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

OP stop digging a hole for yourself, you implied the woman didn't deserve children - very inflammatory title. If you'd put - that this is a lot to ask of a nanny, fine.

the advert just read very clearly to me that the parents wanted to be ab,e to come home and unwind from work without assuming any of the daily joys/responsibilities/child-rekated tasks. Perfectly accept that some of these tasks would need to be outsourced but you would think she mightjust want to do one.

Why should she want to do any of these tasks? She does them on the days she's not working and it's those little bits and pieces which are the killer if you're a working mum at the end of a long day. But I don't think paying someone else to do them is "making life hell"

What is the going rate for a London nanny now then, back in my day it was £10

No sorry- you're not getting away with changing your attitude now, and pretending it's all about low pay.
" this person shouldn't have bothered having kids"
"She sounds lovely"

"They clearly want to just return from work to a showhome where the kids have homework done, are fit for bed and excel in all they do. They assume no respeonsibility for the school uniform , cooking etc of their own children, why on earth did they bother?"

They're not "clearly" trying to avoid paying anything. Nannies are routinely offered a gross or net hourly rate. £10 an hour is what I'd pay someone to look after my children, seems pretty standard round here.

We're going to have to agree to differ-
I read the advert as a very precise set of instructions, but really what a sahm would do for 3 days. She doesn't have a car to offer, doesn't want to faff around with car mileage or employer responsibilities, but will offer someone a friendly family home to work in.
I know lots of nannies that do similar for 5 days, and they really don't have much to do during the day, so could just get on with their own thing.
I know a lot of people who would jump at this job.

You obviously seem to think its a completely up their own arse family, money no object, £10m house, 5 holidays a year, private schools, who really cant be bothered with Harriet and Juliet, but they have to go to Oxbridge, so let's get someone in and really exploit them.

Im not denying there are families like that, but I didn't read this that way.

areyouthere already acknowledged upthread that maybe my thread title was a bit harsh... Was just outraged to eead the expectations couples with the low wage. I think the advert was pretty inflamatory and you can see from the responses on the forum I am mot alone. If you differ though of course that is fine. -:)

Not digging holes- merely responding to points made by other posters who I felt deserved a response from me to explain this as I clearly could have worded things better. This is a discussion thread after all!

Doing a quick straw poll amongst friends and colleagues the going rate as it were would definitely significantly exceed £10 per hour. Another friend commented in this particular area that this figure would not even be sufficient for one child and furthermore, we are talking about more than a nanny here, the teaching qualification and experience would surely command a higher rate per child? This would even be the case if you eliminated the agency fees that many pay when sourcing and using nannies, especially in the London area. The going rate for general nanny duties (removing tutoring) seems to be more than double the £10 we talk about here and that is not on a self-employed basis. Homework help is of course reasonable but it seems this family want a fully fledged teacher to ensure 11+ success.

£20 an hour. Really?

I hate getting the school uniform ready, supervising the homework and preparing tea. I'd gladly outsource it.

10 per hour does sound rubbish, but I suppose if you averaged out the workload over the day, given that the majority of the day is when the children are at school and there will be little to do it's not so bad. I suppose the ad could say "6.50 per hour between these hours, 15 per hour for these hours, 20 per hour for these hours" but, it'd be a bit cumbersome.

Ppaka now who is judgey? Where exactly did I state what I obviously seemed to think? Your snobbery here is outstanding. I made no reference to their property, holiday arrangements, school choices etc? You appear to have imagined a whole pretty picture that most certainly did not come from me!

And if the kids end up at Oxbridge who would not be delighted at such an achievement?

If they are willing to not avoid paying the appropriate and legally required taxes/benefits etc then why advertise this on a self-employed basis? That is plain wrong and yes an avoidance tactic, leaving a potential nanny very vulnerable. If you read my posts it is about pay rate, expectations and fair terms.... But as you state let us agree to differ. I do not judge you for not agreeing with me, I fully expected different opinions on a discussion thread. So as you say, let us agree to differ!

I am sure plenty of people will jump at this position, that also makes me sad as it speaks volumes as to how the whole minefield of childcare is so loosely guarded these days.

Yes really.

On the same forum a dogwalker can earn the same money... Mad I know but there you go.

Slightly off-topic, but there is a lot of East Dulwich hate here! For starters, it is not an 'exceptionally wealthy area'
Chelsea, Knightsbridge, Hampstead are exceptionally wealthy areas...
East Dulwich has seen some bonkers house price growth in recent years, but so have Peckham and Forest Hill. Yes, it has some very smart private schools, and a plenty of £1m+ houses, but there is not a single part of london that doesn't
It still has a lovely independent high street and as many people like it for the branch of Iceland as they do for the branch of JoJo mamon bebe...

