20:17, life is about compromise. So, she eats her "junk food" lunch by herself and eats an apple around kids. Everyone wins until cretin MB wants nanny to Stepford some other behavior.

Anonymous wrote:What she eats is her business. MB is a control freak and if OP acquieses to this then next thing MB wants her to cut or grow her hair. Maybe nanny likes the color brown and MB thinks this color is depressing to precious darlings. OP, there is no end to what control freaks will go. Start eating your lunch during nap time. Eat an apple around children.

Isn't OP "acquiesing" by eating an apple around the children? I thought you said what she eats is her business?

What she eats is her business. MB is a control freak and if OP acquieses to this then next thing MB wants her to cut or grow her hair. Maybe nanny likes the color brown and MB thinks this color is depressing to precious darlings. OP, there is no end to what control freaks will go. Start eating your lunch during nap time. Eat an apple around children.

A contract cannot, and should not, cover every conceivable situation that could come up during employment. New issues come up and need to be negotiated and dealt with.

Fight*

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another important point here is that this nanny in no means violated her contract. She never agreed to anything but to provide her own lunch which it looks like she IS doing.

As long as she upholds her end of the contract, she is in the right.

Sure.... My first nanny kept changed my infant son on our fabric couch without anything underneath him (despite being told not to after the contract). Apparently she also used our kitchen knives to "pick the gunk from her toe nails".. as our cleaner told us after we fired her....

Don't be ridiculous, not everything will be addressed in a contract.

haha. Gross and PP okay. Front for your right. Then you will be fighting being unemployed lol.

Anonymous wrote:Another important point here is that this nanny in no means violated her contract. She never agreed to anything but to provide her own lunch which it looks like she IS doing.

As long as she upholds her end of the contract, she is in the right.

Sure.... My first nanny kept changed my infant son on our fabric couch without anything underneath him (despite being told not to after the contract). Apparently she also used our kitchen knives to "pick the gunk from her toe nails".. as our cleaner told us after we fired her....

Don't be ridiculous, not everything will be addressed in a contract.

Anonymous wrote:Another important point is that you can be right and unemployed. OP, would you rather change your lunch or look for a new job this spring?

+10

I posted previously suggesting the nanny change her snacks. This was after eating chips and that gooey fake cheesy salsa with a beer (at home). Clearly, my diet is not perfect. But I try and eat the junk at home vs in front of my impressionable charges.

Anonymous wrote:Another important point is that you can be right and unemployed. OP, would you rather change your lunch or look for a new job this spring?

Haha. Touché.

Another important point is that you can be right and unemployed. OP, would you rather change your lunch or look for a new job this spring?

Anonymous wrote:Another important point here is that this nanny in no means violated her contract. She never agreed to anything but to provide her own lunch which it looks like she IS doing.

As long as she upholds her end of the contract, she is in the right.

You are incredibly naive and giving poor advice to OP. In any job, you must meet the needs of your employer to keep your job. Job descriptions change to adapt to the changing needs of the employer. If you refuse to adapt, your employer's needs will not be met and you will be replaced.

Another important point here is that this nanny in no means violated her contract. She never agreed to anything but to provide her own lunch which it looks like she IS doing.

As long as she upholds her end of the contract, she is in the right.

The respondents who are saying that the nanny should not eat this "crap" food are obviously basing their answers on bias vs. what is right or wrong.

The people who say a nanny should model good dietary behavior and obey their bosses, etc. are also on a soapbox about how everyone should be eating healthy. This bias is clouding their judgement on all levels resulting in flawed logic.

This topic is not on whether or not people, whether children or adult, should eat healthy or not.
We all have our own personal opinions on how we feel about what we put into our bodies. That is not the issue here.

OP accepted a nanny position. She was told to provide her own lunch every day. That was it. She was not asked to bring only certain foods into work. It seems her diet was never even discussed when she accepted the job.
Then her boss sees her eating Oreos and drinking from a juice pouch, etc. Her boss tells her that from now on, she is not to bring those foods into the home since the boss BELIEVES in modeling healthier food choices for her children.

Now the nanny has to change what she brings for her lunches or risk losing her job.

This picture is wrong for so many reasons.
The boss just ASSUMED the nanny would share her belief that Oreos and juice pouches were unsuitable items for lunch. You know what they say about assumptions...Assumed = Makes an ass out of U and Me. LOL.
That's like saying across the board collectively this nanny should just "know" this stuff. Like she should just "know" that nannies should not eat cookies at work, that nannies should not display more than 3 tattoos on their arms, that nannies should not pierce their lips, etc.

