Anonymous wrote:There's just something distasteful about a woman hiring me to love and care for her kids because she thinks I am the best available substitute for her, then asking me to have someone else care for my kids.

I think your perspective is wrong, and I think it's indicative of the great class divide in America as well as the culture we have created where mothers, in the role of mothering, are undervalued. Our lack of maternity leave, lack of affordable childcare options, this ongoing burden of shame we try to heap on mothers whether they work or stay at home, use daycare or hire a nanny, are all features of this problem. And you are contributing to it with your assessment that it is unreasonable of a nanny - whose JOB and SKILLS are directly correlated with being a parent - to want to bring her children with her.

It is understandable that you would choose not to hire someone with their own kids, certainly, but it breaks my heart to think you'd let go a beloved nanny if she gave birth to her own child (unless she found alternative care). It's disgusting, frankly.

Well said.

Lots of mb's think their nanny is oh so happy. Ok.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have far more sympathy for daycare workers, assistants in preschools, and teaching assistants in elementary schools who make half what nannies here do even though many nannies lack any education and have a far easier job (no supervision, free time during naps, ability to run your errands, meals provided etc). Seeing both sides of this, nannies have it pretty good in comparison to other childcare, education or other jobs. If you worked in both environments, you know that being a nanny is easier, pays better and you have more control over your day.

One of the psychological problems going on with nannies here is that they are constantly surrounded by their employer's lifestyle and they naturally get jealous. This attitude that they somehow deserve a % of the employer's networth or that the employer is morally obligated to pick them up as a charity case is just insulting to nannies who are professionals. Many of these nannies are lucky to be employed at all let alone at double the minimum wage.

That's not true for some nannies but certainly true for some. We employed a nanny for 18 months when my son was little. During this time, I once took a week's vacation - we didn't travel, I stayed in town to look after some personal errands and just relax. Our nanny continued to work even though I was off. When I mentioned it here, I got an incredible amount of grief from nannies who felt outraged that I didn't give my nanny extra time off just because I was off (she had 2 weeks PTO and had already used them up at that point). The fact is that the nanny's job has a certain package of benefits, and that's it. It does not expand or contract depending on her employer's status. BTW, my nanny was happy to come in and work.

I am a nanny and agree that in your situation you did nothing wrong. However it is completely incorrect when you say a nanny's package doesn't contract depending on her employers status. It most certainly does. If an employer is struggling, more often than not, some of it is passed on to the nanny in the form of no raise, bonus, asking for more duties else lose your job, etc, etc. Yes maybe the nannies take it a bit far, but its not completely out of line to expect that if your boss (or company) is doing well, that it will trickle down to you, just as it would if they weren't doing well.

Anonymous wrote:I have far more sympathy for daycare workers, assistants in preschools, and teaching assistants in elementary schools who make half what nannies here do even though many nannies lack any education and have a far easier job (no supervision, free time during naps, ability to run your errands, meals provided etc). Seeing both sides of this, nannies have it pretty good in comparison to other childcare, education or other jobs. If you worked in both environments, you know that being a nanny is easier, pays better and you have more control over your day.

One of the psychological problems going on with nannies here is that they are constantly surrounded by their employer's lifestyle and they naturally get jealous. This attitude that they somehow deserve a % of the employer's networth or that the employer is morally obligated to pick them up as a charity case is just insulting to nannies who are professionals. Many of these nannies are lucky to be employed at all let alone at double the minimum wage.

That's not true for some nannies but certainly true for some. We employed a nanny for 18 months when my son was little. During this time, I once took a week's vacation - we didn't travel, I stayed in town to look after some personal errands and just relax. Our nanny continued to work even though I was off. When I mentioned it here, I got an incredible amount of grief from nannies who felt outraged that I didn't give my nanny extra time off just because I was off (she had 2 weeks PTO and had already used them up at that point). The fact is that the nanny's job has a certain package of benefits, and that's it. It does not expand or contract depending on her employer's status. BTW, my nanny was happy to come in and work.

Anonymous wrote:I have far more sympathy for daycare workers, assistants in preschools, and teaching assistants in elementary schools who make half what nannies here do even though many nannies lack any education and have a far easier job (no supervision, free time during naps, ability to run your errands, meals provided etc). Seeing both sides of this, nannies have it pretty good in comparison to other childcare, education or other jobs. If you worked in both environments, you know that being a nanny is easier, pays better and you have more control over your day.

One of the psychological problems going on with nannies here is that they are constantly surrounded by their employer's lifestyle and they naturally get jealous. This attitude that they somehow deserve a % of the employer's networth or that the employer is morally obligated to pick them up as a charity case is just insulting to nannies who are professionals. Many of these nannies are lucky to be employed at all let alone at double the minimum wage.

While I certainly don't expect my employers' wealth to trickle down to me, I absolutely agree that it's harder for daycare workers, teachers, etc. Quite honestly, I find working as a nanny to be so much easier than when I was employed as a daycare worker. I really hate when nannies on here diss teachers, daycare workers, etc.

