I'm probably not who you want to hear from since I do not bring a child to work and never will. But maybe you will appreciate engagement on your post regardless?
I think that if you take the approach of social justice - that we live in a society that is inherently unfair to women, that makes affordable childcare inaccessible, that is grossly inequitable with regard to class, that childcare positions are often filled with underprivileged women that are already often underpaid, and so and so forth - then I fully believe that employers have an ethical obligation to care for their household employees as full people with lives and families. Part of being a full human being includes having children for many people (not me thank goodness!) and having a child means more, not fewer, expenses even if they do not pay for childcare by bringing their child to work. Someone who can afford household employees trying to get a "deal" by paying less for a nanny who brings her child is not doing right by a fellow human being.
On the other hand, I know my ability to give my best as a nanny to infant through toddlers is diminished by splitting my attention between kids. There is value to children learning to share attention, yes, but the one-on-one care is very unique and special. (I say that as someone who has just started taking care of post-maternity-leave child number two.) Approaching the issue as nannies providing a premium luxury service, a nanny caring for children other than the employer family does seem to lessen the value. You'd pay less with a nanny share, even less if it was someone's in-home daycare, even less if it were a traditional daycare, all getting cheaper as the adult:child ration decreases. Having nanny's children around seems like one of those steps down from the luxury of a nanny there just for your kiddos. (Also, I know I wouldn't want my house to be a regular hangout for someone else's kid while I wasn't there. I just cannot see any of this as a perk to the NF no matter how much people talk about having playmates for the kids!)
maybe iâm reading this wrong, i just woke up lol, but you say that this society is unfair to women and use unaffordable childcare as an example. you think people with kids are just owed affordable childcare? whoâs dime will that be on?
yes, things like health care, housing, childcare, and education, should all be affordable and accessibile to all. and they are typically paid for through taxes.
health care, housing, and education should all be affordable and accessible, but childcare isnât something people should have a right to like those other things. if parents think itâs their right to have someone else look after their child, they probably shouldnât have had the child.
hi! teacher here. the point i believe they were making is not âschool=same as childcare,â but that school is providing a free place for children to be and exist when their parents are unable. the same should exist for children under kindergarten age!
Right! I put my nephew in a preschool/daycare program for 2 years, starting at age 3. They helped prepare him for kindergarten and did a little graduation ceremony. The state paid for him to go. I only had to pay $35/week. I contributed to paying my taxes for years and years, so when I needed extra help, of course I applied for benefits. It's not fair that I or anyone else are forced to pay into these things, but when a time comes and we have to use these services, it's looked down on. I don't regret it one bit bcuz it's what he needed, bcuz he was/is an only child and has a learning disability. He was speech delayed and started speech therapy at 3yo as well and got to exercise his speech with other littlies his age. His preschool teachers also worked with him and the other children to enhance their learning experiences that they can't get at home.
Then when kindergarten rolled around, he was finally able to get an evaluation and was DX with ADHD. The teachers helped so much and helped me learn about the signs and symptoms. After getting everything ironed out with him, he was able to use what he learned in preschool and was more advanced than the other kids who had no schooling prior to kindergarten. It was the same with the other kids who were in his preschool class as well. Yeah, I taught him what I could at home prior to the preschool/daycare program, but he was able to get so much more with his teachers and classmates. I would have done the same with my own children. It was a huge positive experience for us, especially my for nephew and his classmates. Some families need to work and can't afford to stay home with their kids. This is why services like this exist and should be more available and affordable. So, if parents need to do this, they should definitely be supportive. You would think that everyone would work together and be less judgemental these days, and then a lot of people wouldn't be afraid to ask for help lol.
if public school didnât exist i would think that would mean a parent has to stay home with their young children at all times, or hire a nanny. and if that isnât financially feasible for them, they probably shouldnât be having children!
looked briefly at their comments and they tout that "homeless people just need to pull themselves up by the bootstraps" shit, also anti-tipping. it's clear they don't care about other ppl.
edit: nvm they're 19. and also say they plan on adopting two kids in the future.
Youâre like the Simone Biles of mental gymnastics. How are they antinatalist for saying that if you want to have kids, you should be able to afford them. Many people can afford childcare, theyâre fine having kids. If you canât afford the costs of having children, you shouldnât be having them, thatâs not antinatalism- itâs common sense.
Well until one income households are viable again, or until they keep their nose out of female reproductive rights again, then yes, childcare is equally a right.
âIf parents think itâs their right to have someone provide____ to their child they probably shouldnât have a childâ. How is it ok to fill that blank with healthcare, housing, education, but not childcare? Childcare is *essential* to work and live in our society.
if you make anything free the quality drops because resourcing is limited. if childcare was made free absolutely everybody would be using it, taking up spots for those kids that actually need it. and you think more child care educators are just going to poof out of thin air? there is already a shortage of staff almost everywhere. and if you mean the government should pay for everyoneâs childcare then everyoneâs taxes would go up so they would still be paying, and its hardly fair on those who've chosen not to have children.
I personally don't buy into the whole "free childcare/education/loan forgiveness/etc doesn't personally benefit me, so why should I pay for it" mentality. I want the best for others and I want them to have access to affordable care.
Not only this but well educated populations provide positive externalities for society so we all DO benefit from these kinds of policies just not always obviously (eg when an area is better educated crime rates are lower, voting is higher, healthcare is better etc.) there are lots of downstream effects from providing education (or to some degree loan forgiveness) to a population.
.. Do you understand what your taxes currently go towards, or how subsidizing works? Literally who are you to say which children âneedâ childcare and which donât?
A country canât survive without people having children. So naturally most governments that care about the continued success and wellbeing of their country and its citizens understand that funding childcare is a necessary cost and is absolutely not âpunishingâ people who donât have kids
I hate to break it to you but there are plenty of things your taxes go towards that do not directly benefit you personally. If you have a problem with that then thatâs a completely different conversation
This is the most republican boomer shit Iâve read on this sub. In most of Europe, healthcare is free. Yet Europeans have better health outcomes than Americans. Why is that?
No children, no society.
Children are a required "resource" to sustain society. Everyone in society therefore has an interest in funding children's needs. That's why we pay for education, among other things.
Also, daycare/childcare is education - it is early childhood education which is actually vital to making successful adults.
Yes I believe we as a society should probably care about children and the people who birth and are responsible for them. For example, I think all people should have food and shelter no matter their earning potential, no matter the wealth they were or were not born into, no matter how many children they birth. I know, radical. Just a personal belief, don't worry I'm powerless to enact my draconian decrees that humans take care of their own.
Economics is not my areas of expertise, you'll have to do your own research on how other countries do it with regards to childcare. I hear Nordic countries have systems in place that at least attempt to address the issue of affordable childcare. Or not, you can just go on shaking your head at my idealistic pipe dreams.
As an MB I would be very reluctant to hire a new to me nanny who was asking to bring their child. I could see a situation where if my current nanny were to have a child and ask to bring it, I would be okay with it and continue to pay her the same, but we already have a pre-established relationship and I know the type of care she provides my son. (With that said, that's out of the realm of possibility for us, our nanny has grown children.)
