Talk

Advanced search

This topic is for discussing childcare options. If you want to advertise, please use your Local site.

Nanny Share and one family bringing another child in

(17 Posts)
Gilly73 Fri 29-Aug-08 13:28:47

Hi,

We're currently in a nannyshare and the other family is bringing another child into it. Not sure what the fairest way of splitting the cost of nanny once new child arrives. What's the norm.
p.s nanny will be getting a pay rise at that point.

annh Fri 29-Aug-08 13:43:27

Do you mean that the other family are having a new baby? Or have they found a third family with a child whom the nanny will also care for?

AtheneNoctua Fri 29-Aug-08 13:49:33

How many kids in total? What ages?

Gilly73 Fri 29-Aug-08 13:52:54

Other family is having a new baby. My son is 19mths, and theirs is 1 yr. Their new baby is due in January and would enter the share in July. We're all anxious to keep the share going but need advice on how to split the costs.

annh Fri 29-Aug-08 14:01:30

Hmm ... well, I might be wrong but I don't think that having another baby means that the nanny automatically gets a pay rise. However, assuming that you have already agreed this with her, how about the other family just pay their share plus whatever additional pay rise you have agreed for the nanny?

Gilly73 Fri 29-Aug-08 14:06:43

Even though they are having 2 children looked after, and I'm having 1 child looked after?

annh Fri 29-Aug-08 14:11:00

Dunno really to be honest, I have had nannies but never a nanny share so haven't come across this issue. The thing is - if you start to pay one third and they now pay two thirds of the cost, does this not somehow imply that your daughter is now getting less care (not saying that would be the case btw but it could kind of give that impression). If you have offered tha nanny a pay rise, presumably you have spoken with the other family - have they indicated what they think should happen? Otherwise I'm sure people in current nanny shares (with a lot more knowledge than me!) will come along and offer advice on this thread.

Gilly73 Fri 29-Aug-08 14:13:56

It is all very complicated....

Soapbox Fri 29-Aug-08 14:19:04

Nannies don't get paid on a per child basis, so on that basis just splitting the cost in two is the fairest way. If a pay rise has been negotiated specifically to pay her to look after another child, then the other family should pay the cost of the increase. If it is just her normal annual pay increase, then you should share the cost with the other family.

AtheneNoctua Fri 29-Aug-08 14:20:06

Normally (when the nanny is not a share) a pay rise would be given with the addition of another child. A nanny is an employy and works from time x to time y and you expect her to perform a reasonable list of agreed tasks in that time. So she doesn't make more money, but you would expect a trade off somewhere. For example, going from two toddlers to two toddlers and a baby will probably mean she has less time for nursery duties and there will be fewer home cooked meals. The only thing that would justify a pay rise in my mind is if the family said right you are to keep up with all the usual duties and also you will now have this lovely new baby to tend to as well. In that case there are increased duties and an increase in pay would be justified.

So actually, I don't think you should be looking at how much more money the nanny is entitled to. But rather you should be considering where the the workload will need to be cut. For example, if your DD goes to music class with other child, then will this still be possible when new baby is 9 months and doesn't want to sit in her pram during the class? What about the new triple pram? Who is buying that?

However, it sounds as though she has already been offered a pay rise. Is this due to the additional child? Or is it because she is due for a performance/pay review.

Childminders make £x per child, but this doesn't normally apply to nannies.

AtheneNoctua Fri 29-Aug-08 14:23:37

CORRECTION
Normally (when the nanny is not a share) a pay rise would not be given with the addition of another child.

fridayschild Fri 29-Aug-08 14:34:12

When we were in a share we had one mum working 5 days and the other working 3 days a week. So our nanny had 2 children for 3 days, and one for the other 2. We worked that out as 5+3=8, and then split costs 5/8 or 3/8 accordingly. Another way of looking at the split? Hope that helps.

SarahRW Fri 29-Aug-08 14:35:09

Logically, I would have thought that there would need to be some type of trade off given the difference in the number of children. Otherwise, the childcare for the second child is very cheap.

annh Fri 29-Aug-08 15:36:26

Gilly, you're right, it IS very complicated, I suppose if one family started out with two children and the other one, this would all have been agreed up front. It's the adding-in of the extra child to an already-agreed situation which makes it difficult.

I think the scenario Friday's Child gives comes back to my original simple split of two-thirds/one-third but while it obviously makes sense in that example because that nanny was looking after the children for different amounts of time, it doesn't work comfortably here where all the children are being cared for equally. Other things are occuring to me as well - whose house is the care being provided in or is that also split? If it is your house, you will ultimately have the wear and tear of two, rather than one, additional child to think about as well as extra food - mind you, that is a bit down the line, can't imagine a 6-month old eating you out of house and home!

Soapbox Fri 29-Aug-08 15:40:00

I think it is perhaps easier to think of it as two families sharing a nanny, rather than three children sharing a nanny.

Since the norm is not to charge per child, the OP could easily add more children into the mix at no additional cost.

It is different to the number of days thing - that is about the amount of time the family have the use of the nanny for, which is different.

imananny Fri 29-Aug-08 17:45:38

although it would be fairer for family with 2 children to pay more than you, it isnt really feasible

nannies arent paid per child like cm's, though I have always been given a payrise with new baby as the workload does change - I know some dont

Friend did nannyshare and no 2 family had new baby, and no 1 family refused to then pay half of nannies salary as they felt their one child wouldnt get 50% attention anymore - no 2 family decided to employ friend as sole charge nanny to their 2 instead - obv they then paid her whole salary, and family no 1 had to find new childcare

gilly, i get the feeling you arent happy to still pay 50/50?

3 under 2.5yrs would be very hard work, and a double buggy and a buggyboard would prob be the best solution - activites like swimming will not be possible with 3 that age

lindseyfox Fri 29-Aug-08 21:02:16

i dont think it should be 2/3 them and 1/3 you but perhaps a 60% payment by them and a 40% payment by you so they are paying a little more but not a huge amount.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now