How do I split nanny share pay with new baby?

The nannies job will of course get harder when a third child joins the mix. Two 2 year olds would be far easier than two 2 year olds and a baby. So realistically, a small pay rise might be a nice gesture.

As for splitting the bill, I think 1/3:2/3 is right. The share operated from the two houses evenly, so both are paying in the same for wear and tear and heating and both presumably getting similar amounts of chores done (beds made/children’s washing/dinners in the freezer type nanny duties), but one family will be getting the nannies attention for 1 third of the time, the other will be getting 2 thirds of the time (and that doesn’t take into account that a baby may well be more time consuming than a 2-3 year old.

Damn I nearly replied to this thread and then realised it's nearly 7 years old!!

But in case anyone is interested. I nanny share and when I had a family with 2 kids and a family with 1. They did a 2/3 split vs. 1/3 split which in my opinion is the fairest.

I agree - I think nanny share does not necessarily involve a split based on number of children from each family - and that in practice, it may turn out to be 50/50 split.
I like this blog on nanny share which also talks about whose home is used for hosting the nanny share - which can also affect the cost split - nannyandmeblog.blogspot.com/2014/10/everything-you-need-to-know-about-nanny.html
You can also use these FAQs as a guiding point: www.angelnannyshare.co.uk/faqs

The new child will probably take up more attention tbh so you definitely need to pay the extra to the nanny as a minimum.

This is my second nannyshare where I look after 3 children. The first one was 1/3 and 2/3 basis as well, so is this one. As a nanny I don't mind how my salary is made up, who pays how much as long as I get the amount my contract says. Do I find it fair that one family pays 2/3 and the other 1/3? Absolutely. The family with 2 children still save money as their part of net is lower than the current rate for one nanny and they also save on tax and NI. Obviously it's more beneficial for the family with one child.

As for when the children are in nursery: no, the pay is still 1/3 and 2/3. The children (2 oldest) are in nursery only 3 hours a day (in my case) and that doesn't mean that I'm not in charge of all, I am on call within those hours and I have to work in half terms and when they are sick as well. I use the hours to cook their lunch/dinners, set up washing machine, run errants for both families, etc. I don't really have 3 hours with the younger child only as by the time I finish the school run and do the above things I hardly have half an hour play with the little one.

I was part of a nanny share and had 2 DC, the other family had 1 DC. We split 50/50 but the share was at our house, but that was due to their house not being large enough for 3 children. They actually offered to pay a slightly higher rate to make up for the wear and tear but I said no because convenience more than made up for it for me.

What happens if one of the 2 DC go to nursery or school for a few hours? Does it revert to 50/50 for just those hours? It just gets all silly at that point.

I think a 50/50, or at a push 60/40, is the way to go.

Didn't realise we had to give personal experience I did an existing 2:1 share (in 2007(?)) as temp cover and the families split 50/50 but it was based at the house of the family with more children. That was the arrangement for the existing nanny too.

If I can summarise for the Original Poster (sorry sheepburn, as a newcomer to Mumsnet what must you think of us all???)

Lots of opinions here about what is and isn't fair, seemingly split between 'only 50:50 is fair' and 'only 66:33 is fair'.

But there are only 3 direct answers with relevant personal experience:
Lily311 (nanny) 66:33
BahamasPrincess (parent) 66:33
Redglow (nanny 'a few years ago' in a pre-existing 3+2 child situation so not directly comparable) 50:50

Note that both BahamasPrincess and Lily311 are giving/had a payrise so in those circumstances 50:50 of the new salary would have left the other family paying more than before.

If I can summarise for the Original Poster (sorry sheepburn, as a newcomer to Mumsnet what must you think of us all???)

Lots of opinions here about what is and isn't fair, seemingly split between 'only 50:50 is fair' and 'only 66:33 is fair'.

But there are only 3 direct answers with relevant personal experience:
Lily311 (nanny) 66:33
BahamasPrincess (parent) 66:33
Redglow (nanny 'a few years ago') 50:50

Note that both BahamasPrincess and Lily311 are giving/had a payrise so in those circumstances 50:50 of the new salary would have left the other family paying more than before.

My point was that I think they should pay the same. I did a nanny share a few years ago one had three children and the other family had two they paid the same. They are paying a nanny not a CM.

redglow there is no dispute about how much the nanny gets paid. The dispute is which percentage of the nanny's pay each family contributes. They are two seperate issues.

But nannies do not get paid per child. I work for two families on different days, one family has four children the other family has two children they pay the same.

It makes sense in my head, probably because nannies are usually just per family so 2 families for me split the cost 2 ways.

I'm not following the logic of the '50:50' argument at all on this one, and as OhFraktiousTree has expressed the issues in more depth (as I would expect ) I am going to follow her lead:

If there's no payrise now but the other family have another and them there is a payrise AND it goes back to 50/50 but on the new figure how does that work?
Both families would have two children cared for so they split the cost 50:50 - where is the problem?

I don't think it's fair in the OP for the other family to get cheaper childcare
The corollary of that is that you do think it is fair for the family to get twice as much childcare for the same price! Why?

equally I don't think it's fair on the other family to get proportionally less attention
Now that I can agree with

One could split the costing out according to the relative convenience of a nanny (equal) which is part of what attracts a premium
Yes it is part of what attracts a premium, but equally there is a premium because my child(ren) are getting the whole of a nanny's attention (or in the case of an equal share, 50% of a nanny's attention) as opposed to say 25% with a childminder with 3 other charges. As soon as the share becomes 2+1 the other family is not getting that 50%, they are getting at best 1/3, but as a 9 month old requires a lot of looking after it's probably less than that!