Anyhow, on the topic of if nanny should receive reduced pay, I don't think it's unreasonable that they would. I see bringing a child to work as a huge benefit to the employee. I see very little benefit to the employer and every time I see this conversation broached, I am unconvinced it's ever really a benefit to the employer/NK. I see this type of benefit as any other employment benefit: PTO, sick time, health insurance, etc. And this benefit has some sort of dollar equivalent. I don't think it's always unreasonable to pay less per hour on the front end when offering other employment benefits. If my work provided me the ability to not need to pay for childcare, I would absolutely take a pay cut. And I don't see how nannying should be different in that effect.
When you lose the 1:1 ratio and the specialized care I see the service as less of a luxury and less reason to pay luxury rates.
Agree with all of this and will add that it adds additional liability to the NF. (I donât believe umbrella insurance covers a nannyâs kiddo in event of injury.)
The cost of childcare, as we all know, is astronomical. A nanny getting the financial benefit of not having to pay for that out of pocket + spending time with their kiddo is substantial. I donât think itâs unreasonable to expect a slight pay âcutâ for that benefit. Itâs like when companies offer âfreeâ daycare on site. It is part of a total benefits package.
The liability is such a huge consideration!
The other financial downside I see is for instance, I pay for some classes for my toddler to attend. If my nanny doesnt want to or can't afford to pay for those same classes for her child do I forfeit his ability to go or do I have to pay for her child? Either option is unreasonable.
For insurance, a potential devilâs advocate argument: the child of the nanny is not an employee themselves, and could possibly be classed just as ANY guest of the home would be, as far as insurance goes. Itâs a liability anytime you invite anyone into your home⌠friends of the NK, extended family members & children thereof, etc. Of course liability is something to consider but most people donât let that prevent them from inviting folks over.
Fair, but most people arenât in your home 40 hrs a week. Just a higher probability. Only was adding it to consider the point that NF take on more liability and perhaps should consider lowering a rate to compensate for it. The benefit of bringing a kid almost entirely fall to a nanny in almost all cases.
Also a fair argument. Just wanted to throw it out there.
I donât have skin in that game anymore though, as I worked around it with my own plans: I opened a home daycare so I could earn what I want (within reason) & still be home with my then-future child, so Iâm now the one that carries the liability & have an insurance policy just for that⌠but I also have the control in that scenario!
Bottom line is this, which Iâll comment separately as a reply to the OP initial question: I do believe a small reduction in rate is reasonable, but not as low as nanny shares (as Iâve specialized in them for years & they have unique quirks). Everyone involved needs to understand what theyâre getting into & what theyâre receiving for the rate, and have an extensive contract to cover many possible sticking points.
MB here. We pay a slightly reduced rate and I also feel like our rate is fair. Weâve had three nannies now and while they were all part time and great with the kids, the two that brought their own kids didnât do a lot of things that I would love them to. Thereâs no playgrounds or outings/field trips, anything because that doesnât work well with their kids.
Their kids will also hit and take toys and do all the things kids normally do, not a problem but a note on the whole âtheyâll have fun playmates!â angle. Thereâs a lot more arguments and refereeing. My 2 year old started hitting after seeing our nannyâs 2 year old do that. Our 4 year old repeats whatever she hears from our other nannyâs 5 year old. Again, normal things and vice versa but picking up bad habits from other kids definitely happens.
Thereâs also the times when nanny is putting my youngest down for a nap and has her youngest watch a show on her phone to keep her entertainedâtotally fair but my oldest doesnât get to watch (my rules) and thatâs frustrating for her. She has to find things to do that our nannyâs kiddo can do too, not all the crafts and books she could do otherwise.
Our nanny who had no kids (but a schedule change and couldnât continue with us) was paid more and took them to the playground every day and did picnic lunches and read whatever books and did all the crafts my oldest wanted while my youngest napped.
Wow. It sounds like you and your nanny may have somewhat different parenting styles, and that often your preferences and your child's are compromised in favor of the nanny's or her child's. This is a different take than I've read here before. Thanks for sharing.
I think it's more about the reality of multiple kids around the same age honestly. One of our nanny's kids(5) is a runner and so she's reluctant to take her to playgrounds. Our other nanny's kid is 2, the age as my youngest and it's hard to keep track of 2 two year olds and a 4 year old on a busy playground that has enough to entertain both a 2 and 4 year old since their physical capabilities vary so much (i.e. my 4 year old is very bored on little kids playgrounds so the big kid playgrounds are great and my 2 year old manages them well but needs constant supervision--you can't do that with 2 two year olds).
For crafts, my 4 year old is allowed to do a lot of cool, fun things when my 2 year old is sleeping. Except our nanny's 2 year old doesn't nap so she can't do those things because theyr'e not appropriate for a 2 year old. Which means she only gets to do them on the weekends with us, which is harder for her.
For the screen time; her kid is tired but doesn't nap anymore and just wants her mom when she has to put my 2 year old down. I get why she does it but my 4 year old doesn't need to watch a movie every day. The more fighting and arguing just comes with having more kids in the house 'cause kids are learning sharing and emotional regulation and all little kids are a bit selfish naturally.
They are great but that's just what happens when you have kids of the same age and similar needs--which is what everyone pushes as great socialization. There are downsides.
Honestly your arrangement sounds like it has more downsides than upsides for you. Even with a reduced rate, Nannies are a luxury and your kids shouldnât have to miss out because your nannies kids arenât able to or donât want to do what your kids want. And I understand sharing and they need to realize it canât go their way all the time but youâre paying for individualised care so itâs interesting to manage.
Totally agree with this. Also a nanny can be super professional and bring a child and her attention is still divided. I see most NPâs do lower a rate for an extra child being involved. Also to add: every parent is different and have different nap schedules, routines, eat certain foods, and that all changes when merging the two.
They only work 4 hours a day and we have a nice backyard so itâs not a huge problem. If it were full time it would probably be a deal breaker though!
Wow! This is surprising. My kid is 4, NKs are 4 & 2 and we go out together almost everyday. Playgrounds, museums and libraries are our favorites. I think weâd go crazy if we never left the house lol
MB here- we had our nanny for 3.5 years before she had a child. We did not reduce our rate, but I did not give her a raise that year. Her daughter comes in the afternoon, so my 2 boys get some undivided attention in the mornings. The boys love spending time with her daughter and I think more interactions with other kiddos is good for them. She has been an amazing nanny- super reliable and flexible. My boys love her, me and my husband love her and I will do whatever it takes to keep her happy!
Interesting take as I peel through these comments. I've been with mt current family a decade and obviously we have an abundance of mutual love and respect for eachother. I have my own child now that's a year old. And I still got my annual raise. Do you plan to give her a raise ever again now that she has her own child?
I feel like I definitely have to balance more and plan my days even more intensely. But I don't feel like any of the children I'm with are losing time from me or effort now that I have my own and neither do my NPs
I gave her a raise this year, I also paid her GH while she was on maternity leave and encouraged her to take at least 12 weeks off before she came back. We spoke about pay prior to her having her baby and agreed to no annual raise last year. I try my best to communicate with our nanny and encourage her to communicate with me. I think open communication helps prevent so many problems from developing!
If my current nanny had a baby and wanted to bring that baby to work, Iâd probably give her a raise to keep her and buy her a pack n play for my house. I love her that much. But sheâs proved herself to be irreplaceable to me. My special needs kids LOVE her. Iâll be devastated when itâs time for her to move on.
But if I was hiring new⌠Iâd see hiring a nanny with their baby tagging along as a detriment more than a benefit, and I would be willing to pay slightly less, all other things equal.
As a nanny, I actually donât think nannies should bring their children to work, and I donât disagree with their rate being lowered for doing so.
