Nannies not being furloughed.

[TwuckFwaps]

We live in an area where a high percentage of families who have nannies, and many of them are expecting their nannies to travel to and from work each day. Many nannies are saying the families are not front line / key workers and are WFH; the majority of nannies are from abroad.

AIBU to think that if you are expecting your nanny to travel to and from work, you need to take on the responsibility of paying them in full if they become ill, offer their families death in service pay, and cover the costs of their funeral expenses and repatriation in the event that they die?

These are pretty much the conditions that will be in the parents employment contracts anyway (given the main types of employment in the wealthiest part of London) so surely they should give the same terms to their nannies?

YES YANBU

NO Fuck off you stupid trollop everyone needs a nanny when working from home.

Your only asking a question and I had the same question. Should I be going in etc? But I’ve come to the conclusion that I don’t use public transport to get to work and I am doing my daily exercise by driving to work and taking the girls on a daily walk and I only go to the supermarket once a week. And try to stay in at weekends.

Why would they be furloughed when they are perfectly able to work?

Well my WFH neighbours still have their dog walker come and every day.

How about that?

Parents who do not have a nanny and who both work are struggling. We used to have a nanny who we let go when all the kids went to school. We both have very busy full time jobs which do not change just because you wfh. If we still had the nanny we would absolutely use her. As it is we are struggling during the day and working late into the night. Who wouldn’t use a nanny if they could 🙄

The nanny is not eligible for furlough

Says who? Can you give a proper link to actual legislation?!

My employer has put in for furlough for me.

She is working from home
Children are doing e-learning via zoom
She doesn't need me UNTIL she needs to go back into her office.

Why shouldn't I be furloughed like anyone else?

Who ever said nannies aren’t eligible for furlough are defo wrong. My friend is a nanny and is on furlough.

We need to clap for all those of us workers working day in day out to pay the wages of nurses surely. If parents did not have childcare then the nation would grind to a halt. Also the law allows everyone to travel to work - unless they do a job they could do from home (most people cannot) or they are in a category like a pub. So these nannies and their employers are as much heroes of the nation as nurses. Indeed it is the tax revenues of non essential workers which is keeping the NHS going.

We need to clap for all those of us workers working day in day out to pay the wages of nurses surely.

I’d be clapping a bit harder for the ones keeping the show on the road work wise without childcare.

I wouldn’t be comfortable with a nanny continuing to work for me in the current circs, both from the POV of her safety and that of the household. I’d continue to pay her.

However, it’s an individual choice, other people would come to a different conclusion.

They are working which is fine. That also means they are been paid 100% of their wage.
Part of their package should be to be paid in case of illness (I am assuming they are employed, not self employed). I think that's a minimum even though i am aware that this is not a legal requirement. However, there is something to say about a[reciating some side of your emplyment like paid illness and not giving it to people you employ yourself....

If they are self employed, then it is up to the nanny to decide what they want to do. They might well not be keen on the SE package from the government or be unable to live for 3 months with no wage at all.

The key thing is that it is up to the employer to decide if furlough is appropriate or not. One employer may decide to do their own childcare alongside their job so there is no work for the nanny to do, hence the nanny can be furloughed.

Other people may feel they need to focus full time on their own work even though they're physically at home and therefore still need childcare, so that nanny's work is still available and therefore furlough is not appropriate.

It's not a 'one size fits every nanny's circumstances' situation.

@TwuckFwaps, are you sure those nannies are employed and not self employed?

Because this is the way you've dealt with things doesnt mean that everyone has.

And as someone who comes from abroad, I would never have expected my employer to do what you have done with your nanny tbh. I would have expected to be treated as a brit, not to be paid to go back home (why should I anyway?) and for my emplyer to decide whether I should work or not.
Eg DH cmpany has made som people n furlough and not others. DH has had no say on whether he should be or not (Shop floor in Factory still working)

If the nanny only works for one family, can they be self employed? I didn’t think that was legal.

Who ever said nannies aren’t eligible for furlough are defo wrong.
That was me and I apologise, that is wrong.

Not eligible was the wrong term to use - it depends on the needs of the employer. A family with both parents working will have need of a nanny and are less likely to wish to avail of the furlough system, than one where they are not both working or furloughed themselves.

And the wishes of the nanny should also come into it - if they don't want to reduce to 80% pay and would prefer to come to work and be with the family instead of themselves all day (possibly in a bedsit) - they should (and can) be allowed to do that, if the family also agrees.

I don't get why the OP thinks they should not be able to work? Or have their contracts amended to something that few other workers going out to work have?

Well we are friends with our nanny - but we paid for her and her partners flights home before lockdown started and we are paying her salary and overtime calculated on the last six months (for overtime).
This is a lovely thing to do, but you surely understand that not everyone is in a position to do that? Or wants to do that?

Norland have obtained a letter from an MP which gives more guidance. However guidance isn't law, it's not legislation that can be enforced.

www.norland.ac.uk/images/uploads/content/Anne_Marie_Morris_MP_Letter.pdf
"actice under the current circumstances would therefore constitute:
"Where nannies do not live in their employers’ homes, that they should not travel to their employers homes for work, unless this is essential (i.e. children are vulnerable, and/or children’s parents are critical to the coronavirus response, and where children cannot otherwise be safely cared for at home)"
"This advice is clear that if parents are at home and not key workers, they should be looking after their own children and not having nannies entering the home."

Furlough is for when the position would otherwise be redundant. The role of nanny is still there if the parents are choosing to still need childcare. Government guidance / advice may well be where parents are not key workers they should be caring for their own children but it is just advice... not law. If it is a big issue, maybe Government needs to legislate - can't see them doing that.

