadvantage in the workplace. But it is what it is. Doesn't make it right but my DC was 1000% worth losing my job over.

I would have to ask her what her definition of "near future" meant? Six mos.? One yr.?

And also, what are your long-term childcare needs?

All this must be factored in to decide your answer.

If you are looking for someone for a long-term and she is planning on starting a family within six mos., then yes, I would keep up my nanny search.

You don't want to hire someone great, then have to start from scratch all over again soon after.