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**.

Erm, it's a shepherd's pie. And my not-quite 7mo DS3 eats chicken and leek pie when we are eating it. Why on earth wouldn't a 1yo eat pie?? And why would making the baby's lunch NOT be a part of the nannies duties?

I'm an LP, and have had a job in the past where I was meant to be working on a primary inset day. I spoke to my employer and explained that there was no room in the kids club that day for my eldest 2 dc (who were then aged 4.8yo and 10.9yo, what school has a bloody inset day 2 weeks into the school yr??!!). I asked if it would be possible to either take a day's unpaid leave or bring them in with me. In the end, I brought them in, but after that I was more on the ball with getting the dc on the list for kids club in time to get spaces for holidays and inset days.

Once is OK, any more than that taking your dc to work, and you're trying to take the piss out of your employer, no matter WHAT trade you are in.

If she is only working 15 hours she won't be able to claim childcare costs. Is there anyway you could negotiate another hour. Meaning she could get childcare payments? See the details do
Count. Even I it means reducing another payment. Ie activities budget or something ?

Thank you Loudlass! I was starting to feel paranoid about giving my 1-year-old shepherd's pie! Sorry I haven't replied to everybody's questions (about leave etc), but the matter has been dealt with now so it's all good again. Thanks again for your help.

Why wouldn't a 1 year old eat a pie? Even a pastry-and-filling type isn't a ridiculous thing to feed a baby, is it?

I think you are actually the one taking the piss here.

I don't know why you had jobs such as cooking shepherd's pie lined up for her to see to while your DD was napping and why you think she couldn't have done this while the DD was awake. Parents who don't have nannies get their housework and cooking done while their small children are awake and it doesn't harm the children to not have one on one attention 100% of the time. I don't know why you can't cook for your own baby either and why a nanny couldn't have a lunchbreak. I would imagine she thinks the shepherd's pie was for the family as a whole pie would be a lot for a 1 yo to eat all by herself.

It seems from what you report that her son didn't lay claim to her attention except for the toast incident she read to him while your DD was napping and that the boy was well behaved while at your house. Since there is no report of noise or disturbance I assume he was quiet and didn't make a mess in your house. I wonder about the toast/nappy changing your DD had just pooed as she arrived and yet you were fuming at the nanny because you ended up changing the nappy. Is it really such a chore for you to change your DD's nappy? What if the nanny had arrived after getting drenched in the rain and had to take off wet shoes, coat, hat, socks would you have stood there tut tutting and expecting the nanny to get on with things or just taken your DD aside and done what the baby needed? The nanny is seeing you as the parent of the baby here and clearly has an idea in her mind of what the role of a parent is. Unfortunately you are seeing yourself primarily as an employer. But since you are at home while she is there maybe she doesn't see what you are doing as full time work?

Or maybe she doesn't want to step on your parental toes?

If you agreed that she could bring her son with her some days then you had a duty to find out what this would entail and under what circumstances. You could have asked her what arrangements she had for her son other than coming to your house. You could also have let your DD sit in a messy nappy until she had got her son his toast or you could have insisted that her child wait for his toast until your DD was changed while you stood there fuming and watching the nanny to make sure you got your minimum wage worth. Would you really have done this?

Now you are really lepping because you think the nanny has taken liberties but really it is a problem of poor communication of your expectations (and unreasonable expectations on your part too when it comes to cooking that pie) that is the problem here. If you want your nanny to act as a professional nanny then you need to act as a professional employer and that means being direct and clear in the nicest possible way about your expectations.

For crying out loud, if she's paying someone to cook the child's dinner then they should cook it! What's the big deal?

i think the big deal is she expects this to be done when her baby is sleeping.....

and is ignoring the fact that her nanny is legally entitled to a break, and the only chance she has for this break is when child is sleeping....

of course it could be done when child was awake, people do manage to cook / clean / do housework / live their lives while they have awake babies

WTF? Why the fuss about a shepherd's pie?!?

It's fairly standard for a nanny to make food for the kids and fairly standard for a 1 year old to eat shepherd's pie, I know both mine did at age 1.

Why is it that on Mumsnet having a nanny makes you automatically unreasonable and automatically in the wrong? I don't have a nanny, but if it made economic sense to I would. A nanny chose nannying as a career and they are paid for it, so why are all nanny employers seen as treating their nannies as slaves? They are creating employment for someone.

She's already explained that the nanny only works 5 hours. She's hardly going to need an hour's break, is she?

I agree, trixy - there's such inverted snobbery about the whole thing. Lucky OP that she can have a nanny come to her house. Good for her to ask the nanny to cook something for the child's dinner. This does not make the OP a bad person, ffs!

