To be cross with my nanny?

[Maria101]

I have my own internet business and work from home. I have a part time nanny who comes three days a week to look after my 1-year-old. She's generally great, however, at the start of the summer holidays she mentioned (didn't really ask) she might have to bring her 6-year-old son along some days. Tbh I didn't mind this, as she made it sound like an occasional thing, and my daughter likes him and likes having other children around.

However, she started bringing him every single time. During my baby's nap times instead of cleaning the bottles/high chair, making meals etc, like she did before, she would sit and read to him on my sofa while I was working in the next room. Also, all their activities would involve going to the park etc, instead of going to playgroups (presumably because he would get bored). Other things bothered me, such as once my daughter messed her nappy just as the nanny arrived with her son, who wanted toast. She said to me, 'You deal with that (the nappy), while I make him (her son) some toast'. Stupidly I did, even though she had technically started work.

Last week I told her not to bring her son anymore because it's too distracting having him here in the house while I try to work. She was OK about it, and didn't bring him, but today I got a text at 8.30 (she's due here at 9) asking if she could bring him because her sister couldn't have him. She suggested picking my daughter up and taking her to her house. But surely this is childminding? Plus, I had purposefully left some jobs for her to do in nap time (make a shepherds pie). I said not to worry so now I don't have any childcare today.

I'm fuming. My main problems are: a) I don't want her son in my house when I'm trying to work, but equally I don't want my daughter out every single day (her initial solution to my finding her son too distracting). b) I want her to work during my daughter's nap times, and not play with her son or do her own housework (which she'd probably do if my daughter went to her house). c) she treats our arrangement like a casual agreement between friends, when I'm paying her to do a job. For example, there was no apology this morning for letting me down and making me work tonight after my daughter has gone to bed (if I don't work during the day it has to get done at some point).

Should I a) just cancel our contract and look for another childminder/nanny? Tackle it head on Monday morning and then have the awkwardness that would follow?

Sorry for the rant, but I'm furious! PS, I know part of this is my fault for being too laid back with her in the first place but for the most part she's a good nanny but she seems to be getting worse and taking the pi**.

Rita, all employees are 'staff'. It is not a dirty word.

The OP had a thread in January asking for a nanny and she wrote that 'the job will suit a local mum' . Quite rightly imo because is not easy to find a nanny willing to work only 5 hours 3 times a week and the mum working from home. So in these cases ime both parties are flexible. Very different when you offer a full time position with top wages etc and you hire a proffesional nanny and you set the stadards high. There are different positions and different rules.

It wasn't every day during the summer hols that the (apparently well behaved) boy was there, it was three days a week, iirc. And for what a lot of posters think was a measly 5 hour stretch on those three days. And the baby was going to have 1 to 1 attention from her mother for the remainder of the days the nanny was there, plus 100% of the OP's attention during the 4 days of the week the nanny wasn't there... No babies suffered during the making of this appalling insolence on the part of the nanny.

To recap --
5 hours is not long enough for a nanny to need a little time to herself.

5 hours is however unreasonably long for the baby to have to suffer through her nanny occasionally paying attention to another child or cooking a simple meal;
it is perfectly logical and reasonable that the nanny is packed off to a playgroup where it is hoped she will not pay attention to the baby but instead be distracted by chatting with strangers for the good of her mental health whether she wants to or not, while the baby gets her eyes poked and her toys swiped by the unsupervised urchins who are the usual habituées of playgroups.
Yes, that makes perfect sense.

Poshbaggirl, you are my heroine.

RitaMorgan -- Poshbaggirl employs university students during school breaks. The mothers get the school breaks off and return when they are over.

I think as the attitude of the OP clearly shows, a nanny is not merely 'staff', she has no business having a life of her own, human needs, or any other responsibilities besides the care of her charges.

I think it is absolutely extraordinary that anyone should think there is anything normal about taking their own children with them to work under any circumstances, unless it was part of their formal original contract as is, very occasionally, the case for nannies.

Most workplaces do not allow children of employees on the premises anyway, and quite rightly so.

I find it bad enough having people working in my home to start with as it is, without having their children there too.

I'm looking for a new super peeps in october. Someone with a life, probably kids, wouldnt be surprised if they had a parent who they needed to keep an eye on, a dog that sometimes needs to go to the vet, grows their own veg and brings french beans to work to barter, keeps us laughing during teabreaks with anecdotes of wild holidays and infuriating DP.
But then , hey i like employing people not robots.
I'll shut up now.

No mathanxiety - the point is, if you want a nanny who brings her own child to work, you employ one, at a reduced rate. If you want your child in a group childcare situation, you send them to nursery or a childminder.

If what you want and what you pay for is a nanny to give 1:1 care to your child, and do nursery duties, as you instruct, then it isn't unreasonable to expect that.