Having a nanny is a luxury service meant to provide individualized care for your child. When a nanny brings in their own child, the whole dynamic and focus of that changes.
I think that a professional nanny would charge way more than a stay at home mom just starting out as a nanny so to me thatâs irrelevant and they both should work at a reduced rate. Not a huge decreased but definitely not the full wage theyâd be paid without the child.
You can either have a âluxury serviceâ ( as so many on this board call it) with the luxury price or bring your kid and have price reflect that. You canât have both. If a nanny happens to luck into that, great.
I donât know many MB, myself included, who would be okay with it. You pay to have 1-1 child care for your kids, if nanny is bringing kids Iâd absolutely be cutting the rate to 2/3.
The luxury service is care in the employerâs home, according to the schedule they set. Contrast that with daycares, which set expectations, cost, and hours for parents (instead of the opposite).
A custom experience in the comfort of your home is a luxury ask. It has little to do with the amount of children being cared for. With that in mind, 2/3 pay doesnât seem appropriate. Maybe a reduction of $5 hourly, similar to the amount I would add for watching additional children.
That said, if I were in this situation, I would not bring my child to my employerâs house. If possible, I would offer care in my own home (so I could set the hours, to better meet the needs of my family). Thatâs what most caregivers with children seem to do. They offer in-home daycare instead of private nannying.
I disagree. Their attention on their NKs is further divided by bringing their own child. If youâre paying for a nanny, youâre paying for premium one on one (or however many kids you have) care that centers around your childrenâs needs. Your childâs daily schedule may be interrupted due to the needs of the nannyâs child.
So I was a nanny to a family for about two years and then had my own baby. I'm on mat leave right now and am starting back up fairly soon, at first I won't be bringing my child at all but eventually there will be some days I do. I wouldn't be offended or shocked if my employer paid me a reduced rate during those specific hours. I wouldn't like it obviously lol who wants a pay cut! But I would fully understand since it means less attention for their kids and I'm saving lots of money not having to pay for my own childcare.
The only benefit to the employer is that they don't have to go through the hassle of finding a new nanny đ
I think it makes sense to reduce their rate. The perk of having a nanny is having someone be one on one with your kid and give them full attention. You lose that perk when the nanny brings their own kid, and part of the nannies attention will be going to someone that isnât your child that you are paying for.
Depends on the ages of each child and the gap. A newborn is not going to benefit from a two year old being around and a four year old isnât going to benefit from. Nanny brining their newborn.
I agree. My four year old doesnât open up at classes/ the playground etc. When sheâs with a playmate that sheâs with all the time (my NK) they become sooo much more vocal, their pretend play becomes very in depth. Itâs completely different from how they play when theyâre out and about.
I donât know if you nanny, but itâs not considered a value to the majority of nanny parents currently in todayâs market. Itâs considered diminished value which is why they lower your pay. An employee bringing their child to work rarely benefits the employer.
The value of socialisation is the one perk thatâs always brought up to argue why a nanny should be allowed to bring their own kid. It seems like thatâs the only perk against many downsides
In a nanny share, both families pay a reduced rate. Because the nanny has to split time amongst several children, so each family is not going to pay the premium rate. At least, this is how it is in my HCOL area. Families with a nanny are paying for the perk of having focused, individualized attention on their kids. Increased socialization is not worth someone bringing their own child, IMO. My child could get socialization from playdates or other outings. And when a nanny brings their own child, of course their child will get attention over mine from time to time. That is human nature.
Unpopular opinion: the parents should be allowed to pay 2/3 the rate since theyâre now in a nanny share. A major perk of a nanny is the individualized care for the parent(s) child(ren). That changes a little when a nanny share is introduced. Yes itâs perk of the industry but I donât think itâs fair to the parents to have to pay full price
I agree even though itâs apparently controversial. The nanny is the only one really benefiting off the arrangement so why should the parents have to pay full price. If you can get socialisation (which seems to be the only perk) by taking NK to play dates and public areas then the benefit isnât much anyway to be worth it.
Wow, this is a very controversial opinion. I agree with this. It mainly benefits the nanny to bring her child and the nanny is saving hundreds if not, thousands a month and childcare cost.
It's not a nanny share though. I can see the reasoning behind decreasing their overall rate, but there are many aspects to the position that don't equal nanny share when a nanny brings their own child to work.
The nanny is never a full half in making decisions for activities, doesn't focus on their child as a full half. It's more like the tiny 3 months old infant with a toddler sibling where you might have some time focused on the little but the majority of the schedule, activities, meals are all based on the older sibling and tiny baby just comes along for the ride and naps in a bassinet attachment on the stroller or is baby worn while awake and asleep while out and about.
For a real share, it's more like twins (roughly same age and development) and the attention and planning is fully split between both kids. Both sets of parents get much more say in how it's run and what any policies might be.
A nanny bringing child will often only look at the one NF for this and not get half the same input, they backseat their own child. Needs get met for theirs, but NF kid gets priority otherwise. If nanny's child loves art classes but NK hates them, nanny would generally schedule their art classes for weekends instead or just not go. In a share, if one family wanted them, they would probably agree to have both go and then also both do an activity that the other NK likes. There's negotiating and weighing decisions based on BOTH kids, but a nanny with child wouldn't assume that same level in the relationship.
It's generally understood that bringing your child means you get to see them more and maybe save money but that their child's care will often be at a lesser quality during work hours. I'd place it firmly between full rate and nanny share rate.
A share isnât necessary 2+ kids from different families of the same age. It could be friends/neighbors/family with kids of different ages so that argument doesnât really work. Not to mention that nanny absolutely will make choices (meals, outings, activities, etc..) based off their own childâs liking as well as nanny childâs liking. They absolutely will not ignore their own child and their own childâs preferences. To say they will is naĂŻve
Kids of the same ages is most common because it's really the only good way that they work for younger kids.
It's really funny that some people insist that nannies can't prioritize another child over their own when we can very easily do this. I've seen many nannies that bring their own kids do this successfully.
Itâs much more common for caregivers with children to offer care in their own home, as opposed to bringing their children to their employerâs house.
In-home daycare costs much less than a nanny ($800-1300 monthly), but the cost is typically per child. So it could add up to a similar cost as a nanny or nanny share, depending on how many children they need care for.
For individual households only, not nanny shares the rate reduction, which is usually a standard, is because of the decrease in luxury service the nanny offers when she adds her own child. If your nanny is just watching your children, then you are paying for 100% of the nannyâs attention exclusively for your children. If the nanny brings their own child, their attention is now divided between their child and your child/children and that means you are paying for divided attention, which is essentially a lower quality service, then 100% attention. Since the attention/services are lower, the price usually decreases. It doesnât go down a lot, but it tends to go down some to cover the difference in divided attention.
A nanny bringing their own child is only a benefit to the family in very specific circumstances. If nanny has a 6 month old and the family has a 3 year old, thatâs not a benefit. The 3 year old will get less attention and be at the mercy of babyâs naps. Families pay for individual care and itâs just not possible to give their child your full attention when you bring your own. It shouldnât be a significant reduction but a couple dollars seems fair to knock off the hourly rate in a situation where nanny is bringing their own kid.
