Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Weird set up but maybe it works for them. I agree you don't need to pay her more if the older child is never there. But you should also consider she may not currently be interested in being a FT newborn nanny. It's basically starting over in a new job and she may not want to do it at that rate, or at all.

I am not sure what you mean. She was OK taking care of a newborn full-time three years ago, at a lower rate. Why should she not be OK with it now, at a higher rate? What has changed so much that she doesn't want to do it "at that rate"?

It's hard for a nanny to lose care of a child she loves. To be told that she will never care for the older child, but will see that child every day in the morning for the next 2-4 years? I would have quit, it would be less problematic for me, especially after you showed exactly how little respect and feeling you have.

All nannies job end. That is the nature of nannying. The nanny has been told ahead of time about his preschool plans, and she can stay with the family if she likes, thus staying in touch with her first, about to become former, charge. I'm not sure I understand your concept of respect - is the family supposed to keep nannies forever because it's "disrespectful" for the child to move on?

Forget about the nanny for a minute. What kind of parent does that to their own child?

Does what?

Severe a long established relationship between child and nanny.

She'll still see him, it's not severed. He's moving on and looking forward to it. She can't nanny him forever.

Did she know AT THE YEARLY REVIEW that this change would take place? Yes: she has no room to complain. No, but she knew you were pregnant,: she made assumptions based on just about every single job in which there is a birth in a family when the nanny is already caring for the older child. No, but she didn't know: well, this is the time to renegotiate the contract, because the job she had is ending and a new one is starting, the only consistent are the parents.

I noticed that you didn't answer about whether you were nickel and diming her. How did you handle paying when your child started part-time preschool? Guaranteed hours are great, but you didn't say if the hours were decreased when he started pre-k.

If your nanny makes more than $17/hour, she has less room to complain, but it also depends on whether she didn't negotiate better at the annual review because she assumed there would be a raise when the baby was born (norm).

Your nanny may not agree to a clause that puts her in charge of both children in an emergency. After the way that you have explained everything, I wouldn't. But I would also be looking for another position asap, as your attitude is clearly that the nanny is the help and deserves no further consideration.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To be fair, its usually easier to be with 2 siblings than just one, they can play together. OP if I was in your shoes I wouldn't give a raise.

It will be QUITE a while before the baby is able to play with a now-four year old...Newborn nannying is the easiest gig of all.

I get higher rates for newborn care for good reason.

They are higher because parents are intimidated by their fragility. But the truth is that healthy newborns are the easiest charges ever.

The pediatrician who hired me would disagree with you.

That depends on the baby, and the nanny.

Presumably this nanny has been in a routine of taking the kid places, interacting, etc. She have been willing to take on a NB as well as that's part of the job, but in this case it is almost like her job ended and she is being rehired for a new one - without being able to negotiate. Maybe now that she has had experience she wouldn't have taken on a NB at that rate. Maybe she has decided NBs aren't her thing at all. Who knows? It sounds like nanny is not happy and it may well be unjustified but even so I would look elsewhere. She doesn't want the job you're offering and it doesn't really matter why.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To be fair, its usually easier to be with 2 siblings than just one, they can play together. OP if I was in your shoes I wouldn't give a raise.

It will be QUITE a while before the baby is able to play with a now-four year old...Newborn nannying is the easiest gig of all.

I get higher rates for newborn care for good reason.

They are higher because parents are intimidated by their fragility. But the truth is that healthy newborns are the easiest charges ever.

The pediatrician who hired me would disagree with you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To be fair, its usually easier to be with 2 siblings than just one, they can play together. OP if I was in your shoes I wouldn't give a raise.

It will be QUITE a while before the baby is able to play with a now-four year old...Newborn nannying is the easiest gig of all.

I get higher rates for newborn care for good reason.

They are higher because parents are intimidated by their fragility. But the truth is that healthy newborns are the easiest charges ever.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To be fair, its usually easier to be with 2 siblings than just one, they can play together. OP if I was in your shoes I wouldn't give a raise.

It will be QUITE a while before the baby is able to play with a now-four year old...Newborn nannying is the easiest gig of all.

I get higher rates for newborn care for good reason.

Anonymous wrote:To be fair, its usually easier to be with 2 siblings than just one, they can play together. OP if I was in your shoes I wouldn't give a raise.

It will be QUITE a while before the baby is able to play with a now-four year old...Newborn nannying is the easiest gig of all.

To be fair, its usually easier to be with 2 siblings than just one, they can play together. OP if I was in your shoes I wouldn't give a raise.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Weird set up but maybe it works for them. I agree you don't need to pay her more if the older child is never there. But you should also consider she may not currently be interested in being a FT newborn nanny. It's basically starting over in a new job and she may not want to do it at that rate, or at all.