Now everyone has occasional childcare problems - but there is no way I could bring my son with me for a day. The OP was very sensible in allowing her employee to bring her child in while she sorted childcare out for him, but bringing him most days wasn't part of the deal.

Unless you are suggesting the nanny's wage is reduced, or like Poshbaggirl think that mothers shouldn't be employed in the first place (or maybe the nanny should just lose her job to a student over the summer?) I'm not sure why you think it is unreasonable to expect an employee to do the job they are contracted and paid to do.

And Poshbaggirl, why on earth shouldn't you let you staff bring their children in? What if they're well behaved? If your staff are only working 10-3 anyway then I'm sure you could cover some of their duties while they attend to their children, and it won't do the customers any harm to wait a couple of minutes longer for staff attention.

LOL Rita, children are really so sweet and attractive, aren't they? I'm sure sales go right up when customers have to wait for staff to attend to their children's needs before serving customers.

I agree with Laquitar, all employees are "staff" including nannies and I am not sure what there is to be precious about it. Having said that I don't use the term staff to describe my nanny, and equally I wouldn't use the term staff to describe the other people (cleaners, gardeners etc) I employ in my home either.

If you're a nanny who doesn't want to see themselves as an employee, then what are you? My nanny is a fab person and a fab employee. But at the end of the day, that's exactly what she is, an employee. She is not my friend, or my family. She goes well beyond the call of duty and were she a friend or family, I would just say thank you and make sure I return the favour. As she is an employee, I show my gratitude by treating her well, and paying her well.

I am a nanny myself.

SOLE CHARGE is a nanny looking after someone elses children on there own, not a mothers help situation, where the mum or dad is around and can not do it on there own.

I have 2 children of my own, a 19 month old which goes with me to work , but before I go to the interview the family will know this, I also have a 9 year old which again families know this before interview will come with me in the holidays.
It is up to the family if a child comes with the nanny or not holidays, certain days, or any situation.

Your nanny seems to think that she is getting free childcare, more than working ( NOT ALL NANNIES WORK THIS WAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!).
She was wrong to give her son toast before changing your child.

poshbaggirl. I have too many children, an ageing and very demanding mother, a DH who regularly does the most spectacularly stupid things and drives me potty, a goldfish and a rabbit. I tried to grow some peas and french beans but I didn't get a chance to water them so they didn't grow. I need a job and am happy to tell all about my (frankly bizarre!) holiday.
What have you got on offer?

Well I agree with Bonsoir and novice. Staff is staff. Just because they work in your home doesn't mean they require pity or sympathy or guilt. Fairness, mutual respect, mutual generosity maybe but basically do the job, get paid, bye.

Exactly Blueberties - domestic employees should be treated just the same as other employees. If you wouldn't expect shop or office workers to look after their own children instead of working, why would you expect a nanny too?

But even 3 days a week is a regular thing not just when the nanny has been let down by HER childcare or something which I'm sure the OP would understand.
As a mother of 2 I am more than aware that you can't give 2 kids the same attention each as you can give 1 by themselves. The OP is obviously going to be peeved that the nanny expects to be paid the same wage to give her child less attention all so SHE can save on childcare. I can't believe anyone would think this was anything less than the nanny taking the piss.

generally when nannies include their own children, it is considered a nanny share and she should be paid half! Or something over half, whatever the nanny share rate is. It is not reasonable to do it any other way. I think you need a new nanny as once these liberties have become established, it is almost impossible to put the genie back into the bottle (in my experience).

I agree wholeheartedly with Bonsoir and Poshbaggirl.

This ^.

I'm a working mum, I'd love to see my boss's face if I told her I was bringing my children into work because I didn't have any childcare! It just wouldn't be permitted, and neither should it. Would police officers be allowed to take their kids to work? Would nurses, doctors? It's ridiculous. When you work outside home, you are PAID to do a job - it's not something you do for pin money, where you can turn up if you like, and not if you don't. Your childcare arrangements are your own concern. That's what dependency leave is for - I have to take 2 days off unpaid next week as my childcare has fallen through. That's life, I'm afraid.

Oh come on, in real life there is not one rule for everything. Every job has different perks. If you work in restaurants you get meals, if you work in travel industry you might get free holidays or air miles, and if you work in childcare you might get some flexibility re your own childcare. What is so shocking?

If i tell you i work in waitrose and i get discount for my shopping will you get worked up, will you say 'i'm accountant and i dont get discount, it is not fair' ?

Industry perks are factored into remuneration (and quite often taxation) at the outset. This nanny has tried to change the goalposts without any commensurate reduction in pay.

A perk such as bringing your children to work is agreed upfront and is reflected in your wage.

Being a nanny does not entitle you to the perk of bringing your child to work as when you see fit. As Rita and others say, if it was, then it's factored in to the salary. The parents could have opted for a childminder or nursery which are much cheaper options than one to one nanny care. But if that's not what someone wants for their children then it shouldn't be forced on them through the back door.