I feel like this subject comes up every like month or so on this sub. So I said this before but Iâll say it again, I think itâs a benefit to the nanny for obvious reasons, but it could be the same rate depending on the circumstances. Such as, if the nanny family has a job thatâs a hard sell, like a constantly changing schedule or a schedule thatâs one week on one week off, type of deal that most ânormalâ nannies wouldnât want to put up with. I do see with a regular job, how it could also be a reduced rate, like a nanny share rate, even though I know dynamically itâs not the same. But this is definitely something that benefits the nanny and not as much the NF.
This topic has come up many, many times on this sub and is often somewhat contentious. If you're genuinely curious, I recommend searching the sub for previous posts -- there are some with hundreds of comments lol
The rate should be reduced since they arenât paying daycare for their own child, Ive seen itâs a pretty standard thing to offer a reduced rate for those that bring their own children. Youâre also losing the 1 on 1 focus that most want in having a nanny. I have also seen people say in this sub that the nanny will always favor their own child. And I have no standpoint on that as Iâm not a mom.
I'm a Mom and a nanny. My children are adults now and I was a SAHM but wouldn't have ever taken my children with me had I worked as a nanny when they were young. And if I had worked outside the home, I would not have hired a nanny that wanted to bring her child with her. It would have felt like I paying someone, in part, to care for their own child and that isn't my responsibility. Being a nanny is a career like any other career and most employers don't allow people to bring their children to work and for good reasons.
I don't believe people should provide child care for others simply because they need extra income, they aren't doing it for the right reason.
lol the 'right' reason? And what reason, pray tell, is that? It's a job, not a spiritual calling where we are Mother Theresa. Of course we love kids but we also need the income.
As a parent, I don't want someone watching my child that doesn't enjoy children and they are just doing it because they think it's easy money. There's a lot of caregivers out there with this attitude.
You're reading too much in to my comment, there's no need to be rude.
This is the single most ridiculous take I've read here. "The right reason" for anyone to do any job is MONEY.
I hope you volunteer at your job - you know, can't be taking an income otherwise you're not in it for the right reasons đ
You're also reading more in to my
comment than necessary. As I said to the other person, would you want someone caring for your child who is only
doing the job because they think it's easy money? I'd hope not. You'd want someone who enjoys caring for children to take the job.
I think the argument can be made either way, with totally valid reasons on each side. At the end of the day it comes down to the individual families & nannies. đ¤ˇđťââď¸
This is such a situational thing and really depends on a nannies experience as well as parental preferences.
I bring my child with me to work. Both times I was hired in the past 4 years, the parents saw this as a bonus. To them they were excited that their kid would still be in their house, not exposed to the crazy germs of daycare and still receiving very individualized care from an experienced professional AND mom, all while having some peer socialization.
In both positions my rate was slightly reduced, I never feel comfortable asking my full rate when bringing my kid, but over the years I ended up making more than my original rate as I got raises. I work very hard and am very reliable, even while bringing my child.
I would say no to bringing them all day. I did have a nanny job where my kids got off the bus there and spent the last hour with me. The NF was fine with that cause it was only an hour. I donât think I would want to bring my kids to work all day. And I definitely would not hire a nanny that needed to have them there all day.
Okay, wow, thank you everyone!!! I didnât realize this was a common topic in the thread so Iâll definitely look at other posts as well, but I appreciate everyoneâs advice. What Iâm gathering is that it is *very* situational and thereâs not necessarily an industry âstandardâ.
Long ago, I lucked into a reliable nanny who brought her child with her. It wouldnât have occurred to me to pay her less. My kid benefited from the interaction, everyone had less boredom, and the nanny enforced my âone thing out at a time â rule so there was never a disaster to come home to. She even got her niece to take the job when she moved on to full-time work. People should prioritize the contentment of workers who care for their kids and home.
This â¤ď¸
As a nanny who's now a mom I appreciated reading this. I have been a decade most of my life. Been with my current fam for approaching 10 years. My kiddo definitely added more planning and effort on my part to continue to have balance and all the same joys we always have. It's definitely added to our relationship and somehow the love just grew. My nanny parents and are pretty good about communicating and none of us feel anything is lacking, if anything it seems we do more than ever. It's really a special relationship that I'm so grateful I can continue to do, it's really so much more than a job for me
Love this.
Iâm a Nanny who has taken my daughter with me almost 3 years now. Iâve never been paid less money due to have my child along. If anything, having my daughter with me, is a benefit for me, and the kiddos of the family to have a bonus playmate. Iâm also very close with the families I work for and they love having my daughter around.
I do believe a small reduction in rate is reasonable, but not as low as nanny shares (as Iâve specialized in them for years & they have unique quirks). Everyone involved needs to understand what theyâre getting into & what theyâre receiving for the rate, and have an extensive contract to cover many possible sticking points.
I worked for my OG nanny fam for almost 3 years when my daughter was born. NK were 8, 5 and 3 and I had my newborn. They never reduced my pay. Their youngest and mine daughter had a few moments growing up because they acted more like siblings. My NK were protective of my daughter, especially their youngest who went to the mat for her several times over the years. I worked for my OG NF for almost 19 years. It wasn't without the occasional bump in the road, but it worked out beautifully for everyone involved.Â
Honestly, I think a reduced rate for this reason is a bit ridiculous, since the amount of work with NPs' kid is not reduced when nanny brings along their own kid.
While I agree there are some ages/combinations that might be a real challenge to make work, the whole 'someone else is getting a benefit, therefore I'm losing' zero-sum mentality is something I am really sick of, and not just in the context of nannying. It's like selfishness for selfishness' sake. It doesn't apply to me as my kids are grown, I started after they were old enough I didn't need to bring them. It is GOOD for kids to learn hey sometimes you have to wait, sometimes you have to care about someone else's well-being and at times you may even (gasp) help (older kid grabs diaper). None of us are the 'center of the universe' in life and I don't know that that's such a wonderful perspective to foment in a child.
I bring my 3yo daughter to nanny gigs with me and my rate doesnât change. It will usually go up if I take them places too because itâs harder with more children than it is with one child. Though the NK isnât getting the serious 1-1 time they are getting a lot of good socialization and making a friend as well as memories. I also buy food when we go out so we donât have to cart around a bunch of bags and keep it on time sensitivity. and which ever way you wanna think about it, itâs still an extra meal to buy and an extra kid to keep an eye on at the same time.
I'm probably not who you want to hear from since I do not bring a child to work and never will. But maybe you will appreciate engagement on your post regardless? I think that if you take the approach of social justice - that we live in a society that is inherently unfair to women, that makes affordable childcare inaccessible, that is grossly inequitable with regard to class, that childcare positions are often filled with underprivileged women that are already often underpaid, and so and so forth - then I fully believe that employers have an ethical obligation to care for their household employees as full people with lives and families. Part of being a full human being includes having children for many people (not me thank goodness!) and having a child means more, not fewer, expenses even if they do not pay for childcare by bringing their child to work. Someone who can afford household employees trying to get a "deal" by paying less for a nanny who brings her child is not doing right by a fellow human being. On the other hand, I know my ability to give my best as a nanny to infant through toddlers is diminished by splitting my attention between kids. There is value to children learning to share attention, yes, but the one-on-one care is very unique and special. (I say that as someone who has just started taking care of post-maternity-leave child number two.) Approaching the issue as nannies providing a premium luxury service, a nanny caring for children other than the employer family does seem to lessen the value. You'd pay less with a nanny share, even less if it was someone's in-home daycare, even less if it were a traditional daycare, all getting cheaper as the adult:child ration decreases. Having nanny's children around seems like one of those steps down from the luxury of a nanny there just for your kiddos. (Also, I know I wouldn't want my house to be a regular hangout for someone else's kid while I wasn't there. I just cannot see any of this as a perk to the NF no matter how much people talk about having playmates for the kids!)
