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

Of course you do Ppaka and you made that judgement based by something i posted on a public forum.

Ring any bells?

Am off out now to a meeting, but please continue to build fictitious pictures in my absence if entertains you...

There's a bit of a difference
I thought you were mean and horrible about this woman- because you said mean and horrible things about her.
This woman wrote a job advert and you judged her.

But what was your exact point?

That she outsources "too much" childcare?

Where do you think the line is between an acceptable amount and too much?

And does the same line apply to her husband?

Op, your first 3 posts mentioned the ad, that she shouldn't have had kids, and that even Tamara Ecclestone wouldn't have had such high demands.

And that's it.

You DIDN'T say that you only disagreed about the self employment and the salary. It was MUCH later that you said It was merely that their list of requirements way exceeded the pay they intended, especially given the self-employed nature of it.

Are you truly surprised people have had a pop at you?

You go and post something like this without taking the time to post it properly and quite frankly you deserve a pasting.

I am out of touch with nanny salaries (it has been a while) and I think expecting a nanny to be 'self employed' is a bit hopeful, but the job itself seems pretty standard.

My nannies ( who tended to stay long term, because they were well paid and appreciated) did all the bits of looking after my DCs that I wasn't around for or didn't want to do. So school runs, sorting out stuff for school, play dates after school and the dreaded homework featured largely.

When my DCs were small, I generally didn't get home until 8/9/10pm and wanted to spend what time I had with them doing things we enjoyed, not the stuff that could be outsourced.

Oh and I had a cleaner, a gardener and someone who did the ironing. It made sense, because it meant I could focus on my work and on enjoying the time I was able to spend with my DCs.

Just so, notquite.

And no-one ever seems to criticise men for making the same decisions.

Our nanny does the things a parent would do for our children while we're at work. We never ever ask her to do anything for DH and me because it's not her job (even though I would do those things if I were a SAHM).

Having read the 1st few posts as well as the advert, my main thought was to wonder why on earth a key stage 2 teacher would need let alone want to work for this family??

Hospital midwives and nurses often do 3 x 12 hour shifts and this is considered full time.

'its a real person with real children

That was my exact point... '

Why the sad face doubleshot? Someone who wants the best possible childcare (albeit for a rather low wage) for 3 days a week not including school hols?? Wtf is so sad about that?

There are more sad circumstances for children in the world surely? And if a suitable applicant wants the job then what's stopping them negotiating a higher salary?

Ha ha ha. Gross £10

I wonder if HMRC will be contacting them re: their hazy understanding of employment and tax issues.

Re: the job description it doesn't sound dissimilar to what I did as an au pair to older children (except for the bit about teaching experience).

I think you have to look at the daily rate of £125/£120 and take into account the fact that there isn't much to do while the children are at school.

The problem is not the role, but the salary.

merry I think you are right. Had the advert added:-

"Although we need you to be on call in case the children are ill at school (average 2 days per year sickness each) it is expected that the housework / dog walking will take about 2 hours per day. For the remainder of the school day you are welcome to study / take on other paid work / go home / exercise / relax (we have Netflix!) as you prefer."

And not had the dodgy SE bit then the job would suddenly look rather good!

Whether or not the salary is reasonable depends on the level of experience required and how much is expected to be done while the children are at school. £125 a day for the school run, after school care, children's laundry and bedroom cleaning and a bit of dog walking doesn't seem too bad.

X post mumoftwo!

I think you have to look at the daily rate of £125/£120 and take into account the fact that there isn't much to do while the children are at school.

And that it's a FT term only role with employment security.

In that area nannies charge £12 to £15 per hour.

Sounds like a normal nanny/housekeeper job to me.

I'm saddened to see people judging these parents...I don't understand what's wrong with working 3 days a week and hiring a nanny?? And presumably they like the nanny to do household work to free them up at weekends.

The only thing that is horrendous about it is the pay! For the teacher qualification they're asking for they need to pay a hell of a lot more (and taxes).

It's 3 days a week out of 7 days

Ummm..... can there be employment security if the employer erroneously believes her nanny can be self-employed?

£10/hour in London /experience junior school teacher/ self employed nanny/ £5 for using you own car - all ridiculous. I wouldn't touch with a barge pole.

Sorry - I didn't mean this position particularly (although I do think the mother is going to get a short, sharp shock if she truly thinks that her nanny can be self-employed).

I meant as part of the explanation for why nannies' hourly rates are broadly comparable to, say, cleaners.

The self-employed bit is a have.