I have far more sympathy for daycare workers, assistants in preschools, and teaching assistants in elementary schools who make half what nannies here do even though many nannies lack any education and have a far easier job (no supervision, free time during naps, ability to run your errands, meals provided etc). Seeing both sides of this, nannies have it pretty good in comparison to other childcare, education or other jobs. If you worked in both environments, you know that being a nanny is easier, pays better and you have more control over your day.

One of the psychological problems going on with nannies here is that they are constantly surrounded by their employer's lifestyle and they naturally get jealous. This attitude that they somehow deserve a % of the employer's networth or that the employer is morally obligated to pick them up as a charity case is just insulting to nannies who are professionals. Many of these nannies are lucky to be employed at all let alone at double the minimum wage.

The simple fact of employing someone is not what we're talking about. There are more nuances to any job offered, and they vary from job to job. Just hiring someone does not in and of itself mean you've done some kind of service to society. If you hire a nanny at sub par wages, put no thought into her health care because it'd be expensive for you, offer little to no PTO or sick days, penalize her paycheck when YOU have decided to take a vacation, etc. it is self centered and disrespectful. Yes it is a nanny's responsibility to advocate for these things, but the fact that we have to advocate for things considered standard and necessary in most other industries is shameful on the part of the people do feel one iota of personal responsibility toward an individual they employ to care for the most precious things in their life. It is selfish, and disrespectful, and the only reason you all feel justified in your behavior is because you do not truly respect these women you employ; they are no more valuable to you than the service they provide. You do not give a damn about them as people.

I'm not in the business of servicing society when I hire a nanny. I'm looking to employ a professional person to do a specific job. I have no idea why you are assuming that I pay subpar wages that offer no PTO, and all your other grievances, but your assumptions just show how ridiculous you are on this thread.

I offer a competitive package to qualified applicants. I draw the line at allowing a nanny to bring her child, for very practical reasons, like liability. If that's your line in the sand, fine, go somewhere else. But I am not selfish, or disrespectful, because I won't capitulate to every perk a nanny wants. My employer doesn't, and that doesn't make them selfish and disrespectful.

Study up on the real world. It will help with your odd indignation problem.

Anonymous wrote:I acknowledge the nanniy's role in negotiating the details of her position, and I wouldn't accept a position I felt was subpar. But does the person offering said subpar position not maintain any culpability for its subpar nature? If the nanny doesn't negotiate because, hypothetically, she doesn't know her rights, does the employer have no responsibility to still offer what they know is right? There are nannies, who out of desperation and ignorance, accept jobs paying below minimum wage, requiring a ridiculous amount of unrelated and uncompensated tasks, and uncompensated hours in the guise of a "salary". Does the employer bare no responsibility? I feel that, morally they do, but the law only requires so much. Many parents are perfectly comfortable treading this line and giving no more than suits them and in my opinion its wrong. Sure the law doesn't require every little thing we all know to be standard, but does that make it okay to give no more than that? Many would say yes, and those are the MBs we are talking about; the self interested, disrespectful, classist, elitist MB who only sees her nanny as a commodity or status symbol, not the fellow human being, mother, or working woman she is. It's sickening honestly.

I agree with this pp. It's a shame that these mb's are so self-absorbed that they don't see how much they are hurting their own children in the end. So sad.

I acknowledge the nanniy's role in negotiating the details of her position, and I wouldn't accept a position I felt was subpar. But does the person offering said subpar position not maintain any culpability for its subpar nature? If the nanny doesn't negotiate because, hypothetically, she doesn't know her rights, does the employer have no responsibility to still offer what they know is right? There are nannies, who out of desperation and ignorance, accept jobs paying below minimum wage, requiring a ridiculous amount of unrelated and uncompensated tasks, and uncompensated hours in the guise of a "salary". Does the employer bare no responsibility? I feel that, morally they do, but the law only requires so much. Many parents are perfectly comfortable treading this line and giving no more than suits them and in my opinion its wrong. Sure the law doesn't require every little thing we all know to be standard, but does that make it okay to give no more than that? Many would say yes, and those are the MBs we are talking about; the self interested, disrespectful, classist, elitist MB who only sees her nanny as a commodity or status symbol, not the fellow human being, mother, or working woman she is. It's sickening honestly.

PP, I'm no more valuable to my employer than the service I provide either. I get the point about cheap MBs, but this idea that somehow nannying should come with above-market salary and atypical benefits because anything less makes the employer selfish and disrespectful is ridiculous. My employer would laugh in my face if I said that, rather than negotiating salary and benefits, I expect them to give me whatever i need (including bringing child to work) because such benefits are "standard" in some other unidentified industry. I do feel a higher level of personal responsibility for my child"s nanny than my company probably feels for me, but not because I have to - because I choose to and want to be an employer that she'd go the extra mile for. And even so, we negotiated her salary and PTO. If I hadn't, that would not make me a saint, it would make me a terrible steward of my family's finances. If you don't want to work for an employer offering what you see as subpar wages and bad benefits, don't. I don't work for Wal-Mart for exactly those reasons. But don't lecture everyone out there about being disrespectful just because you consider a certain job beneath you. That kind of righteous indignation is so fake, and as such, it isn't doing you or your profession any good.