But is she paying to have the dinner cooked? Does she have a contract that states this? If she has one set of assumptions and the nanny has another and nothing has been clearly stated then it is unreasonable for her to assume the nanny should cook what is actually a substantial meal requiring multiple steps during a nap.

And to me a shepherd's pie would be a family meal that one baby could not possibly hope to finish before it had to be thrown out because of spoilage.

The big deal is that the nanny shows up at work not knowing what to expect her day will consist of in terms of breaks or cooking or other housework because her unprofessional manager/employer sees fit to spring tasks on her apparently out of a desire to see someone else jump on command.

What is the nanny to do if the baby does not go asleep or does not settle at naptime due to illness or teething or just because she is growing out of a nap? How are the tasks to be accomplished in those circumstances? There is a pfb attitude towards the baby here and a lack of concern for the fact that a person caring for that pfb is being run ragged so that the OP can get her money's worth. Nobody wins when the person caring for the baby is not able to have time in the day to pick her nose in peace or when she is forced to scramble for summer care for her 6 yo child (it is not that easy to place a 6 yo child for the summer). When you try to extract value for money from your nanny down to the last penny your baby will be the one to suffer.

I think it is very strange that this nanny has been working for 10 months and the OP did not have any conversation with her about her child and what she generally did with him during the summer while she worked. There is a lack of anticipation or regard for the fact that the nanny has a life and human needs outside of the demands of her employer here.

So if it is only 5 hours what is the big deal about having the nanny's son there?

A shepherd's pie would feed my whole family dinner and leave some for lunch the next day. For the life of me I do not know how a 1 yo could eat a whole shepherd's pie for her dinner.

And as for inverted snobbery -- there is none here. I myself have never employed a nanny or cleaner etc., but my paternal grandmother had a large household staff including governess, nursery maids, kitchen and scullery maids. The governess went on to work for an aunt and I spent a good deal of time with her as a child when I stayed in that household. They were long-term family employees because they were treated well and because everybody knew what was expected of them.

The shepherds pie is not the problem. Nannies cook for the children, thats normal.

However in this kind of threads, OP usually closes the matter once posters ask about contract or holidays or tax and NI .

OP told the nanny to simply not bother to go in. This and the avoidance of mentioning contract indicates that the arrangement is 'casual' (cash in hand). That's the problem

When I did my nannying my employer ( a GP and his wife) asked me because I had ds1 who was a very similar age,both babies were about 3 months old and were treated like 'twins' whilst I cared for them.

Also several years later I nannied for a family with 2 children of similar age to my 2 eldest dc- the children all had a fab time and I did lots of stuff that as an 'ordinary' nanny i wouldnt have done purely because it was so flexible.

I have never employed a nanny. We have however had three au pairs, which we have used in combination with nursery and then nursery and school. Two of these au pairs have become firm friends of the family. (the third I had to let go due to a total lack of respect, lazyness and a que sera sera attitude). I think Mathanxiety speak a lot of sense.

I was wondering that, Laquitar....

Yes -- on most nanny threads it seems to me that it is unprofessional employers who are the real problem. Nannies are not doing their work as a personal favour to families and employers who want to have their cake and eat it are by definition not behaving professionally.

I suppose if it was a child size portion of shepherd's pie then it would be reasonable for the nanny to prepare it but if it was enough to feed a family then a nanny would not be unreasonable to suspect she was being paid for nannying (and under the table at that) but employed as a cook too.

I am also intrigued by the idea on this thread that a nanny can be sent in loco parentis to a playgroup with the baby. I don't understand why this might be considered ok wither from the pov of the other parents at the playgroup or for the nanny. I also don't see what problem the OP might have with her DD getting out in the fresh air to a park instead of being cooped up with a playgroup. It is (or was) summer after all. She will be indoors enough all winter..

What's the legal requirement for breaks? I'm pretty sure you can't make someone work 5 hours straight without one. Assuming legal comes into it of course...

The OP has already said the shepherds pie was for baby sized portions. Totally normal for a nanny to batch cook for her charge.

The OP has also stated she has a contract with the nanny.

mathanxiety - what is intriguing about a nanny taking a baby to playgroup? That's what nannies do Why would the nanny or other parents object?

Also, you aren't legally entitled to a break unless you work 6 hours.

Yes, the OP should have communicated her wishes more clearly. But if I was paying for a nanny to care 1:1 for my child that's what I'd want.

I agree that fresh air and running in the park it is better in the summer but i dont understand the bit about the playgroup. Why is it not ok?

i would never dream of taking any of my DC to my work place in contracted hours.

