Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, I wouldn't hire a nanny who was trying to get pregnant. It's too hard on children to switch nannies so often.

I actually have posted before on the benefits of hiring only older nannies - this is one of them. Our nanny is 59 and the best nanny we have ever had. She was a teacher prior to becoming a nanny and has more energy and enthusiasm than I have! She also is 100% NO DRAMA and she never texts or talks on her phone when she is with our child. And, to your point, she is not going to get pregnant!

Yet you expected your employer to keep you on when you were pregnant, give you free time off to pump, and all the other crap pregnant employees do that the rest of us have to deal with, don't you.

It's a sanctified right for them, but an "undue" hardship for us. The women's rights movement really means upper middle class, educated, white women. Forget women of color, forget blue collar working women, to hell with the rights of domestic workers, and don't even get them started on women who stay at home. Yet they will call themselves feminists and pretend to be good caring people. Nannies and their offspring don't matter.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I filled in for 2 months with a family whose nanny was on maternity leave. It worked out great. I really respected the family for doing this. They also happened to be a Christian family.

There are very few Chtistians posting on DCUM as most proclaim they are atheist.

I'd bet there are fewer atheist nannies than faithful nannies, even here.

Anonymous wrote:I filled in for 2 months with a family whose nanny was on maternity leave. It worked out great. I really respected the family for doing this. They also happened to be a Christian family.

There are very few Chtistians posting on DCUM as most proclaim they are atheist.

Anonymous wrote:No, I wouldn't hire a nanny who was trying to get pregnant. It's too hard on children to switch nannies so often.

I actually have posted before on the benefits of hiring only older nannies - this is one of them. Our nanny is 59 and the best nanny we have ever had. She was a teacher prior to becoming a nanny and has more energy and enthusiasm than I have! She also is 100% NO DRAMA and she never texts or talks on her phone when she is with our child. And, to your point, she is not going to get pregnant!

Yet you expected your employer to keep you on when you were pregnant, give you free time off to pump, and all the other crap pregnant employees do that the rest of us have to deal with, don't you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

NP here. Our story, FWIW. We have an outstanding nanny who we trust 100% with our son. She works three days a week for us and many times more when we need her help. She is everything you would ever want in a nanny and I spend a lot of time wishing we could pay her more than we do.
We almost didn't hire her because she's in her late 20s and I (MB) had a sense that she might want to start a family of her own soon and we really needed and advertised for a nanny position with some long term potential. We were still willing to hire her and we were deciding between her and another, slightly older nanny who already had a child and the second nanny ended up not being willing to be paid on the books (despite our advertising as such). Then, our nanny actually reached out to us on her own and took herself out of consideration (before her planned working interview) and said to us "I think you want something more long term than I can offer, I feel it's only fair to tell you that I'd like to start a family of my own and think it would be disruptive to your child if I had to leave."
DB and I were completely blown away by her honesty and it added to what was a really good gut feeling about her. We ended having a heart to heart with her and we all agreed that as long as she keeps us in the loop about her plans, we could make this work. We are hoping she'll stay with our little one at least another year until he is old enough for preschool and if it worked out for all parties, would be happy for her to bring her (future) child to work with her. She has been with us for about three months and I dread the day she will have to leave us but feel so lucky that she takes care of our son right now. She is such a gem that if and when she has a child of her own and needs maternity leave, we would hire a temporary nanny or have grandparents take care of our son full time just so our nanny can rejoin our family when she is ready.

Just wanted to throw this out there as a situation when it could work! MBs aren't all heartless b*tches!

The only thing your situation shows is how naive and silly you are. Listen to yourself. You have a three month nanny and you are so blown away by her honesty (that would be the honesty that she'd like to start her own family one day, certainly nothing earth shattering.) that you'd actually consider allowing her to being her potential future child with her to work, without any thought of what that means for your child or your liability. Because you think she is so long term amazing...after three months.

You, my dear, are in fact the silly one here, not to mention stupid and selfish. How unfortunate for your child.

Anonymous wrote:

NP here. Our story, FWIW. We have an outstanding nanny who we trust 100% with our son. She works three days a week for us and many times more when we need her help. She is everything you would ever want in a nanny and I spend a lot of time wishing we could pay her more than we do.
We almost didn't hire her because she's in her late 20s and I (MB) had a sense that she might want to start a family of her own soon and we really needed and advertised for a nanny position with some long term potential. We were still willing to hire her and we were deciding between her and another, slightly older nanny who already had a child and the second nanny ended up not being willing to be paid on the books (despite our advertising as such). Then, our nanny actually reached out to us on her own and took herself out of consideration (before her planned working interview) and said to us "I think you want something more long term than I can offer, I feel it's only fair to tell you that I'd like to start a family of my own and think it would be disruptive to your child if I had to leave."
DB and I were completely blown away by her honesty and it added to what was a really good gut feeling about her. We ended having a heart to heart with her and we all agreed that as long as she keeps us in the loop about her plans, we could make this work. We are hoping she'll stay with our little one at least another year until he is old enough for preschool and if it worked out for all parties, would be happy for her to bring her (future) child to work with her. She has been with us for about three months and I dread the day she will have to leave us but feel so lucky that she takes care of our son right now. She is such a gem that if and when she has a child of her own and needs maternity leave, we would hire a temporary nanny or have grandparents take care of our son full time just so our nanny can rejoin our family when she is ready.