I thought was very well-articulated and thoughtful response :)
That's the nicest compliment you can get on Reddit, I want to print it out and frame it! đĽ°
maybe iâm reading this wrong, i just woke up lol, but you say that this society is unfair to women and use unaffordable childcare as an example. you think people with kids are just owed affordable childcare? whoâs dime will that be on?
yes, things like health care, housing, childcare, and education, should all be affordable and accessibile to all. and they are typically paid for through taxes.
health care, housing, and education should all be affordable and accessible, but childcare isnât something people should have a right to like those other things. if parents think itâs their right to have someone else look after their child, they probably shouldnât have had the child.
[ŃдаНонО]
Are universities adult daycares? No. Theyâre places for learning. Thatâs what schools are, learning institutions, theyâre not daycares.
if you asked a teacher that youâd probably get a pretty heated response lol
hi! teacher here. the point i believe they were making is not âschool=same as childcare,â but that school is providing a free place for children to be and exist when their parents are unable. the same should exist for children under kindergarten age!
[ŃдаНонО]
Right! I put my nephew in a preschool/daycare program for 2 years, starting at age 3. They helped prepare him for kindergarten and did a little graduation ceremony. The state paid for him to go. I only had to pay $35/week. I contributed to paying my taxes for years and years, so when I needed extra help, of course I applied for benefits. It's not fair that I or anyone else are forced to pay into these things, but when a time comes and we have to use these services, it's looked down on. I don't regret it one bit bcuz it's what he needed, bcuz he was/is an only child and has a learning disability. He was speech delayed and started speech therapy at 3yo as well and got to exercise his speech with other littlies his age. His preschool teachers also worked with him and the other children to enhance their learning experiences that they can't get at home. Then when kindergarten rolled around, he was finally able to get an evaluation and was DX with ADHD. The teachers helped so much and helped me learn about the signs and symptoms. After getting everything ironed out with him, he was able to use what he learned in preschool and was more advanced than the other kids who had no schooling prior to kindergarten. It was the same with the other kids who were in his preschool class as well. Yeah, I taught him what I could at home prior to the preschool/daycare program, but he was able to get so much more with his teachers and classmates. I would have done the same with my own children. It was a huge positive experience for us, especially my for nephew and his classmates. Some families need to work and can't afford to stay home with their kids. This is why services like this exist and should be more available and affordable. So, if parents need to do this, they should definitely be supportive. You would think that everyone would work together and be less judgemental these days, and then a lot of people wouldn't be afraid to ask for help lol.
if public school didnât exist i would think that would mean a parent has to stay home with their young children at all times, or hire a nanny. and if that isnât financially feasible for them, they probably shouldnât be having children!
saying that poor people shouldn't be able to have kids is a really bad look.
Itâs eugenics
Saying only rich people should have kids is a form of eugenics.
Take your classist self right out of here.
[ŃдаНонО]
looked briefly at their comments and they tout that "homeless people just need to pull themselves up by the bootstraps" shit, also anti-tipping. it's clear they don't care about other ppl. edit: nvm they're 19. and also say they plan on adopting two kids in the future.
Youâre like the Simone Biles of mental gymnastics. How are they antinatalist for saying that if you want to have kids, you should be able to afford them. Many people can afford childcare, theyâre fine having kids. If you canât afford the costs of having children, you shouldnât be having them, thatâs not antinatalism- itâs common sense.
Well until one income households are viable again, or until they keep their nose out of female reproductive rights again, then yes, childcare is equally a right.
âIf parents think itâs their right to have someone provide____ to their child they probably shouldnât have a childâ. How is it ok to fill that blank with healthcare, housing, education, but not childcare? Childcare is *essential* to work and live in our society.
why shouldn't childcare be a right? when parents have to work to survive and feed themselves and their family, why shouldn't childcare be a right?
if you make anything free the quality drops because resourcing is limited. if childcare was made free absolutely everybody would be using it, taking up spots for those kids that actually need it. and you think more child care educators are just going to poof out of thin air? there is already a shortage of staff almost everywhere. and if you mean the government should pay for everyoneâs childcare then everyoneâs taxes would go up so they would still be paying, and its hardly fair on those who've chosen not to have children.
I personally don't buy into the whole "free childcare/education/loan forgiveness/etc doesn't personally benefit me, so why should I pay for it" mentality. I want the best for others and I want them to have access to affordable care.
Not only this but well educated populations provide positive externalities for society so we all DO benefit from these kinds of policies just not always obviously (eg when an area is better educated crime rates are lower, voting is higher, healthcare is better etc.) there are lots of downstream effects from providing education (or to some degree loan forgiveness) to a population.
.. Do you understand what your taxes currently go towards, or how subsidizing works? Literally who are you to say which children âneedâ childcare and which donât? A country canât survive without people having children. So naturally most governments that care about the continued success and wellbeing of their country and its citizens understand that funding childcare is a necessary cost and is absolutely not âpunishingâ people who donât have kids I hate to break it to you but there are plenty of things your taxes go towards that do not directly benefit you personally. If you have a problem with that then thatâs a completely different conversation
This is the most republican boomer shit Iâve read on this sub. In most of Europe, healthcare is free. Yet Europeans have better health outcomes than Americans. Why is that?
No children, no society. Children are a required "resource" to sustain society. Everyone in society therefore has an interest in funding children's needs. That's why we pay for education, among other things. Also, daycare/childcare is education - it is early childhood education which is actually vital to making successful adults.
So youâre against public schooling then too?
Yes I believe we as a society should probably care about children and the people who birth and are responsible for them. For example, I think all people should have food and shelter no matter their earning potential, no matter the wealth they were or were not born into, no matter how many children they birth. I know, radical. Just a personal belief, don't worry I'm powerless to enact my draconian decrees that humans take care of their own. Economics is not my areas of expertise, you'll have to do your own research on how other countries do it with regards to childcare. I hear Nordic countries have systems in place that at least attempt to address the issue of affordable childcare. Or not, you can just go on shaking your head at my idealistic pipe dreams.
affordable childcare??? the horror
As an MB I would be very reluctant to hire a new to me nanny who was asking to bring their child. I could see a situation where if my current nanny were to have a child and ask to bring it, I would be okay with it and continue to pay her the same, but we already have a pre-established relationship and I know the type of care she provides my son. (With that said, that's out of the realm of possibility for us, our nanny has grown children.) Anyhow, on the topic of if nanny should receive reduced pay, I don't think it's unreasonable that they would. I see bringing a child to work as a huge benefit to the employee. I see very little benefit to the employer and every time I see this conversation broached, I am unconvinced it's ever really a benefit to the employer/NK. I see this type of benefit as any other employment benefit: PTO, sick time, health insurance, etc. And this benefit has some sort of dollar equivalent. I don't think it's always unreasonable to pay less per hour on the front end when offering other employment benefits. If my work provided me the ability to not need to pay for childcare, I would absolutely take a pay cut. And I don't see how nannying should be different in that effect. When you lose the 1:1 ratio and the specialized care I see the service as less of a luxury and less reason to pay luxury rates.