Plus as a nanny I wouldn't have been happy knowing that the costing had been altered so drastically because then I'd feel that I wasn't expected to provide an equal service to both families.
Absolutely you would be expected to provide more service to the family that is paying more - how else would you cope with the fact that they have twice as many children, one of them only 9 months? Spend 50% of the time with the only child, 50% of the time with the 9 month old and ignore the older sibling???

Would they expect to shoulder more of the cost if the OP hadn't had another baby and instead sent the older one to preschool?
No because this would not be their decision: they may get more of the nanny's time for their money, but they didn't ask for it so can't be expected to pay for it.

Or will they expect a reduction if they decide to do 2 mornings preschool?
No because they would be deciding to change the arrangements unilaterally and cannot expect the other family to bear the consequences.

Also don't forget that the other family is going to have to put up with a whole load more equipment at their house and the additional wear and tear of a child that isn't theirs. I think 2/3 + 1/3 is a bargain!

The problem is that there's another child coming in to an existing arrangement. If there's no payrise now but the other family have another and them there is a payrise AND it goes back to 50/50 but on the new figure how does that work? I wouldn't say the share would necessarily end - it depends on the age of the other children but 4 is manageable under certain circumstances (eg spaces in car).

I don't think it's fair in the OP for the other family to get cheaper childcare, equally I don't think it's fair on the other family to get proportionally less attention. The fairest solution IMO would be to fix a new 'per additional child' rate. One could split the costing out according to the relative convenience of a nanny (equal) which is part of what attracts a premium, food costs (unequal), care (unequal), household expenses (equal) etc and yes, the OP comes put on top but the value of the nanny for the other family is not necessarily diminished.

Plus as a nanny I wouldn't have been happy knowing that the costing had been altered so drastically because then I'd feel that I wasn't expected to provide an equal service to both families. Attention should be divided according to need but those needs change.

It's just dangerous to quibble. Would they expect to shoulder more of the cost if the OP hadn't had another baby and instead sent the older one to preschool? Or will they expect a reduction if they decide to do 2 mornings preschool?

I honestly can say I don't favour any of the families in this share, I see them as equal. I adore the kids and if I would need to choose one of them, I would be in trouble.

As for if the other family have another , yes the share would go back as 50/50 although shares at that stage usually come to the end anyway.

We are in the exact same situation as the OP, in that I am about to pop with our 2nd. We have spoken to the other family and we agreed to give our nanny a pay rise from £10ph net to £12ph net as she will have more work with 3 and for the split to change from 50:50 to 2/3 us and 1/3 them.

So we go from paying £5ph net to £8ph which isn't quite double, so we're happy. It's also less than trying to find a nanny of our own. And the other family does have a slight reduction but as many posters have said the nanny will be spending proportionally less of her time with their child.

I don't think you can compare this situation to CM as it's a nanny and there are lots of differences between the childcare.

At the end of the day both families need to be happy and what works for one nanny-share may not work for another and you just have to do what's right for yours!

'Bad feeling or tensions between the parents impact on the nanny '

Possibly, although if everyone is being prof it shouldn't. As chipping said it needs to be agreed between the families, but IMO the fair way is 1/3 v 2/3 and if it were my share and I had a second child I would pay 2/3. If I was the parent with the one child I would expect to pay 1/3.

'and if one family is paying more then they might feel more bound to that family'

Maybe. Though I'm sure most nannies understand the concept of fractions and that it's not that one family are more generous, simply that they have more children. Even without the pay issue. in a share situation the nanny often has a 'favourite' family, one that she would choose if put in the position (often happens when both families have a second child.)

'What would happen if the other share family had another child? Would it go back to 50/50?'

Yes.

Shared between number of children is fair.
Sorry
You may want your own nanny now for convenience etc if costs are not that much more.

I'm in a share like that. When baby joined, I got £1 net an hour payrise and they split the pay as 1/3, 2/3. It was agreed between the families, I didn't have an input.

I would disagree with that hohoho. Bad feeling or tensions between the parents impact on the nanny and if one family is paying more then they might feel more bound to that family.

I see the other parent's point but I feel that actually it might be better to negotiate a small raise for the nanny and the OP pay that. What would happen if the other share family had another child? Would it go back to 50/50? Would the nanny then get a raise? Who would cover that?

*the agreement between the parents and the nanny is unrelated to the agreement between the employers

*accept (not except!!)

It is the only way I would except that it is fair if I were in this situation.

TBH I think the agreement between the parents is unrelated to the agreement between the employers.

The nanny is asked to look after 2 and then 3 children, she needs to ask for what she feels this is worth. In this case it seems £11ph net. As long as the nanny receives this it is of no concern to her who pays what.

If the nanny is employed by only one family, they wouldn't pay an extra 16% for one extra child, but in a share they bill has to be split somehow. IMO (and with the shares I know) the fairest way to do this is based on number of children. I think in this case the nanny having an extra 9 month old to look after will be significantly more work, therefore the other child will receive less time/attention. I don't believe it is in any way fair for the other parents to pay the same for one child as the OP expects to pay for 2.