To think this person should never have bothered having kids?

[doubleshotespresso]

See below link to a local forum with an advert for a part-time nanny all round slave

Doesn't she sound lovely?

www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?25,1385026

I don't think it's the sorting out the uniform and helping with homework that people are 'sneering' at. It's the very high expectations for very little pay.

However I love the idea of 'outsourcing' care for my children.

If they are wealthy then they can afford to pay someone properly to look after their children, and do the housework, and walk the dog, and put the shopping away, and help with homework, and ferry the children around in their own car etc etc etc

Oakmaiden

You should try a different agency, you are being seriously underpaid.

3x12 = 36
that is a lot more than part-time!

The pay is terrible but I don't really understand the OPs point re "why bother having kids?"

My daughter has a nanny to supervise her homework because her father and I are both at work when she should be doing it! What's wrong with that?

Sashh - bizarrely it is the going rate for supply in this city. The same agency pay £75 in Swansea, £90 in Cardiff and I believe around £120 in Bristol. Unfortunately I live in Swansea.

Crap pay but it sounds like a great little job. Drop kids off, bit of laundry, bimble around a bit with the dog, knock up dinner, mumsnet, school run, homework and bed time. Sounds like my own life but a cleaner house and getting money for it.

19.5k gross a year. Not awful for basically being a SAHM with kids in school and pottering about most of the day or am I missing something?

That's unreal! Huuuuuuge list of responsibilities and £10 hour self employed means no paid holiday, no statutory sick pay etc, has to pay tax & NI out of it - bet it would barely boil down to minimum wage. Certainly not London living wage.

I have a real bee in my bonnet about people who want their employees to be self-employed. I think they'd be shocked if the employee turned round and said "fine, but you can't tell me how to do my job and if I don't feel like turning up I can subcontract to someone else"!!

You can't (or at least you shouldn't) hire a nanny and tell them they are self-employed - it's against official guidelines, and the parents could get in trouble, plus they are clearly just tight bastards who don't want to pay the tax and NI.

Back in the day I knew a lot of nannies (from taking my DS when small to a playcentre), and I employed a nanny one day a week, who worked for a Famous Person (TM) the other four days. I lost a lot of respect for some of the middle-class parents I knew in this naice area after getting to know their nannies, and learning how much they paid them and how dismissively they treated them. As for my own nanny (who was brilliant, and should have been in her home country running some vast enterprise, not here having to wipe my son's arse), it took quite a lot to persuade her that when I paid her sick pay, or holiday pay, or paid for bank holidays, that I wasn't offering her charity money, but money she was entitled to. Same as tax and NI. She'd never had an employer pay for that before. I sometimes felt like the only person in London who was employing a nanny legally, despite being on a pretty low income myself.

Also £10/hour gross for a nanny in East Dulwich is laughable.

tl;dr the richer the parents, the tighter they are, and the more likely to treat the nanny like shit.

Is that a bad wage?
Yes. I've looked into nannies and I'm south hampshire, ie very far from london. They are generally £10-12 ph net. I assume it means I need to use a nanny calculator and then offer something higher gross to make sure the nanny gets about that after tax. (As everyone here advice to agree on gross salary). So this is an insulting wage in london for an experienced teacher.

The role is not commensurate with the salary. A tutor would charge at least 30/hour, a nanny with experience and a car would charge probably 15, and neither of these would tolerate being lumped in with dog walker/cleaner/grocery receiver.

I don't think it's a reflection on the woman as a parent, but as an employer.

Really? So a nanny at home with her charges at school wouldn't walk the dog or put the shopping away once a week?

I also don't get the OP opinion of why bother with children if they don't cook or sort out uniforms. Really? You do know all the elites of this glorious nation outsource childcare? What do you think Cameron did at Eton? I'm sure they did his laundry, provided meals and also supervised homework. Don't rich people always have cleaners, nannies, gardeners, etc?

boysclothes but my problem si with the £10 gross, self employed bit. That means it's a lot less money. And also if you read carefully, they have to provide their own car, which needs to be insured up to 'business use' instead of just commuting and leisure. And also tutor the girl for 11+.

I think the thing with the shopping for me anyway is that the nanny is only working 3 days so it doesn't need to necessarily be on one of her days.

Saying that I hate putting the shopping away so the idea of someone else doing it is most appealing!!!!

Yes that is shit and smacks of taking advantage, Onelittle. I have to ensure my own car for business use though for my own job and it only cost 15 quid a year.

boysclothes didn't know it's only £15. But the tutor bit can't be cheap. That's why she's looking for a teacher isn't it?

I'd love someone to do all that so I could have a rest

Actually self-employed tax is no more than anyone else. But there is no holiday pay.

So it's basically equivalent to £8.85 with holiday pay.

I don't think you can state the mum is a crap mum who shouldn't have kids. Plenty of people need childcare for 12 hrs a day and this woman isn't even needing a nanny 5 days a week, just 3.

I am out of the house for up to 11 hours some days and still have to prepare meals, clean, sort the kids out with dinner, homework etc. If I could have a nanny at home to do that for me as part of her role I'd be chuffed to bits. It would certainly make my life easier.

But the rate of pay she's offering is ridiculous, and nannies aren't self employed AFAIK so she's kidding herself on that one.

The pay is much better than if they were after a 'au pair' where they would only pay 'pocket money'

that job sounds better than mine,. I'd do it!

Ha, EDF is a real treat. Dp and I often read it for a laugh on a dull evening. Living and working in ED I would not be surprised if she is genuine.

Does anyone else think that the outrage over pay thing smacks a little of snobbery/sexism?

It's reading a little to me as if people are saying "WHAT??? This woman wants to go to work and outsource childcare?? Then she should be paying 26374836837494 pounds a day!!! Slavery!!!" Yet Muhammad in the chicken shack round the corner is slinging fries for NMW for 48 hours a week, a job undoubtedly more physically and mentally draining and we'd all say "well yeah, that's a NMW job innit?"

It's just a bit, I dunno, that if a woman wants to outsource drudge work, she's going to have a sacrifice A LOT to make that OK. Morally OK. When actually 20k a year for a part time job where most of it is just pottering around doesn't seem so awful?

Not sure if I'm explaining myself well. Anyway, the market will speak. If no one wants the job, if it is really crap, then no one will take it.

But NoWay, an au pair is usually unqualified, and there's a certain expectation that they will be young, and the host family will do a certain amount of looking after them, too. And an au pair is not a nanny, either.

They want to employ a fully-qualified postgraduate grownup with her own car for peanuts, not an au pair.