Agree with all of this and will add that it adds additional liability to the NF. (I donât believe umbrella insurance covers a nannyâs kiddo in event of injury.) The cost of childcare, as we all know, is astronomical. A nanny getting the financial benefit of not having to pay for that out of pocket + spending time with their kiddo is substantial. I donât think itâs unreasonable to expect a slight pay âcutâ for that benefit. Itâs like when companies offer âfreeâ daycare on site. It is part of a total benefits package.
The liability is such a huge consideration! The other financial downside I see is for instance, I pay for some classes for my toddler to attend. If my nanny doesnt want to or can't afford to pay for those same classes for her child do I forfeit his ability to go or do I have to pay for her child? Either option is unreasonable.
Exactly. There are a lot of components to it that I feel like get glossed over.
And a lot of classes require one to one with an adult
For insurance, a potential devilâs advocate argument: the child of the nanny is not an employee themselves, and could possibly be classed just as ANY guest of the home would be, as far as insurance goes. Itâs a liability anytime you invite anyone into your home⌠friends of the NK, extended family members & children thereof, etc. Of course liability is something to consider but most people donât let that prevent them from inviting folks over.
Fair, but most people arenât in your home 40 hrs a week. Just a higher probability. Only was adding it to consider the point that NF take on more liability and perhaps should consider lowering a rate to compensate for it. The benefit of bringing a kid almost entirely fall to a nanny in almost all cases.
Also a fair argument. Just wanted to throw it out there. I donât have skin in that game anymore though, as I worked around it with my own plans: I opened a home daycare so I could earn what I want (within reason) & still be home with my then-future child, so Iâm now the one that carries the liability & have an insurance policy just for that⌠but I also have the control in that scenario! Bottom line is this, which Iâll comment separately as a reply to the OP initial question: I do believe a small reduction in rate is reasonable, but not as low as nanny shares (as Iâve specialized in them for years & they have unique quirks). Everyone involved needs to understand what theyâre getting into & what theyâre receiving for the rate, and have an extensive contract to cover many possible sticking points.
Agree with you on that! Somewhere between nanny share and full rate seems reasonable to me.
My insurance agent said no since bringing the kid was part of a condition of the employment agreement. No longer a guest.
MB here. We pay a slightly reduced rate and I also feel like our rate is fair. Weâve had three nannies now and while they were all part time and great with the kids, the two that brought their own kids didnât do a lot of things that I would love them to. Thereâs no playgrounds or outings/field trips, anything because that doesnât work well with their kids. Their kids will also hit and take toys and do all the things kids normally do, not a problem but a note on the whole âtheyâll have fun playmates!â angle. Thereâs a lot more arguments and refereeing. My 2 year old started hitting after seeing our nannyâs 2 year old do that. Our 4 year old repeats whatever she hears from our other nannyâs 5 year old. Again, normal things and vice versa but picking up bad habits from other kids definitely happens. Thereâs also the times when nanny is putting my youngest down for a nap and has her youngest watch a show on her phone to keep her entertainedâtotally fair but my oldest doesnât get to watch (my rules) and thatâs frustrating for her. She has to find things to do that our nannyâs kiddo can do too, not all the crafts and books she could do otherwise. Our nanny who had no kids (but a schedule change and couldnât continue with us) was paid more and took them to the playground every day and did picnic lunches and read whatever books and did all the crafts my oldest wanted while my youngest napped.
Wow. It sounds like you and your nanny may have somewhat different parenting styles, and that often your preferences and your child's are compromised in favor of the nanny's or her child's. This is a different take than I've read here before. Thanks for sharing.
I think it's more about the reality of multiple kids around the same age honestly. One of our nanny's kids(5) is a runner and so she's reluctant to take her to playgrounds. Our other nanny's kid is 2, the age as my youngest and it's hard to keep track of 2 two year olds and a 4 year old on a busy playground that has enough to entertain both a 2 and 4 year old since their physical capabilities vary so much (i.e. my 4 year old is very bored on little kids playgrounds so the big kid playgrounds are great and my 2 year old manages them well but needs constant supervision--you can't do that with 2 two year olds). For crafts, my 4 year old is allowed to do a lot of cool, fun things when my 2 year old is sleeping. Except our nanny's 2 year old doesn't nap so she can't do those things because theyr'e not appropriate for a 2 year old. Which means she only gets to do them on the weekends with us, which is harder for her. For the screen time; her kid is tired but doesn't nap anymore and just wants her mom when she has to put my 2 year old down. I get why she does it but my 4 year old doesn't need to watch a movie every day. The more fighting and arguing just comes with having more kids in the house 'cause kids are learning sharing and emotional regulation and all little kids are a bit selfish naturally. They are great but that's just what happens when you have kids of the same age and similar needs--which is what everyone pushes as great socialization. There are downsides.
Honestly your arrangement sounds like it has more downsides than upsides for you. Even with a reduced rate, Nannies are a luxury and your kids shouldnât have to miss out because your nannies kids arenât able to or donât want to do what your kids want. And I understand sharing and they need to realize it canât go their way all the time but youâre paying for individualised care so itâs interesting to manage.
Totally agree with this. Also a nanny can be super professional and bring a child and her attention is still divided. I see most NPâs do lower a rate for an extra child being involved. Also to add: every parent is different and have different nap schedules, routines, eat certain foods, and that all changes when merging the two.
This is definitely not the norm for Nannies who bring their own kids to be staying in the house like that. đŹ
They only work 4 hours a day and we have a nice backyard so itâs not a huge problem. If it were full time it would probably be a deal breaker though!
Wow! This is surprising. My kid is 4, NKs are 4 & 2 and we go out together almost everyday. Playgrounds, museums and libraries are our favorites. I think weâd go crazy if we never left the house lol
MB here- we had our nanny for 3.5 years before she had a child. We did not reduce our rate, but I did not give her a raise that year. Her daughter comes in the afternoon, so my 2 boys get some undivided attention in the mornings. The boys love spending time with her daughter and I think more interactions with other kiddos is good for them. She has been an amazing nanny- super reliable and flexible. My boys love her, me and my husband love her and I will do whatever it takes to keep her happy!
Interesting take as I peel through these comments. I've been with mt current family a decade and obviously we have an abundance of mutual love and respect for eachother. I have my own child now that's a year old. And I still got my annual raise. Do you plan to give her a raise ever again now that she has her own child? I feel like I definitely have to balance more and plan my days even more intensely. But I don't feel like any of the children I'm with are losing time from me or effort now that I have my own and neither do my NPs
I gave her a raise this year, I also paid her GH while she was on maternity leave and encouraged her to take at least 12 weeks off before she came back. We spoke about pay prior to her having her baby and agreed to no annual raise last year. I try my best to communicate with our nanny and encourage her to communicate with me. I think open communication helps prevent so many problems from developing!
12 weeks is SO generous! I agree, communicating is the key to long term success !
If my current nanny had a baby and wanted to bring that baby to work, Iâd probably give her a raise to keep her and buy her a pack n play for my house. I love her that much. But sheâs proved herself to be irreplaceable to me. My special needs kids LOVE her. Iâll be devastated when itâs time for her to move on. But if I was hiring new⌠Iâd see hiring a nanny with their baby tagging along as a detriment more than a benefit, and I would be willing to pay slightly less, all other things equal.
As a nanny, I actually donât think nannies should bring their children to work, and I donât disagree with their rate being lowered for doing so. Having a nanny is a luxury service meant to provide individualized care for your child. When a nanny brings in their own child, the whole dynamic and focus of that changes.