Anonymous wrote:

We see this played out on this board all the time. So many of the parents here have a true inability to see beyond their own desires, and have a laundry list of reasons why its perfectly okay for them to behave this way. They don't see their nannies as worthwhile people, worthy of the same level of respect as anyone else, but rather a tool they can use to suit their whims. Like the MB who is going on an extra vacation this year and wants to know if she make nanny work extra hours to make up for it, and worse yet the MBs who said yeah sure! Or just take it from her "bonus" *wink* *wink*.

Wow, I hope the nannies on this board are outraged by your incredibly infantalizing belief that employing someone to do a professional job is disrespectful and as a sign that nannies are not "worthwhile people".

Crazy.

The simple fact of employing someone is not what we're talking about. There are more nuances to any job offered, and they vary from job to job. Just hiring someone does not in and of itself mean you've done some kind of service to society. If you hire a nanny at sub par wages, put no thought into her health care because it'd be expensive for you, offer little to no PTO or sick days, penalize her paycheck when YOU have decided to take a vacation, etc. it is self centered and disrespectful. Yes it is a nanny's responsibility to advocate for these things, but the fact that we have to advocate for things considered standard and necessary in most other industries is shameful on the part of the people do feel one iota of personal responsibility toward an individual they employ to care for the most precious things in their life. It is selfish, and disrespectful, and the only reason you all feel justified in your behavior is because you do not truly respect these women you employ; they are no more valuable to you than the service they provide. You do not give a damn about them as people.

We see this played out on this board all the time. So many of the parents here have a true inability to see beyond their own desires, and have a laundry list of reasons why its perfectly okay for them to behave this way. They don't see their nannies as worthwhile people, worthy of the same level of respect as anyone else, but rather a tool they can use to suit their whims. Like the MB who is going on an extra vacation this year and wants to know if she make nanny work extra hours to make up for it, and worse yet the MBs who said yeah sure! Or just take it from her "bonus" *wink* *wink*.

Wow, I hope the nannies on this board are outraged by your incredibly infantalizing belief that employing someone to do a professional job is disrespectful and as a sign that nannies are not "worthwhile people".

Crazy.

Hello reason. Pp you're dead on.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm also not liking the assumption that just because a child is in daycare, then it is 'subpar'. I'm a nanny, but of course I would be wrong to assume that all nannies are better than daycares. I don't know if pps are saying that to make nannies look better, but to me it's absolutely not true. There are positives and negatives to both.

What I mean is : any care anyone else gives to my child is not as good as the care I could provide. Nannies are the most expensive form of child are for a reason: they provide the most attentive care with the lowest ratios. A nanny can't afford her own so her child will attend a daycare, which would be fine if she weren't a nanny. She is perfectly capable of performing her job with her child present and it benefits not just the nanny but ALSO HER CHILD. Or we only care about the quality of care rich kids get?

See, I get what you are saying but there is one big issue. I don't think that a nanny bringing her own child is that beneficial to another family other than saving on cost (compared to paying for a FT one on one nanny for their child). So I could never enter in to a situation like that with my child. I would have to set it up as a nanny share with me as the nanny, and hope that the other family would see that I would give each child equal attention (but they probably wouldn't be as concerned about that since I would be "paying" an equal amount in the share). So while I could do that, if I could find good care that was cheaper than what I would be paying in a share, so I could save up more money FOR my family, while not going with care that was mediocre only, then I would probably still do that. If I have a chance at a really great paying job, I also might go to put my child in a nanny share with ANOTHER nanny. I'm not going to give any BS about no one else being a better caregiver than myself. There are plenty of great nannies out there. Sure, a mother's love and attention is "best" but other than that, I can't say that there aren't any other nannies that wouldn't be as good as me. If I could get a job that is $20-25 an hour, and then put my child in a share for those hours at $9-10/hr, I would do it. My child would still be getting great care and I could earn after my childcare costs, what some nannies make for 1-2 kids at their position. Well worth it, and if I could manage with fewer hours each week and spend those hours with my own child, then that sounds ideal. Great pay after costs and more time with my child than if I was working in an office, plus getting to do what I love (working with kids) for a living. If someone is so against anyone else caring for their child if they are in the same profession themselves, then they really should find a way to stay home. If they can't feasibly do it, well tough. Most people don't get to live life exactly how they want to (staying at home with kids and not worrying about finances). If you can't stay home, then you have got to deal with it.

Our nanny sometimes brings her child. She knows she is welcome to do so; sometimes she does and sometimes she leaves her daughter with her mother. My kids get along very well with her daughter and it works out fine. It's a little more chaotic, but what the hell. Works for us. I suppose I might feel differently if I felt my own kids for some reason needed constant non-stop attention, but they're old enough and independent enough not to need that. For them having our nanny's child over at times is just like having a friend over.