You need to sort this out.

you have a few options with the current situation

A) in the school hoilday she works at 50% earning
B) her son is never allowed into the work place.

but you need to write up her job role and what is expected of her

mathanxiety, afaik, most nanny employers use a standard contract that describes nursery duties quite clear, including cooking for the child(ren). My nanny has made pies for dd since she was 9 months old and she will freeze the remaining portions - this is quite the norm. My nanny also takes dd to playgroups/activities. The adults there are made up of a mixture of nannies, sahm and mums on maternity leave. No one minds the nannies being there (why would they??) and in fact my nanny has become quite chummy with a number of the parents so my daughter also has play dates with them. Your post is very judgey for something you don't appear to have too much knowledge of!

Attending a playgroup with babies who are not yet verbal for the most part and also too young to socialise meaningfully with their peers is really more of a way for the parents to meet other parents and get to know people/make friends. For SAHMs, who could otherwise end up quite isolated, a playgroup can be a godsend, but usually only if there are other parents there in the same boat as themselves.

To go to a playgroup and find there only nannies or majority nannies can therefore be quite a disappointment. Many nannies are not necessarily interested in making friends with people who for all they know might be bosom pals of their employer, or talking much with people who might report tales about them back to their employer (this happened to an Irish nanny I knew in the US), they realise that their employment might not be forever so they do not have the sort of motivation to try to make friends or chat about whatever they might have in common with the parents that some parents do, and on top of that many do not speak enough English to make a relationship with people in a playgroup a possibility. Sometimes nannies and parents simply do not have that much in common, depending on the community.

The parents who take their offspring to playgroups are not really there to socialise with the babies. They are there to chat with the other adults, and if those other adults speak Tagalog or Polish amongst themselves it can be offputting. As a veteran of playgroups from way back, I can attest to feeling a bit that some parents thought it was ok to send an employee to a gathering that was really set up for parents. They would not dream of sending their nanny to represent them at something 'important' like a wedding or a meeting at work, but fine to send the nanny off to do her best with the baby at a place and in a role that is actually the daily work of some parents?

Mathanxiety, your last post has a rather unpleasant undertone.

other adults [who] speak Tagalog or Polish amongst themselves at playgroups may be mothers or nannies. If the former, are they allowed to attend playgroups or do you also think they should be excluded from your (presumably all white British) community? Maybe they speak amongst themselves because no one else speaks to them?

Nannies need to get out of the house the same as mothers do. Children benefit from socialising, meeting other kids, learning to take turns and the basics of sharing, well before they turn two. Why should the children of working mothers not be allowed into their local community? Most of the nannies I know have been with the same families for 2 years or more and are eager to develop local friendships. You sound like you are trying to justify yourself for wanting (forrin) nannies excluded from your surroundings. It is quite nasty tbh.

Oh, and perfectly normal for a nanny to batch cook and freeze.

'They are there to chat with the other adults, and if those other adults speak Tagalog or Polish amongst themselves it can be offputting.' This is all I said wrt nannies speaking another language and I think you over-read between the lines by a wide margin.

I am absolutely not suggesting that 'forrin' nannies should be excluded from my precious surroundings. What I am saying is that if you are a SAHM and find that the majority of the playgroups you go to are full of people who would quite reasonably prefer to talk to people who speak their own first language and that language is not yours (or the everyday language of the country you live in -- my experiences of playgroups was in the US) then you are likely to stay away or find someone to talk to who you can actually have a conversation with without having to use hand gestures or consult a dictionary. When you spend your time at home trying to communicate with preverbal children all day every day it is very refreshing to get out and have a chat with someone who is capable of having a chat with you. In your own language. Just as the Polish mothers and the Russian mothers and the Chinese mothers and the Irish mothers whom I knew in the US did. Nothing sinister there, or nasty, just a desire to have a chat with another adult. If an English speaking nanny is willing to chat then I am there with bells on.

But my experience has been that nannies prefer to chat amongst themselves and compare pay, employers, conditions, spoiledness of children, strangeness of household, etc.

I have nothing against people who speak another language and learned a bit of Polish myself (now very rusty) as a result of trying really hard to get somewhere conversationally with women I saw all the time who were simply not interested in making the effort to learn enough English because they had plenty of Polish speaking company, or were not able to take the time to learn enough English to forge friendships outside of their own community. I am Irish btw.

Children benefit from having a nice, kind, consistent caregiver and imo really do not benefit much at all from 'socialising' with other children until they are at least 2.5, maybe even closer to 3, when lessons about sharing and the give and take of the playground or the playgroup can start to sink in. They are not wired to be anything but completely selfish and egotistical until then and no amount of exhortation to share, etc., will have any sort of a long term effect until they have reached the age when that sort of expectation becomes realistic, i.e. at age 3 and up. Neither children of working mothers nor SAHMs are included in or excluded from the local community by dint of involvement in playgroups these groups are really not about the babies, who would do perfectly well without them, but are much more valuable for the parents. It has been my observation that at that tender age 'friendships' among the children exist only if the parents get along it is really the parents who have made friends and not the babies or toddlers.