Of course there are also some dicks there, but I feel duty bound to fight the ED=snooty people stereotype here...

i hate unpacking the shopping. I sometimes arrange for it to arrive when the au pair is at home rather than me.

I must be a terrible mother. I have an au pair too.

and I'm sometimes out of the house 12 hours a day.

and I work out of the house 4 days a week.

and I usually try to avoid bath time (although my kids only have baths twice a week).

I think sticking the 11plus on top of everything else, and the self-employed bit is off, but everything else seems pretty standard for London nannies to me.

So the going rate for a nanny now is £20 per hour net

Gosh

Sad but true....

No it's not £20

Beattie Bow you are not a terrible mother! We all do what works for us! But your last paragraph is spot on and sums up the point I tried to make here...

It's not even close to £20 net (or even £20 gross) where I am - Bucks commuter belt.

The nannies around here are on around £11.00-£13 gross.

Against the grain, but I don't think this wage is too bad at all. Approx half the hours 'worked' , the nanny doesn't have to do any work at all. She doesn't even have to be there. So, it's kind of £20 an hour for hours worked. Not too bad.

But I've explained upthread why cleaners/dogwalkers/etc earn comparable hourly rates to nannies - it's because they do far fewer hours for each family and have far more unpaid time in between jobs.

Our nanny earns around £12 gross and works 51 hours per week. Our cleaner earns £11 cash and works for us for 4 hours per week and for another family for 5 hours per week.

The whole of your OP bears no relation to what you're now saying. Nice back peddling.

The pay isn't high but when the girls are at school it really won't be that onerous.

No, your attitude and what you have stated here, makes me think that you have jumped to that conclusion.

I haven't judged anyone.
Except maybe for you, not being able to read between the lines and not put yourself in someone else's shoes

FWIW I think East Dulwich is a fab area, retaining some of its' old charm and packed with all the right things to see,do, eat, beautiful parks etc.... Also a great place to raise children and has a lovely feel to the area. I remember it years ago as a no go area when you could never refer to Lordship Lane as trendy, the developments have been amazing. Property prices have gone through the roof as in most of London, so never inferred that its entire population were dicks, I quite like the people I know who reside there tbh! Never said I hated anybody...

Ppaka very sorry but I think that is exactly what you did. You had me down as some bitter and twisted person who hated anybody who worked and enjoyed the odd holiday or two. I love how you are able to pass comment and judgement on me but you deem me appalling fir voicing a few based on a public advert. But that would be my view. Again different from yours.

Let's leave this as we differ, I am happy for that and there is no benefit to either of our viewpoints by to-ing and fro-ing etc. i have made my points as clear as possible and accepted way upthread when or where I may have worded things better. None of that makes my point less valid than yours so let us just agree to differ. As I said i did not expect all participating in this thread to be in agreement.

but apart from the hourly rate and the 11 plus, the nanny isn't actually doing that much more than alot of other nannies - the children's washing, ironing, uniform, shopping and dog walking. Plus cooking.

I'm not saying that's right - I don't have a nanny, or children at private schools, or a dog actually, but I do live in London and lots of the children and families live those kind of lives. People usually pay for a tutor on top in my experience. I'm not saying I agree with that way of life (I don't actually, and did have a previous existence in the City and Hampstead which I subsequently opted out of), but it's very common.

Anyway, like others on this thread, I took offence at your initial comment that this person shouldn't bother having children - simply because she works out of the home 3 days a week and outsources stuff to the nanny? I outsource as much as I can too, but I'm a fantastic mother! (well probably not, but its my children's minecraft addiction, the 2 year old swearing on Monday, and my 11 year old having crisps for breakfast today that you should judge me on, not the fact I pay a cleaner).

I can't stand OPs and threads like this.

'Let's all sneer at and attack the evil rich lady who dares to employ staff'

It's also horribly unfair to take her ad and put it on Mumsnet like this.

It's a real person with real children.

I have absolutely no opinion on your holidays. Thought never entered my head!
Yes, I thought you were bitter and twisted about the woman who took the ad. I still do.

op

That dog walker is not getting £10 per hour. If she walks an hour from your front door she's getting £5 ph unless of course she does not bring the dog back.

It looks like total job cost to me.

its a real person with real children

That was my exact point...