I am not sure what you mean. She was OK taking care of a newborn full-time three years ago, at a lower rate. Why should she not be OK with it now, at a higher rate? What has changed so much that she doesn't want to do it "at that rate"?

It's hard for a nanny to lose care of a child she loves. To be told that she will never care for the older child, but will see that child every day in the morning for the next 2-4 years? I would have quit, it would be less problematic for me, especially after you showed exactly how little respect and feeling you have.

All nannies job end. That is the nature of nannying. The nanny has been told ahead of time about his preschool plans, and she can stay with the family if she likes, thus staying in touch with her first, about to become former, charge. I'm not sure I understand your concept of respect - is the family supposed to keep nannies forever because it's "disrespectful" for the child to move on?

Forget about the nanny for a minute. What kind of parent does that to their own child?

Does what?

Severe a long established relationship between child and nanny.

She'll still see him, it's not severed. He's moving on and looking forward to it. She can't nanny him forever.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Weird set up but maybe it works for them. I agree you don't need to pay her more if the older child is never there. But you should also consider she may not currently be interested in being a FT newborn nanny. It's basically starting over in a new job and she may not want to do it at that rate, or at all.

I am not sure what you mean. She was OK taking care of a newborn full-time three years ago, at a lower rate. Why should she not be OK with it now, at a higher rate? What has changed so much that she doesn't want to do it "at that rate"?

It's hard for a nanny to lose care of a child she loves. To be told that she will never care for the older child, but will see that child every day in the morning for the next 2-4 years? I would have quit, it would be less problematic for me, especially after you showed exactly how little respect and feeling you have.

All nannies job end. That is the nature of nannying. The nanny has been told ahead of time about his preschool plans, and she can stay with the family if she likes, thus staying in touch with her first, about to become former, charge. I'm not sure I understand your concept of respect - is the family supposed to keep nannies forever because it's "disrespectful" for the child to move on?

Forget about the nanny for a minute. What kind of parent does that to their own child?

Does what?

Severe a long established relationship between child and nanny.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Weird set up but maybe it works for them. I agree you don't need to pay her more if the older child is never there. But you should also consider she may not currently be interested in being a FT newborn nanny. It's basically starting over in a new job and she may not want to do it at that rate, or at all.

I am not sure what you mean. She was OK taking care of a newborn full-time three years ago, at a lower rate. Why should she not be OK with it now, at a higher rate? What has changed so much that she doesn't want to do it "at that rate"?

It's hard for a nanny to lose care of a child she loves. To be told that she will never care for the older child, but will see that child every day in the morning for the next 2-4 years? I would have quit, it would be less problematic for me, especially after you showed exactly how little respect and feeling you have.

All nannies job end. That is the nature of nannying. The nanny has been told ahead of time about his preschool plans, and she can stay with the family if she likes, thus staying in touch with her first, about to become former, charge. I'm not sure I understand your concept of respect - is the family supposed to keep nannies forever because it's "disrespectful" for the child to move on?

Forget about the nanny for a minute. What kind of parent does that to their own child?

Does what?

Anonymous wrote:I have some things for you to consider OP.

First, nanny has known you were expecting another child, and you say she was also aware that your oldest would be put into full time preschool. However, most nannies (nearly all) get some sort of raise when there is a new baby, for the reasons illustrated in this thread (more laundry, extra duties, etc). It sounds like your nanny's duties will not be increased. But, she has probably been expecting a new baby raise. She likely feels blindsided that she is not getting a raise, when all of her nanny friends have received raises for a new baby. Clearly, you have gone pretty far out of your way to ensure that she won't have any duties related to your oldest any more, so that you wouldn't have to pay her more. But, that is not the norm, and that is not what she was expecting. I'm not saying it's okay for her to have assumed anything, but every nanny I've ever known has received a raise when a new baby arrived, so I don't think it's so terrible if she did. Also, you say her most recent raise was just four months ago. At that point, she likely knew you were expecting and she may have not negotiated as hard for a big raise, assuming that she'd get another one when baby arrived. Again, she shouldn't have assumed, but maybe in hindsight this sort of thing stings even more.

Thank you for a detailed note. You say every nanny I've ever known has received a raise when a new baby arrived. Tell me - did all of them have to take care of TWO kids when the baby arrived? Or did some of them have to take care ONLY of the baby? What I'm struggling with is this mindset of being entitled to a raise just by virtue of the fact that the family has expanded, regardless of whether the nanny's workload has actually increased. If she had to take of two children, she would clearly be entitled to a raise. But why another raise when she is only taking care of one? Just because another child lives on the premises?

