What is a fair wage for me as live in nanny

Exactly Oldlady! Exactly.

Well, obviously, if you can afford 3 nannies, you want someone to leave yer dosh to.

[ahem]

You want someone to whom you can leave your dosh. Since yer dosh is obviously v v important.

Nanny7 - yes I don't get that. If you can afford 3 nannies then you are not having to work hours because of the money.

Many people need to work long hours to survive and they should not be denied children. Ofcourse people in roles like in the forces need particular arrangements.

I think as a child you will one day understand that, you know if your parents are say in the forces or doing something amazing, or working hard to get by - but I think if you were to think back and realise that your parents got you 3 nannies then if does seem strange - not to have a parental bond with your parents and the money for 3 nannies is not insignificant.

I agree cinpin, I realise that sometimes both parents have to work but do not understand why some parents feel the need to have a day nanny and a night nanny and a weekend nanny!!!(on a permenant basis) have seen many jobs like this advertised and cannot understand why the bothered to ahve a child in the first place!!
Lilh89 I hope you get this sorted out really quickly, they are taking the mic!!

Nannyl I did not say that parents that work long hours should not have children. Isaid that parents that only see their baby and toddler at weekends is not right. Yes it is very sad if people in the forces do not see their babies for months on end but hopefully one parent would be at home.

Mranchovy... i think it depends on if the children normally sleep through.

As a nanny, Id occasionaly do (one off) over nights.

I charged babysitting rate til 11pm, then sleep over fee of £30 and start charging normal rates again at 7am (or at time they typically woke, and mine woke around 7.30 and were good sleepers (so long as not ill)

When doing a one over night nanny duty, i know its normal for other nannies to do the same.

(doesnt change the fact that OP is being very very underpaid.... but did OP agree to wage and hours 1st? Regardless OP can still leave, and im sure parents wouldnt find anyone else to proxy parent week in week out for such a low pay)

@Treeesa I don't think that is a fair analogy in this case - she has sole responsibility for children aged 1 and 3 overnight.

Network - then you report the parents to HMRC and they get charged the tax and NI plus a £3k fine for avoidance as an employee it's not the OP's responsibility and she could take them to tribunal over the lack of written statement, shop them to HMRC for tax/NI and all sorts. Tax avoidance happens far too often and they're actually pretty quick to act when it's reported by the employee. Obviously the process takes a fair while but it does get sorted.

@mranchovy - In fairness to the parents I don't think you can specify it is 24 hour work and all payable at NMW.

A fair analogy would be to look at a position in nursing or a care home - could be residential children's home or care for the elderly.

In this situation staff are paid an allowance for a shift where part of the shift requires them to 'sleep in' between two other active shifts. A typical payment would be ~£30 per night.

Thus a probable fair salary would compensate for the hours she is on active duty and provide at least the equivalent of a sleeping over allowance. Not sure if she sleeps over on Mon-Thur nights inclusive or Sun-Thur or what but assuming 4 nights sleep over, then £120 of her salary could cover this.. That would leave say 12 hours per day @ NMW x 5, which would be approximately £360 before deductions. With the night allowance added, then a much fairer would seem to be £480 per week.

I think the crux is whether this is the nanny's own home or if the family explicitly expects the nanny to go back to her 'own home' at the weekends. If they do then she is being employed to work there Mon-Fri and is not treated as a member of the family. If lilh89; you go home because you want to but the family have said your room is your room to use whenever, then your employers may have more grounds to argue you live as part of the family and not pay NMW. Certainly not allowing you to do your own laundry doesn't back this up though, and I'm sure that may be only part of it..!

lilh89 - have you had a payslips, have you given your employer P45/P46? Do they seem to be doing that side of things right?

SFandP - I appreciate the deductions are made at source, but given the penny-pinching mentality, and restrictions on washing machine/ phone it would hardly surprise me if the employers had not paid HMRC the NI and tax, leaving that as a nasty shock for each ex-employee to sort out after they leave.

24 x 5 = 120 hours. At National Minimim Wage that's near enough £720. Would that be reasonable?

The idea of having a 24/5 nanny isn't intrinsically not okay.

Totally agree, like I say I have done this myself. Exploitation is however not OK, and I think we are agreed on that too.

The way the Working Hours Directive has been implemented in the UK (through the Working Time Regulations) does not as far as I am aware recognise 'inactive' periods of work.

The way round-the-clock workers are dealt with is that rest periods are accumulated and averaged. The principle is that everyone is entitled to 24 hours unbroken rest each week, plus 11 hours each day. This can be accumulated and averaged over a period of not more than 17 weeks, so that the average hours are no more than 90 hours (24 + 6 x 11) each week.