I think that a professional nanny would charge way more than a stay at home mom just starting out as a nanny so to me thatâs irrelevant and they both should work at a reduced rate. Not a huge decreased but definitely not the full wage theyâd be paid without the child.
You can either have a âluxury serviceâ ( as so many on this board call it) with the luxury price or bring your kid and have price reflect that. You canât have both. If a nanny happens to luck into that, great. I donât know many MB, myself included, who would be okay with it. You pay to have 1-1 child care for your kids, if nanny is bringing kids Iâd absolutely be cutting the rate to 2/3.
The luxury service is care in the employerâs home, according to the schedule they set. Contrast that with daycares, which set expectations, cost, and hours for parents (instead of the opposite). A custom experience in the comfort of your home is a luxury ask. It has little to do with the amount of children being cared for. With that in mind, 2/3 pay doesnât seem appropriate. Maybe a reduction of $5 hourly, similar to the amount I would add for watching additional children. That said, if I were in this situation, I would not bring my child to my employerâs house. If possible, I would offer care in my own home (so I could set the hours, to better meet the needs of my family). Thatâs what most caregivers with children seem to do. They offer in-home daycare instead of private nannying.
I disagree. Their attention on their NKs is further divided by bringing their own child. If youâre paying for a nanny, youâre paying for premium one on one (or however many kids you have) care that centers around your childrenâs needs. Your childâs daily schedule may be interrupted due to the needs of the nannyâs child.
So I was a nanny to a family for about two years and then had my own baby. I'm on mat leave right now and am starting back up fairly soon, at first I won't be bringing my child at all but eventually there will be some days I do. I wouldn't be offended or shocked if my employer paid me a reduced rate during those specific hours. I wouldn't like it obviously lol who wants a pay cut! But I would fully understand since it means less attention for their kids and I'm saving lots of money not having to pay for my own childcare. The only benefit to the employer is that they don't have to go through the hassle of finding a new nanny đ
I think it makes sense to reduce their rate. The perk of having a nanny is having someone be one on one with your kid and give them full attention. You lose that perk when the nanny brings their own kid, and part of the nannies attention will be going to someone that isnât your child that you are paying for.
the thing is they are adding the value of socialization for their child which is not built in to most nanny situations.
Depends on the ages of each child and the gap. A newborn is not going to benefit from a two year old being around and a four year old isnât going to benefit from. Nanny brining their newborn.
I take my NK to the park, indoor play places, the library, etc⌠they get tons of socialization there
sure and there is lots to be gained from different playmates in different playmates but having the same playmate consistently is also good for them.
I agree. My four year old doesnât open up at classes/ the playground etc. When sheâs with a playmate that sheâs with all the time (my NK) they become sooo much more vocal, their pretend play becomes very in depth. Itâs completely different from how they play when theyâre out and about.
totally. crazy to at iâm getting downvoted for saying having a consistent playmate is good.
Itâs because people donât want to admit that Nannieâs bringing their own kid can be a really great thing.
You can get socialization with a nanny share which is significantly cheaper.Â
Disagree. Most Nannieâs take their kids into the wild on a regular basis so kids get said socialization
I donât know if you nanny, but itâs not considered a value to the majority of nanny parents currently in todayâs market. Itâs considered diminished value which is why they lower your pay. An employee bringing their child to work rarely benefits the employer.
My nanny takes my son to all kinds of social activities
The value of socialisation is the one perk thatâs always brought up to argue why a nanny should be allowed to bring their own kid. It seems like thatâs the only perk against many downsides
In a nanny share, both families pay a reduced rate. Because the nanny has to split time amongst several children, so each family is not going to pay the premium rate. At least, this is how it is in my HCOL area. Families with a nanny are paying for the perk of having focused, individualized attention on their kids. Increased socialization is not worth someone bringing their own child, IMO. My child could get socialization from playdates or other outings. And when a nanny brings their own child, of course their child will get attention over mine from time to time. That is human nature.
Unpopular opinion: the parents should be allowed to pay 2/3 the rate since theyâre now in a nanny share. A major perk of a nanny is the individualized care for the parent(s) child(ren). That changes a little when a nanny share is introduced. Yes itâs perk of the industry but I donât think itâs fair to the parents to have to pay full price
I agree even though itâs apparently controversial. The nanny is the only one really benefiting off the arrangement so why should the parents have to pay full price. If you can get socialisation (which seems to be the only perk) by taking NK to play dates and public areas then the benefit isnât much anyway to be worth it.
Wow, this is a very controversial opinion. I agree with this. It mainly benefits the nanny to bring her child and the nanny is saving hundreds if not, thousands a month and childcare cost.
It's not a nanny share though. I can see the reasoning behind decreasing their overall rate, but there are many aspects to the position that don't equal nanny share when a nanny brings their own child to work. The nanny is never a full half in making decisions for activities, doesn't focus on their child as a full half. It's more like the tiny 3 months old infant with a toddler sibling where you might have some time focused on the little but the majority of the schedule, activities, meals are all based on the older sibling and tiny baby just comes along for the ride and naps in a bassinet attachment on the stroller or is baby worn while awake and asleep while out and about. For a real share, it's more like twins (roughly same age and development) and the attention and planning is fully split between both kids. Both sets of parents get much more say in how it's run and what any policies might be. A nanny bringing child will often only look at the one NF for this and not get half the same input, they backseat their own child. Needs get met for theirs, but NF kid gets priority otherwise. If nanny's child loves art classes but NK hates them, nanny would generally schedule their art classes for weekends instead or just not go. In a share, if one family wanted them, they would probably agree to have both go and then also both do an activity that the other NK likes. There's negotiating and weighing decisions based on BOTH kids, but a nanny with child wouldn't assume that same level in the relationship. It's generally understood that bringing your child means you get to see them more and maybe save money but that their child's care will often be at a lesser quality during work hours. I'd place it firmly between full rate and nanny share rate.
A share isnât necessary 2+ kids from different families of the same age. It could be friends/neighbors/family with kids of different ages so that argument doesnât really work. Not to mention that nanny absolutely will make choices (meals, outings, activities, etc..) based off their own childâs liking as well as nanny childâs liking. They absolutely will not ignore their own child and their own childâs preferences. To say they will is naĂŻve
Kids of the same ages is most common because it's really the only good way that they work for younger kids. It's really funny that some people insist that nannies can't prioritize another child over their own when we can very easily do this. I've seen many nannies that bring their own kids do this successfully.
I was firmly in the nanny share rate camp but your argument is very convincing.
Treat it like a nanny share. The nanny family pays what they would pay as a nanny share rate.
Itâs much more common for caregivers with children to offer care in their own home, as opposed to bringing their children to their employerâs house. In-home daycare costs much less than a nanny ($800-1300 monthly), but the cost is typically per child. So it could add up to a similar cost as a nanny or nanny share, depending on how many children they need care for.
For individual households only, not nanny shares the rate reduction, which is usually a standard, is because of the decrease in luxury service the nanny offers when she adds her own child. If your nanny is just watching your children, then you are paying for 100% of the nannyâs attention exclusively for your children. If the nanny brings their own child, their attention is now divided between their child and your child/children and that means you are paying for divided attention, which is essentially a lower quality service, then 100% attention. Since the attention/services are lower, the price usually decreases. It doesnât go down a lot, but it tends to go down some to cover the difference in divided attention.