I also take issue with your phrase that I bolded. I didn't go out of my way just so that I don't have to pay her more. This is how the things will work in future. I didn't put the new arrangement in place with the sole purpose of not paying her more. That is an outcome of the new arrangement, but not their purpose.

Anonymous wrote:
Second, the fact that you've gone so far out of your way to make sure her duties won't increase so she can't justify a raise makes me wonder how much you nickel and dime your nanny. You mentioned that your child's preschool is only closed on federal holidays. Does your nanny get all federal holidays off with pay? Or does she get them off without pay? You mention that your oldest has been in part time preschool. Did your nanny get to keep the same hours when your son started preschool, or did you cut her hours (and thus her pay)? There is a lot of give and take between nannies and nanny families; if she feels well taken care of she may react differently than if she already feels taken advantage of.

She has guaranteed hours and all fed holidays paid. Also sick leave and PTO.

Anonymous wrote:
Another thing to consider is how much she is actually being paid. You say she's been with you three years and received raises every year, so it sounds like two raises then. If she started at $12/hr and is now at $14/hr, I can see why she feels underpaid. Especially if you don't offer guaranteed hours. Even if you started her at $15/hr and then bumped her up to $16 and now $17/hr, depending on your exact location, her experience, etc, that is still somewhat on the low side for a household with two kids. I was a nanny for 7 years before I realized how much I was being underpaid. I assumed the rates parents told me they were offering was an accurate estimate of how much a nanny should be paid, and based my rates on the averages I saw on care.com and sittercity. I already had five years of nanny experience, when I started working with a certain family with one infant at $12/hr. I was nearing my three year anniversary with them; I had never asked for a raise (and they hadn't offered), I didn't have guaranteed hours or any PTO, my Christmas bonus every year was $25. That was when I started seeking out other nannies in the area and asking about compensation. It turned out that none of the other nannies in that neighborhood made less than $15/hr, and they all received raises every year, and most had guaranteed hours. I went to my nanny family and asked for a raise, they basically laughed and told me they'd fire me if I asked again. I found a new job with better perks and better pay and quit (with three weeks notice) one month later. That was four years ago now and I never made less than $15/hr again, and always use a contract with annual reviews, etc.

She gets paid more than any number mentioned in this paragraph.

Anonymous wrote:
My last bit of advice is this: You keep reiterating that it would have to be a someone-just-died-OMG-emergency before nanny would be expected to care for your oldest. And that may be true. However, I think you should consider setting a specific pay rate for such an emergency. That way the nanny knows that IF (yes, a big if), IF she ever did need to care for both kids, she would be comepensated for it. For example, if she currently makes $18/hr for one maybe bump her pay to $22/hr for both, or if she currently makes $20/hr maybe bump it up to $25/hr if she watches both. I suggest making it a big bump in pay so that you don't feel too tempted to have nanny do it often, and also so that she understands that she won't normally ever be watching both kids, but if she does, there is a system in place so she will be compensated fairly.

Good luck.

That is not a bad idea and I will look into it.

I have some things for you to consider OP.

First, nanny has known you were expecting another child, and you say she was also aware that your oldest would be put into full time preschool. However, most nannies (nearly all) get some sort of raise when there is a new baby, for the reasons illustrated in this thread (more laundry, extra duties, etc). It sounds like your nanny's duties will not be increased. But, she has probably been expecting a new baby raise. She likely feels blindsided that she is not getting a raise, when all of her nanny friends have received raises for a new baby. Clearly, you have gone pretty far out of your way to ensure that she won't have any duties related to your oldest any more, so that you wouldn't have to pay her more. But, that is not the norm, and that is not what she was expecting. I'm not saying it's okay for her to have assumed anything, but every nanny I've ever known has received a raise when a new baby arrived, so I don't think it's so terrible if she did. Also, you say her most recent raise was just four months ago. At that point, she likely knew you were expecting and she may have not negotiated as hard for a big raise, assuming that she'd get another one when baby arrived. Again, she shouldn't have assumed, but maybe in hindsight this sort of thing stings even more.

Second, the fact that you've gone so far out of your way to make sure her duties won't increase so she can't justify a raise makes me wonder how much you nickel and dime your nanny. You mentioned that your child's preschool is only closed on federal holidays. Does your nanny get all federal holidays off with pay? Or does she get them off without pay? You mention that your oldest has been in part time preschool. Did your nanny get to keep the same hours when your son started preschool, or did you cut her hours (and thus her pay)? There is a lot of give and take between nannies and nanny families; if she feels well taken care of she may react differently than if she already feels taken advantage of.

