Using ( not resident) nanny during lockdown?

[Ladyinamask]

So found out today my SIL and BIL are still having the nanny take care of their children . Nanny does not live with them btw.
I am rather horrified but not completely surprised they do this. Not key workers but both highly paid and quite frankly extremely arogent at the best if times.
They live in a rather nice part of West London by the river so hardly a remote hamlet with no known covid cases nearby.
Is this against the rules or is everyone still doing this?

You're jealous of your BIL and SIL. Stop worrying about what they are doing and focus on improving things in your own life.

@Imstillskanking. She is doing even better than improving her life. She is trying to fix a loophole that may put other people at risk!

@amelisa1 you may not like the guidelines but they are extremely clear.

There's no way we can work our full time jobs, based on meetings throughout the day, with multiple young small DCs around. Would you prefer we commit fraud and make you as a taxpayer shell out an unnecessary extra £5000 a month by telling our employers we can't work due to lack of childcare then furloughing the person who performs our childcare, when they spell out that it is legally permitted? Or I could quit my job, losing even more tax revenue, and risking the nanny's job (once she comes off furlough, she'd be unemployed and jobs for either of us will hardly be easy to find in a massive recession), all for an absolutely tiny decrease in risk, given that we are essentially one household but with one member living in a studio around the corner?

I know it's very unfair that the lockdown massively impacts some more than others. My sister is a single mother and a nurse, and I see the injustice that we keep our WFH jobs while she struggles (though we are helping all we can from a distance, as we're not total arses). However being horrible to people who are operating well within guidelines is not going to make anyone feel any better, or solve any issues we face.

As for the 2m distance, that doesn't apply to people in your own household. As various people have explained, the nannies on here, working for only one family, not seeing anyone else or only their wfh partner and going straight from door to door by foot or car are in effect one household. There may be some distance between two roofs but they are operating as one, even sharing shopping in some instances. This is not why our death rate is high. Dickheads like the party goers in Middlesborough, yes. Slow to lockdown or track and trace yes. Sensible adults making careful risk assessment within the law, no.

Also, having a nanny come to work isn't exploiting a loophole. It's explicitly stated that it's perfectly acceptable.

@Stuckforthefourthtime. There will be nurseries, playgroups, childminders that will not be able to reopen as they will go bust . The owners have accepted as they believed there is more important to save lives rather than not furloughing their staff . From what I understood , there are furloughed employees that are still using their nannies as it is hard to look afteryour kids at home. Stupid me, I thought that we`re all in this together.

I get you don't the rules @amelisa1 and you may have reason, but the rules are not being broken.

@amelisa1 From what I understood , there are furloughed employees that are still using their nannies as it is hard to look afteryour kids at home. Stupid me, I thought that we`re all in this together.

What is the source of your information? Just you know "say so" on social media?

@understandme.
Direct source: I am working in a nursery in an affluent area. Parents were asking staff if there is anyone available to work for them. Many parent have been furloughed as this was an open discussion before we closed the setting.The manager sent an email to everyone explaining that furloughed staff are not able to take jobs.
Have a look at any recruitment childcare agencies including childcare.co.uk , gumtree, etc.There are many people advertising they are available for work, the agencies are rushing to explain that they still can provide child carers as this is within the guidelines.
Can you see the loophole now?

There will be nurseries, playgroups, childminders that will not be able to reopen as they will go bust . The owners have accepted as they believed there is more important to save lives rather than not furloughing their staff . From what I understood , there are furloughed employees that are still using their nannies as it is hard to look afteryour kids at home

Who do you know who is furloughed and still using a nanny? We certainly know no-one. In the vanishingly rare cases where this might happen there might well be a parental health issue, for example, that makes this desirable - or maybe they're selfish arses, but so are a ton of others ignoring lockdown, and often in much riskier ways.

As for the nurseries and childminders, it is hugely sad that some will not survive this. However there's a big difference between mingling a larger number of families, including children who are not notably good at social distancing or cleanliness, from one person isolating and working with one family.

We can all be in this together without all having the same experience. Some of my friends are totally without income as they recently became self employed and don't have the history of income for the govt payments. Does that mean that noone else should get them, in solidarity? One of my siblings is on furlough, having time at home and saving money and saving extra per month than we are net, as they aren't paying childcare fees or going out, while another is working on the frontline, doing it all as a single mum and scared for her kids. We're not all going to have the same circumstances, all we can do is follow the rules, try to help others and ffs stop bitching about others doing the same.

@amelisa1 not in this scenario no, the OP is clearly jealous of her rich relatives and wants them to be wrong, but they're not! It's quite simple, the guidelines make it clear.

Can you see the loophole now?

@amelisa1

Why are you talking to everyone like they are stupid when the guidelines are clear and have been explained clearly on this thread?

People aren't all saying the guidelines are fair or easy, nothing about this situation is fair or easy for anyone really.