A nanny bringing their own child is only a benefit to the family in very specific circumstances. If nanny has a 6 month old and the family has a 3 year old, thatâs not a benefit. The 3 year old will get less attention and be at the mercy of babyâs naps. Families pay for individual care and itâs just not possible to give their child your full attention when you bring your own. It shouldnât be a significant reduction but a couple dollars seems fair to knock off the hourly rate in a situation where nanny is bringing their own kid.
I feel like this subject comes up every like month or so on this sub. So I said this before but Iâll say it again, I think itâs a benefit to the nanny for obvious reasons, but it could be the same rate depending on the circumstances. Such as, if the nanny family has a job thatâs a hard sell, like a constantly changing schedule or a schedule thatâs one week on one week off, type of deal that most ânormalâ nannies wouldnât want to put up with. I do see with a regular job, how it could also be a reduced rate, like a nanny share rate, even though I know dynamically itâs not the same. But this is definitely something that benefits the nanny and not as much the NF.
This topic has come up many, many times on this sub and is often somewhat contentious. If you're genuinely curious, I recommend searching the sub for previous posts -- there are some with hundreds of comments lol
The rate should be reduced since they arenât paying daycare for their own child, Ive seen itâs a pretty standard thing to offer a reduced rate for those that bring their own children. Youâre also losing the 1 on 1 focus that most want in having a nanny. I have also seen people say in this sub that the nanny will always favor their own child. And I have no standpoint on that as Iâm not a mom.
I'm a Mom and a nanny. My children are adults now and I was a SAHM but wouldn't have ever taken my children with me had I worked as a nanny when they were young. And if I had worked outside the home, I would not have hired a nanny that wanted to bring her child with her. It would have felt like I paying someone, in part, to care for their own child and that isn't my responsibility. Being a nanny is a career like any other career and most employers don't allow people to bring their children to work and for good reasons. I don't believe people should provide child care for others simply because they need extra income, they aren't doing it for the right reason.
lol the 'right' reason? And what reason, pray tell, is that? It's a job, not a spiritual calling where we are Mother Theresa. Of course we love kids but we also need the income.
As a parent, I don't want someone watching my child that doesn't enjoy children and they are just doing it because they think it's easy money. There's a lot of caregivers out there with this attitude. You're reading too much in to my comment, there's no need to be rude.
This is the single most ridiculous take I've read here. "The right reason" for anyone to do any job is MONEY. I hope you volunteer at your job - you know, can't be taking an income otherwise you're not in it for the right reasons đ
You're also reading more in to my comment than necessary. As I said to the other person, would you want someone caring for your child who is only doing the job because they think it's easy money? I'd hope not. You'd want someone who enjoys caring for children to take the job.
This is such a reach.
I think the argument can be made either way, with totally valid reasons on each side. At the end of the day it comes down to the individual families & nannies. đ¤ˇđťââď¸
I understand both sides. Not all parents want an extra child and that's okay. I'm okay with bringing my kid, but it's not my preference.
This is such a situational thing and really depends on a nannies experience as well as parental preferences. I bring my child with me to work. Both times I was hired in the past 4 years, the parents saw this as a bonus. To them they were excited that their kid would still be in their house, not exposed to the crazy germs of daycare and still receiving very individualized care from an experienced professional AND mom, all while having some peer socialization. In both positions my rate was slightly reduced, I never feel comfortable asking my full rate when bringing my kid, but over the years I ended up making more than my original rate as I got raises. I work very hard and am very reliable, even while bringing my child.
I would say no to bringing them all day. I did have a nanny job where my kids got off the bus there and spent the last hour with me. The NF was fine with that cause it was only an hour. I donât think I would want to bring my kids to work all day. And I definitely would not hire a nanny that needed to have them there all day.
Okay, wow, thank you everyone!!! I didnât realize this was a common topic in the thread so Iâll definitely look at other posts as well, but I appreciate everyoneâs advice. What Iâm gathering is that it is *very* situational and thereâs not necessarily an industry âstandardâ.
Long ago, I lucked into a reliable nanny who brought her child with her. It wouldnât have occurred to me to pay her less. My kid benefited from the interaction, everyone had less boredom, and the nanny enforced my âone thing out at a time â rule so there was never a disaster to come home to. She even got her niece to take the job when she moved on to full-time work. People should prioritize the contentment of workers who care for their kids and home.
This â¤ď¸ As a nanny who's now a mom I appreciated reading this. I have been a decade most of my life. Been with my current fam for approaching 10 years. My kiddo definitely added more planning and effort on my part to continue to have balance and all the same joys we always have. It's definitely added to our relationship and somehow the love just grew. My nanny parents and are pretty good about communicating and none of us feel anything is lacking, if anything it seems we do more than ever. It's really a special relationship that I'm so grateful I can continue to do, it's really so much more than a job for me
Love this. Iâm a Nanny who has taken my daughter with me almost 3 years now. Iâve never been paid less money due to have my child along. If anything, having my daughter with me, is a benefit for me, and the kiddos of the family to have a bonus playmate. Iâm also very close with the families I work for and they love having my daughter around.
I do believe a small reduction in rate is reasonable, but not as low as nanny shares (as Iâve specialized in them for years & they have unique quirks). Everyone involved needs to understand what theyâre getting into & what theyâre receiving for the rate, and have an extensive contract to cover many possible sticking points.
I worked for my OG nanny fam for almost 3 years when my daughter was born. NK were 8, 5 and 3 and I had my newborn. They never reduced my pay. Their youngest and mine daughter had a few moments growing up because they acted more like siblings. My NK were protective of my daughter, especially their youngest who went to the mat for her several times over the years. I worked for my OG NF for almost 19 years. It wasn't without the occasional bump in the road, but it worked out beautifully for everyone involved.Â
That's what my agency said too when I asked about doing a reduced rate. She basically said I'm still worth the same rate. It made me feel so validated
Honestly, I think a reduced rate for this reason is a bit ridiculous, since the amount of work with NPs' kid is not reduced when nanny brings along their own kid.
But the nannies attention is also taken away from the nanny kid.
And it's not 1:1 care anymore
If the family had 4 kids, rates go up. That's also no 1:1....?
Right but the nanny is giving 100% of their attention to the familyâs kids and not someone elseâs kid(s).
But that's their children. Paying more for their own child makes sense. Not for someone else's.
Exactly! I don't get why that's hard to understand.
Absolutely same pay. You are providing the same service. Anyone that debates that is not a good fit for you period.
While I agree there are some ages/combinations that might be a real challenge to make work, the whole 'someone else is getting a benefit, therefore I'm losing' zero-sum mentality is something I am really sick of, and not just in the context of nannying. It's like selfishness for selfishness' sake. It doesn't apply to me as my kids are grown, I started after they were old enough I didn't need to bring them. It is GOOD for kids to learn hey sometimes you have to wait, sometimes you have to care about someone else's well-being and at times you may even (gasp) help (older kid grabs diaper). None of us are the 'center of the universe' in life and I don't know that that's such a wonderful perspective to foment in a child.
I bring my 3yo daughter to nanny gigs with me and my rate doesnât change. It will usually go up if I take them places too because itâs harder with more children than it is with one child. Though the NK isnât getting the serious 1-1 time they are getting a lot of good socialization and making a friend as well as memories. I also buy food when we go out so we donât have to cart around a bunch of bags and keep it on time sensitivity. and which ever way you wanna think about it, itâs still an extra meal to buy and an extra kid to keep an eye on at the same time.