As I have said, I treat my domestic employees (i.e. those whose place of work is in my house) no differently to the way I treat my office employees, in return I expect each of them to be professional in each of their chosen fields. When my PA has had childcare issues, I have given her the time off to sort them out or she works flexibily if she needs to go and do something with him. To be frank I don't expect the child to turn up in my office and neither do I expect my nanny's child (if she had one) to turn up in my house either.

Bonsoir thats the point, we are not sure who moved the goalposts in op's case.

You are right that the perks are factored at the outset but often things change and you have to renegotiate or sometimes put up with something.
It is only on mn that everything is so rigid, whether is employment or a trip to tesco or your mil. In real life nothing is ideal. When i was nanny i had taken a toddler with me to dentist. It is not ideal of course. But my filling had come off and my employer had an important meeting, she couldn't say 'dont bother to come', she said 'can you take her with you?'. It wasn't ideal but not the end of the world either. Others left me to go earlier when i had a crisis, one picked up my mum from the airport (she was working near by). In return i have stayed later at work, i have made soup for my employer when she was ill etc.
Life is hard for all working parents and some flexibility goes long way. I will not compromise on things like my childrens safety but some other things i will try to accomodate or to let it go sometimes. Of course you can spend your life fuming like op or comparing different jobs etc but life is hard enough and sometimes you have to be pragmatic.

(in op's case i would welcome the boy and the verbal stimulatiion for my toddler, toddlers learn a lot from older children)

I think there is a difference between being occasionally flexible as an employer and having an employee push the boundaries. I let staff bring their child into work on a very occasional basis where childcare has been an issue. It happens, childcare falls through. But I wouldn't let staff bring children in for 3 days a week. Of course in any job, including being a nanny, an employee is not going to spend as much time doing their job when they have their own child with them.

But the OP also has a responsibility as an employer to set out clearly what is and what is not acceptable. One of the problems imo of being employed in a private house is that often the employer doesn't know how to or is reluctant to manage their staff.

In an ideal world all employees would be wonderful and would not need managed. And I have some staff like this. But in most cases, staff do need to be managed. So complaining about a staff members work i.e. bringing their child to work and not actually talking to them about it, is an example of poor management.

When the nanny said she was bringing her child, the OP should have made it clear what is acceptable i.e. fine occasionally and defined what occasionally is e.g. 2 or 3 days during the summer holidays.

A contract helps to spell out expectations at the beginning and if the nanny is doing anything the OP is unhappy with she needs to point this out and say what she wants the nanny to do instead.

lesley, I think you're spot on when you say that One of the problems imo of being employed in a private house is that often the employer doesn't know how to or is reluctant to manage their staff.. I had well over 10 years of experience of managing people when I first employed my nanny. She said something incredibly insensitive in her first month which had that I occured in the office, I would have dealt with it straight away but actually caused me a lot of angst. Other MNetters told me to (v nicely!) to grow a pair and say something. That's when I realised that trying to treat my nanny as a special class of employee wasn't going to work for me and I think that's also the case for most employers.

Nothing was forced on the OP. It was her own failure to state clearly to the nanny that she would not be allowing her to bring her son to work when the matter was first broached and subsequently when it seemed to be the standing arrangement.

The nanny is probably not a mind reader and the OP should not have allowed something to go on that she didn't want happening in the workplace she manages. If you are managing staff you have to put on your big girl knickers, get over your natural diffidence or your aversion to confrontation, and manage. Not sit and quietly fume while paying full whack for what you consider inadequate service.

If she was in theory not opposed to the idea of flexibility wrt the nanny bringing her son to work or taking care of a poopy nappy herself if it happened right at the start of a workday, then she still needed to have the exact extent of her flexibility spelled out. If she was not going to be flexible at all about any detail of her requirements, then she should have communicated that to the nanny at time of hiring. Clear assessment of what you will require from the people who work for you, followed by clear communication of your expectations is vital, especially where childcare is at issue. Expecting other people to read your mind when you are in any sort of managing role is completely unprofessional.

All this talk of the nanny pushing the boundaries/taking the piss -- what boundaries? It is up to the employer, if boundaries are important to her, to set them in place and show the staff where they are.

No the nanny is not a mind reader. She should, however realise that you don't take your children to work. Most people of an average IQ can manage that much.

Mathanxiety, you come across as a bully on this thread. You make so many assumptions (all of which show the OP in a bad light.)

The OP counters all your accusations, but I don't notice you apologising.

You make it sound as though the nanny must be incredibly busy all day. For me, it would be an easy job, to go to look after a baby for five hours a day, make a little dinner when the baby's sleeping and take her out to a playgroup. What's so hard about that?

Obviously the nanny shouldn't have brought her son to work. Nobody takes their son to work (unless as in the case of the nanny above, that's what's wanted and agreed.) I don't know how you turned this thread into an attack on a woman who is trying to earn a living from home and do her best by her child.