Everyone has their own opinions about things and nothing should be taken factually or assumed here.

The nanny would only be in the wrong if she AGREED to bring only healthy foods into the home and then did the opposite.

All this bashing of this nanny is immature and unwarranted.

This boss should be bashed for trying to advance her own agenda for her healthy eating platform.

I betcha if an employee was mandated to bring only certain lunch items to work every day, there would be a huge backlash. Unfortunately, people view nannies in a different light because we work in intimate surroundings. However, we still pay our taxes and are still entitled to the same rights as every other tax-paying citizen.

If this nanny were a guest in the home, then her boss would have every right to ban junk food.
But we live in a free country and as tax paying citizens who work just as hard as everyone else, us nannies are entitled to the same rights enjoyed by ALL hard working Americans.

OP: I suggest you leave this job if at all possible.
If you do not, be prepared to receive a list of banned lunch food choices in the next week or so.

This MB is crazy. Really.

*** these other items

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a nanny, and I agree with everything that's been said about setting a good example and so on, but I do still feel that if this wasn't specified before hiring (because it isn't reasonable to assume anyone's dietary preferences will mesh with yours, and LOADS of kids eat things like chips and cookies) then the MB should be providing food for the nanny's lunch.

She is asking her nanny to make a major dietary change, not to eat out of a separate packaging (kosher) or to leave out one ingredient (peanuts for an allergic child), and that's too much to spring on her without taking her share of the responsibility in the situation. MB wasn't clear upon hiring what her requirements were - that's okay, lots of things come up that you don't think of ahead of time - but now, because she failed to clarify this early on, she should be footing the bill for these healthy lunches.

I don't see the MB asking the nanny to make a dramatic change in her diet. I think most families would be fine with their nanny bringing a sandwich to eat. Having a capri sun isn't that evil either, as long as the kids see nanny drinking lots of water as well and not several capri suns throughout the day. No one is saying she needs to go organic at all. The main thing I see is that she needs to change the types of snacks she is bringing, and we have offered many types of substitutes for her cheetos and oreos, some of which can be very similar to that (like with different puffed snacks). She can still eat those at home, so she is not cutting it out of her diet even, just switching up what she snacks on at work. That is not a major dietary change at all. It WOULD be a major dietary change if she was asked to not eat meat in the house (and she suddenly couldn't) or liked peanut butter sandwiches for lunch daily and was told she could no longer have that for her lunch due to allergies. So if someone COULD make those types of changes easily enough, then she should be able to change the types of snacks she brings. I don't see a need for asking/demanding the MB to pay for her food for something like this. Just because it wasn't discussed before, no, it doesn't mean the family should foot the cost of her lunches. A nanny should be able to adapt to change (she is working with children that are CONSTANTLY changing and evolving!) and if she can't do this after the MB has asked her to stop eating this type of food around her kids, then it doesn't sound like the is the right person for that position any longer. If she doesn't like it, then she can find another position.

You think asking a nanny not to bring peanut butter to work is MORE of a dietary change than asking her to switch up her entire lunchtime meal?

Ohhhhhkay.

Nobody was asking her to switch up her entire lunch, just making the snacks more healthy. Honestly, oreos and cheetos and the like are not actually meal foods. Some carrot sticks or apple slices? Yes, they are part of the 5 food groups. I don't seem to remember cookies and other non-natural sugary foods being part of ANY food group for meals. A peanut butter sandwich? A bologna sandwich? Yes to both. These items are called snacks for a reason, they are not necessary, there is virtually no nutritional value from these items. They are fillers and crappy ones at that.

It is not a dietary change if someone is saying that you can eat this crap still while at home. It WOULD be a major dietary change if you cut them out of your diet TOTALLY. It is more of a dietary change to ask someone who eats meat everyday at lunch to no longer eat meat at lunch. This would affect how they are going to get their protein for that meal, making them come up with a new way to get it (maybe from other nuts and seeds, some cheese etc). If you aren't dealing with taking one food away that provides a necessary element (vitamins and minerals, proteins and so on) then you don't need to find another food to replace that with.

So yes, that is more of a dietary change IMO than someone not eating something sugary and processed that they will still end up eating later on.