Another thing to consider is how much she is actually being paid. You say she's been with you three years and received raises every year, so it sounds like two raises then. If she started at $12/hr and is now at $14/hr, I can see why she feels underpaid. Especially if you don't offer guaranteed hours. Even if you started her at $15/hr and then bumped her up to $16 and now $17/hr, depending on your exact location, her experience, etc, that is still somewhat on the low side for a household with two kids. I was a nanny for 7 years before I realized how much I was being underpaid. I assumed the rates parents told me they were offering was an accurate estimate of how much a nanny should be paid, and based my rates on the averages I saw on care.com and sittercity. I already had five years of nanny experience, when I started working with a certain family with one infant at $12/hr. I was nearing my three year anniversary with them; I had never asked for a raise (and they hadn't offered), I didn't have guaranteed hours or any PTO, my Christmas bonus every year was $25. That was when I started seeking out other nannies in the area and asking about compensation. It turned out that none of the other nannies in that neighborhood made less than $15/hr, and they all received raises every year, and most had guaranteed hours. I went to my nanny family and asked for a raise, they basically laughed and told me they'd fire me if I asked again. I found a new job with better perks and better pay and quit (with three weeks notice) one month later. That was four years ago now and I never made less than $15/hr again, and always use a contract with annual reviews, etc.

Sorry that tangent was so long, but the point is that even if she was happy with her starting pay when you hired her, she may since have spoken to other nannies and found out that it isn't that great of a rate. Without knowing all the specifics (her qualifications, your location, etc) it's hard to know what she should be paid, but you might consider that perhaps, even with the raises, and even if she was happy with the pay at first, she might still feel underpaid.

My last bit of advice is this: You keep reiterating that it would have to be a someone-just-died-OMG-emergency before nanny would be expected to care for your oldest. And that may be true. However, I think you should consider setting a specific pay rate for such an emergency. That way the nanny knows that IF (yes, a big if), IF she ever did need to care for both kids, she would be comepensated for it. For example, if she currently makes $18/hr for one maybe bump her pay to $22/hr for both, or if she currently makes $20/hr maybe bump it up to $25/hr if she watches both. I suggest making it a big bump in pay so that you don't feel too tempted to have nanny do it often, and also so that she understands that she won't normally ever be watching both kids, but if she does, there is a system in place so she will be compensated fairly.

Good luck.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Weird set up but maybe it works for them. I agree you don't need to pay her more if the older child is never there. But you should also consider she may not currently be interested in being a FT newborn nanny. It's basically starting over in a new job and she may not want to do it at that rate, or at all.

I am not sure what you mean. She was OK taking care of a newborn full-time three years ago, at a lower rate. Why should she not be OK with it now, at a higher rate? What has changed so much that she doesn't want to do it "at that rate"?

It's hard for a nanny to lose care of a child she loves. To be told that she will never care for the older child, but will see that child every day in the morning for the next 2-4 years? I would have quit, it would be less problematic for me, especially after you showed exactly how little respect and feeling you have.

All nannies job end. That is the nature of nannying. The nanny has been told ahead of time about his preschool plans, and she can stay with the family if she likes, thus staying in touch with her first, about to become former, charge. I'm not sure I understand your concept of respect - is the family supposed to keep nannies forever because it's "disrespectful" for the child to move on?

Forget about the nanny for a minute. What kind of parent does that to their own child?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Weird set up but maybe it works for them. I agree you don't need to pay her more if the older child is never there. But you should also consider she may not currently be interested in being a FT newborn nanny. It's basically starting over in a new job and she may not want to do it at that rate, or at all.

I am not sure what you mean. She was OK taking care of a newborn full-time three years ago, at a lower rate. Why should she not be OK with it now, at a higher rate? What has changed so much that she doesn't want to do it "at that rate"?

It's hard for a nanny to lose care of a child she loves. To be told that she will never care for the older child, but will see that child every day in the morning for the next 2-4 years? I would have quit, it would be less problematic for me, especially after you showed exactly how little respect and feeling you have.

All nannies job end. That is the nature of nannying. The nanny has been told ahead of time about his preschool plans, and she can stay with the family if she likes, thus staying in touch with her first, about to become former, charge. I'm not sure I understand your concept of respect - is the family supposed to keep nannies forever because it's "disrespectful" for the child to move on?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Weird set up but maybe it works for them. I agree you don't need to pay her more if the older child is never there. But you should also consider she may not currently be interested in being a FT newborn nanny. It's basically starting over in a new job and she may not want to do it at that rate, or at all.

I am not sure what you mean. She was OK taking care of a newborn full-time three years ago, at a lower rate. Why should she not be OK with it now, at a higher rate? What has changed so much that she doesn't want to do it "at that rate"?

It's hard for a nanny to lose care of a child she loves. To be told that she will never care for the older child, but will see that child every day in the morning for the next 2-4 years? I would have quit, it would be less problematic for me, especially after you showed exactly how little respect and feeling you have.