As two keyworkers with pre-school children we need our nanny to be able to work. We had to employ a nanny in the first place because we couldn’t find a nursery that covered our unusual work hours and even though we’re working from home a lot more now, neither of us could do our jobs with the children around even if they would sit peacefully rather than constantly endanger themselves and destroy things, which is what they actually do. It seems like a real lack of imagination to assume that because you can manage your children and job at the same time everyone else can too. As it happens, our nanny is off sick at the moment and I have had to miss work and so has my husband. We would both be out of a job if that carried on too long.

It seems like a real lack of imagination to assume that because you can manage your children and job at the same time everyone else can too.

Well no one is finding it easy or even manageable under normal circs. Most people I know are existing on v little sleep right now and working through the weekend.

I can see how there are some jobs which require very urgent response and are practically impossible with very small children, but I’d say a small minority.

Most people are scrambling, doing the best the can, just about getting by.

But most children are being looked after by their parents at the same time as all other childcare is closed.

And? Irregardless of others circumstances the nanny is employed to look after children, she maybe needed as her employers carry out sensitive meetings, confidential interviews etc....

It’s doesn’t matter what others do, as they are not the nannies employees.

It’s having a temper tantrum because others childcare is different to theirs

True lots of parents are juggling WFH and childcare, the ones with a nanny aren’t... they also pay 2-3-4k a month for the privilege!
Anyway, this situation doesn’t match the definition of furlough, and the nanny can’t work from home, so as many others do she can work from her usual place of employment.

Our nanny’s DP is in vulnerable category so we stopped her coming to us before the official lockdown. I don’t think we’re eligible for furloughing so I’m currently paying her the base rate in her contract (when she’s working for us she normally does more hours). Even if her DP wasn’t vulnerable, we would have stopped her coming to us the moment shutdown happened. We’re both WFH and trying to manage home-schooling between us.

Well no one is finding it easy or even manageable under normal circs. Most people I know are existing on v little sleep right now and working through the weekend.

There seems to an element of I’m having a tough time, so everyone else should suffer too.

I employ a nanny because I have a disabled child who cannot attend full time education and would not be accepted by any other childcare provider. I pay a great deal for the privilege so despite earning a six figure salary, I take home less than minimum wage after tax, childcare and my 50-60 hour working week. Unfortunately I can’t squeeze in my nanny’s job as well. Therefore, as long as she is comfortable working, I’ll continue to pay her and she’ll continue to come in.

Gov.uk states: “Individuals can furlough employees such as nannies provided they pay them through PAYE, and sent HMRC an RTI submission notifying a payment in respect of the employee on or before 19 March 2020”. There is no mention of only furloughing nannies who would otherwise be made redundant.

We were advised by our nanny payroll company that we could furlough our nanny.

Sure, she can’t work from home and she drives to us so no need for public transport, but we all mutually decided (two families in a nanny share arrangement) that we would furlough her for now to keep us all safe. It means she’s not taking our germs home to her husband and vice versa.

There seems to an element of I’m having a tough time, so everyone else should suffer too.

That’s not the point I’m making.

I was replying to a poster saying that it was a ‘lack of imagination’ to suggest that everyone would ‘find it manageable to combine’. News flash, lots of people aren’t finding it manageable, but they’ve no choice.

If you have a nanny, up to the individual to weigh up the benefits, risks, moral element, nanny’s own view. I said as much upthread.

"If you cannot maintain your current workforce because your operations have been severely affected by coronavirus (COVID-19), you can furlough employees and apply for a grant"
www.gov.uk/guidance/claim-for-wage-costs-through-the-coronavirus-job-retention-scheme

It does not say that furlough is in place of redundancy but isn't that the general ethos of furlough?

Furlough as I understand it is a temporary leave of absence from work. UK employment law has not had this term in it before, but I see it as being in place of being laid off or being made redundant. However just my interpretation... is there a legal definition in UK law now?

LaurieMarlow

From your earlier post, you clearly people who aren’t struggling through, looking after their own children and continuing to pay their nannies, are making a morally poor choice.

I am talking about two-parent families where both parents are working from home and still forcing their nanny to come to work rather than doing what most people who are WFH are doing and juggling work and family responsibilities.

• Yeah.

• To be perfectly frank, I wouldn’t be looking on that too positively.

If the nanny wants to work, and she and the family have discussed the risks and are all comfortable with them, that is up to them, surely?

• But what’s the alternative? No pay? Hardly a free and fair choice for the nanny.

Vested interest - my sister is a nanny from a very prestigious nanny school.

In the UK, the government advice is quite explicitly “work from home IF you can do so”, so actually I don’t see anything wrong with them continuing to work. I think the tricky situations that arise are more around:

• Nannies being told to move in with families to consolidate the household, when this wasn’t part of the job originally
• Nannies who have health issues or vulnerable family members living with them who don’t want to carry on working

In these situations I think you should 100% furlough your nanny, however I’m not sure that support is actually available as nanny employers are not businesses? Maybe I’m wrong. Even so, I think you should at least pay their notice period in the above situations even if they’re not coming in, particularly in the first situation where it’s actually you as the employer changing the terms of their contract so they are under no obligation to comply.

My sister has had lots of friends in the above situation and the families have acted appallingly, refusing to let them carry on living separately, not paying them notice etc. Something about the power imbalance between wealthy professionals and nannies often winds up making people act in a way that would shock their friends and families.