Thinking the rules aren't stringent enough is fine and your prerogative, but you don't need to talk down to everyone who explains them.

@amelisa1
Furloughed employees are allowed to work a second job, if permitted by their contract - this makes sense both from an employment law perspective and to encourage people to take up jobs that are needed, including fruit picking etc. In many people's contracts this is only allowed with employer permission, so in your case sounds like it would not be ok, but is in others. httpss://www.gov.uk/guidance/check-if-you-could-be-covered-by-the-coronavirus-job-retention-scheme#while-youre-on-furlough

Childcare agencies are allowed to advertise as nannies have been repeatedly shown here to be legal.

What is the loophole you keep saying you've found?

@BackseatCookers My aim was to make myself clear not .." talk down everyone". My apologies.
No, the guildines is not clear. If would be, there will be no place for loopholes.

You were pretty rude to me when literally all I did was explain my situation.

@amelisa1 are you actually reading the guidelines people keep posting here? They really are very specific.

@amelisa1

I guess you didn't mean to come across as patronising and rude saying this either:

SuperDuperJezebel. Well done! You deserve the nanny lockdown prize! Are you sure that you are not the employer?

Because it was very rude and uncalled for.

I find it interesting that people keep on suggesting that anyone who disagrees with using a nanny in the middle of pandemic, is jealous. Actually, for many parents getting to spend additional time with their children is one of the only positive thing to come out if this situation.
The government advice clearly states that people should only travel to work if essential. A nanny providing childcare when both parents are non key workers and working at home is clearly not essential. Yes, it's not illegal but you are absolutely exploiting a loophole if you're continuing to receive childcare from a Nanny.

I find it very interesting that many people including ones of this thread are more than desperate for their children to go back to school in THREE weeks, far more exposure, yet they're the one on here banging on about how dangerous it is.

Not everyone would think that was a good idea @Twigletmama.

*dangerous it is for the nanny to come to the house.

A nanny providing childcare when both parents are non key workers and working at home is clearly not essential.

How about business owners who WFH? If they are non essential workers and don't use the nanny they usually employ, they can't run the business and if it folds then all their staff will be out of work. In the lead up to it folding that could result in either furlough for the staff which costs the government (taxpayer) money and if it did fold and their staff became unemployed then they would likely claim UC which costs the government (taxpayer) money.

The work / tax / benefits economy is a tricky balance at the best of times and the pot is only so large - a business owner using a nanny (in a two home bubble) in order to keep the business healthy and keep their staff working without needing extra government funding can absolutely be argued as for the greater good.

This smacks a bit of jealousy.

I feel like we are living in some kind of parallel universe, and wonder if this thread is even for real.

Two weeks ago we were reading threads as to whether it was right to order play dough on Amazon, and put the workers at risk in the process!

We were discussing how difficult it is to just adhere to a small amount of time outside and even a picnic is not allowed. We have seen people fined by the police for just sitting on a park bench for too long.
Every shop and salon, restaurant and pub in the land is closed. Nothing is happening anywhere. And yet, we now have a thread supporting a nanny working for a family (and maybe other families) for NON essential workers and thats okay....

I agree the guidelines do not offer a full explanation, and they are very contradictory. The Stay home message does not cover a list of exceptions including nannies and cleaners, decorators etc. Perhaps it should just read 'stay at home unless you don't want to' instead.

Most people understood that unless you can safely work from home, or you were a key worker (or in some cases working outside safely) then you were to stay at home. There will be some exceptions of course, but this was the aim.

The issue I have is the onus and pressure is now put on the nanny to agree to work, even if she does not feel safe.
It is an abuse of power. She has no protection, and unless she takes her employers to a tribunal she is then unable to stay no. This makes me feel very uncomfortable, what if she is asthmatic, living with vulnerable people etc. The reason we were all put into lockdown is to prevent the spread of infection, and how can we do that if everyone is more or less carrying on as normal? Nannies can't social distance, and nor can cleaners because they are touching everything. Even with gloves, they will still have use the loo, eat and drink etc.

I am disappointed to see so much support for this on here, and it makes me wonder if these are the very same people having friends over for BBQs because its outside, going to house parties - only a 'bubble' of us so thats fine, and generally not giving a damn.

I really don't understand what there is to be jealous of. Why on earth would you want to put your children at additional risk by having another person in the home. At the end of the day, you have no idea what your nanny is doing when she leaves your premises.
Going back to school is a different issue entirely. Although I agree that three weeks is too soon. I imagine that those who are hoping for this, are motivated by concerns over their child's education and socialisation rather than a wish to stop having to care for their children themselves.

Right. This thread has made me really angry so I'm going to point out a few things.

@Twigletmama you say, and I quote The government advice clearly states that people should only travel to work if essential

This information is incorrect. Below I have copied and pasted the exact wording from the government website.

The government is not saying only people doing “essential” work can go to work. Anyone who cannot work from home can still go to work.