This obviously requires some fairly detailed calculations in each case. As an example, if someone is required to be on duty from midnight Sunday to midnight Friday i.e. 24 x 5 = 120 hours they will only get 48 hours rest in that week. If they do that for two weeks then have the whole of the next week as rest, they will have 48 + 48 + 168 = 264 hours rest in 3 weeks which is STILL 6 hours short of 3 x 90 = 270 - oh, this is even harder than I thought! Anyway, you see my point.

I am amazed at some people's priorities. These parents obviously trust the nanny to leave their most treasured possessions with her in sole charge. But, don't trust her enough to let her use the washing machine or the phone.

How much do you think should be paid for 24/5? What is reasonable?

But lilh, did you know that the parents would be away 24/5 when you applied? What was discussed regarding the working hours?

OP should be employed, networkguy, so deductions are made at source.

I hope they're providing a kitty for shopping although I don't have much hope. But this arrangement is a particularly bad and abnormal example (I hope).

thanks everyone for the replies - the parents work away 24/5 every week as it is thir job to do so. Although i have been taken on as a nanny, the role is more like proxy parenting. i have now realised that the wage im recieving works out to be less than min wage therefore i will speak to the employers about this

true

more responding to cinpin who seems to think parents long hours and who work shouldnt have children
There are plenty of parents in the forces who go MONTHS without seeing their children....
Ive known a nanny to proxy parent for a few MONTHS in those circumstances.... doesnt make them bad parents IMO, or un worthy of having children

agree completley that the OPs bosses are different (and not people id even dream of nannying for!)

Lilh89 - I think we need to know more about what you were told the job would be when you applied.
Also how did you find this job - agency, private advert?

Nannyl, your sister's future arrangement will be very different to what the OP's employers are currently doing. Your sister may only see her children very briefly, if at all, during the week but she will still be there in the middle of the night if they wake up, to give them a goodnight kiss even if they are asleep, to fill in the school forms, pack the lunches, etc. I'm sure she will also be endeavouring to get the best possible care for her children when she is not there rather than paying the minimum she can get away with and making her nanny feel like a second-class citizen in the household.

are well compensated

I think that is where this falls apart...

Hope OP puts 25% of her earnings on one side for NI + income tax. Doubt the couple pay to cover weekend fuel costs to/from home. With a higher salary there would probably be far less criticism over their scrooge attitude re fuel costs if taking children out...

What happens if any shopping is needed, I wonder... will they not cover that, nor fuel to go to shops...

Personally I don't think the current arrangement is okay but that's to do with the way the OP is being treated. The idea of having a 24/5 nanny isn't intrinsically not okay. And we still don't know whether it's an indefinite arrangement or not.

The problems here are with the particular arrangement which, if they were sorted, probably wouldn't pose a problem except the length of working hours which seems to be a grey area.

If the OP had accepted the job on a 24/5 basis and had a contract to that effect then would that constitute an agreement to a derogation? Then there's active vs inactive duty to muddy the waters. Working 24/5 in France was only possible because when my charge was asleep or at a different activity where I was responsible but not in direct charge of him was classed as inactive.

This must have been dealt with before as it's not a particularly uncommon arrangement, although most doing it know exactly what is involved, are well compensated and actively seeking to do it.

Lets get a few things straight.

I am a parent, I have used childcare of all kinds for 16 years, including nannies living in and (for short periods) proxy parenting.

These parents have not paid a huge sum to ensure their children are safe and well looked after, they are paying an illegally small sum (below NMW) to operate an arrangement which appears to be illegal in at least one other respect (the lack of breaks between shifts) which is different from what was agreed with the nanny before she started. I wonder in how many more ways these particular parents ignore their responsibilities?

I think it highly unlikely that a staff member of the NSPCC would 'laugh at' anyone reporting concerns about the actions of the parents of children in their care, and I think it is irresponsible of you to suggest that this may be the case.

What do I expect the NSPCC to do about it? I expect them to listen to what I have to say, and if they think my concerns are valid to suggest a further course of action, and if they think that they are not valid to tell me that I need not be concerned.

Do you think that everything the OP described is OK? If not, where do you suggest she turns for support?

oh yes....

i have known so many nannies families where the parents see their children for a few minutes (if at all) a day.

Other than the odd day, Ive always worked for families where i finished 6ish, so at least parents normally put them to bed, but i know so many nannies who get children up and care for them all day including putting to bed mon - fri.

But then its the parents choice.... or maybe not choice...

i know when my sister has children (she is the main earner and commutes into London, min 75min train journey) she is out the house 7 - 7 so WONT be seeing her children for more than a few mins a day if at all.
This isnt her "choice".... she would much rather see her children, (ok she will work from home 1 - 2 days a week) but just pointing out that for some people they really dont have a choice.

The choice is between seeing children OR selling house and then not having anywhere to live with said children!
and thats not the end of the choice...
by keeping working and keeping her place on the career ladder, she will be able to independantly educate her children... and support them through Uni etc, and they will be able to afford good quality life, for the duration of their lives.. something which if she stopped working just to see the children, wouldnt happen.

Its not always black and white...