Just wanted to throw this out there as a situation when it could work! MBs aren't all heartless b*tches!

The only thing your situation shows is how naive and silly you are. Listen to yourself. You have a three month nanny and you are so blown away by her honesty (that would be the honesty that she'd like to start her own family one day, certainly nothing earth shattering.) that you'd actually consider allowing her to being her potential future child with her to work, without any thought of what that means for your child or your liability. Because you think she is so long term amazing...after three months.

Unless I had a very capable and loving friend or family member, I would never leave behind my newborn in order to provide care for another child.

The first year is the most important year for bonding.

Why would a child care professional separate from her own newborn, just to take care of some rich woman's child?

Unless you have your own brood of children to worry about, it makes no sense.

MB here. We have always asked nannies about their future plans, and frankly I am not thinking about pregnancy. I am thinking about moves or going back to school. (Three of our four nannies have left for one of these two reasons, and all were upfront in the interview about what they anticipated.) Nanny candidates have also always asked us how long we expect to need a nanny, which seems perfectly reasonable to me. The questions go both ways.

I probably wouldn't hire this particular candidate not because she wants to get pregnant but because of how she answered this question. "Future plans" in the context of a job interview implies career goals. Certainly, since she opened the door, I would probe more about what she expects going forward if she does get pregnant and have a baby. Many nannies seem to want or even expect to bring their baby to work which would not fly with me and I certainly would not hire a nanny who just assumes that's what's going to happen.

NP here. Our story, FWIW. We have an outstanding nanny who we trust 100% with our son. She works three days a week for us and many times more when we need her help. She is everything you would ever want in a nanny and I spend a lot of time wishing we could pay her more than we do.
We almost didn't hire her because she's in her late 20s and I (MB) had a sense that she might want to start a family of her own soon and we really needed and advertised for a nanny position with some long term potential. We were still willing to hire her and we were deciding between her and another, slightly older nanny who already had a child and the second nanny ended up not being willing to be paid on the books (despite our advertising as such). Then, our nanny actually reached out to us on her own and took herself out of consideration (before her planned working interview) and said to us "I think you want something more long term than I can offer, I feel it's only fair to tell you that I'd like to start a family of my own and think it would be disruptive to your child if I had to leave."
DB and I were completely blown away by her honesty and it added to what was a really good gut feeling about her. We ended having a heart to heart with her and we all agreed that as long as she keeps us in the loop about her plans, we could make this work. We are hoping she'll stay with our little one at least another year until he is old enough for preschool and if it worked out for all parties, would be happy for her to bring her (future) child to work with her. She has been with us for about three months and I dread the day she will have to leave us but feel so lucky that she takes care of our son right now. She is such a gem that if and when she has a child of her own and needs maternity leave, we would hire a temporary nanny or have grandparents take care of our son full time just so our nanny can rejoin our family when she is ready.

Just wanted to throw this out there as a situation when it could work! MBs aren't all heartless b*tches!

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.

Then put your money where your mouth is, and find an older person.

I filled in for 2 months with a family whose nanny was on maternity leave. It worked out great. I really respected the family for doing this. They also happened to be a Christian family.

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.

You are free to put the needs of other people.above tbe needs of your children. However don't assume it is.a value we all should uphold.

You also need to try to better understand labor laws and how they apply to such positions as nannies.

I'm a married nanny in my mid-20s who can't get pregnant for medical reasons, and am worried than I'll get passed over for jobs because people will make assumptions about my reproductive choices/values when they hear that I'm married. We're planning on fostering and eventually foster-to-adopt in 5-7 years, and that's a decision I've shared with my current NF---but we're so close they came to my (small) wedding. My 5-yo charge was wondering if I was planning on being a mom soon after I got married, and we had a discussion about waiting until I'm a little older/wiser and have traveled more etc---he told me that traveling with kids and mommy is harder than just grown ups and we talked about how when you have kids you have to put their needs first, like his mom does.

The majority of protections that are federally (and locally) mandated for workers do not apply for small or sole employee businesses for a reason.

Small employers cannot afford to sustain the loss of an employee in the way larger employers can.

FMLA is a perfect example of a policy that protects the job of an individual who takes parental leave (or disability, etc...) but does not apply to small employers.

Someone hiring for a one person position (such as nanny, housekeeper, bookkeeper, whatever...) cannot support an extended absence of an employee in that position. It causes undue hardship.

Don't hire her OP and don't feel badly about it, especially given the honest and adult way both you and the applicant are approaching this.