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?

How can I furlough our nanny if we are at home working and still need her to come and look after my DC? We can’t.

If we were at home not working and we didn’t need her, we could furlough because there would be no job for her to do. But we are working so the need is still there and therefore we can’t furlough.

I'm not angry at that particular nanny. It sounds like she's taking careful precautions to mitigate whatever risks she's taking. I am angry at employers who would put pressure on their nannies to keep working (and this clearly is happening), and that nannies haven't been furloughed like hairdressers and dog groomers.

Lots of people I know using nanny’s - we aren’t tho.

Well you're very easily 'horrified' OP, if people obeying lockdown rules makes you feel that way.

How do you react to actual horrific things?

I think a lot of posts on this thread are doing nannies (and nanny employers) a disservice. We had a sensible and mature discussion with our nanny about the precautions that both her household and ours were taking. We put no pressure on her at all to continue working. It was a decision we made together. As both parents work from home, only going out for a weekly supermarket trip or to exercise, the risk is really very low of us putting her at risk.

It's fine, only if you can work from home is that being recommended. Nannies last time I looked definitely needed to be present. They should try social distancing but it is more difficult with children.

What the alternative? They lay her off? And risk not getting their work done? And her without a job as well,Furlough her? Which would cost more for the public purse?

Our nanny is working. We are not key workers but we have a lot of work to do and are busier than usual.

We self isolated for 2 weeks before she came due to DH having a temperature. Since then we have had all food and supplies delivered and do not leave the house other than for exercise. Our nanny is the only person we have any level of contact with. Her husband is furloughed and she doesn't see anyone else. She goes to the supermarket once a week. We are exposed to her shopping trip but none of us are vulnerable and we trust her hygiene standards. None of her family are vulnerable either. She is happy to come as her husband is trying to use the time he has on furlough to do some training/study to change fields. Our nanny drives to our house.

We all wash our hands regularly and ensure that we give her plenty of space in the kitchen etc.

I actually think we are doing the right thing. The alternative is for us to work in shifts, which was becoming very unsustainable when we tried it in self isolation and quite bad for our daughter. I was getting 5 hours sleep a night and trying to deliver complex advice - I was worried about losing my job, frankly. Or I could have cut down my own hours for a pay cut and chosen to furlough our nanny and claimed state support. Given that it has proven perfectly possible to protect our nanny and the cost to wider society, I think it is better for us to self isolate, pay lots of tax and not claim our nanny's pay from the state. We plan to make decisions and sacrifices about our own social activities for the foreseeable future when lockdown is lifted in stages so that it continues to be safe for our nanny to work - this means that if we are allowed to see a bubble of friends or whatever, we will make decisions on who we see and if we see them with our responsibilities as an employer in mind and in consultation with our nanny.

This virus will be with us a long time - longer than the furlough scheme is likely to last - so really you have to expect that as a nanny you will likely have to return to work from July onwards unless your employers choose to continue to pay you to sit at home. People need to be sensible about risk.

Biscuit, everyone can go to work other than those in business which have been specifically told they can't. The work from home is only if you can, social distancing is only if you can and should be a reasonable adjustment, there are many people who can't social distance at work nurses doctors,'police, taxi drivers, to name a few.
I think the furlough thing has confused the whole situation as I have heard of people being furloughed not because they don't have a job but because their employer decided they could socially distance them or they had to be furloughed as they are in the shielding group.

We all need to be going to work if we can't work from home. I am currently going into work in a hospital when my job could easily be done at home only they can't afford/get (depending on who I speak to) any more laptops and rsa tokens!

@Stuckforthefourthtime

The Amazon analogy is a good one. In this scenario I am shocked by the employer's (Amazon) exploitation of their workers by not putting in place correct safety precautions.
In the case of those who employ a nanny, are a they not the exploiter? By enforcing that the nanny comes into work they are putting them and their families at an increased risk. Surely this should only be deemed necessary if the employers is a key worker and it is not possible for them to look after their children whilst working from home.

On the subject of furloughing. I know of several people who have furloughed their nannies, even though both parents are both working full time from home. I don't know the legalities involved but clearly it is allowed.

I've had to take on a nanny as I'm a key worker and whilst I could keep the school aged DC in school, there was no provision for ft nursery places for pre-schoolers. I have no option but to go to work, the usual nursery is closed and there is no wrap around cover at school. I don't relish the extra £1200 a month I am paying now but its that or give up my job. I guess having her come into the house makes me a terrible person

Should have said DH is also a key worker and we both work FT.

Sounds like jealousy to me!

I’m still working! They need me while they are working to take care of their little girls.

It’s nothing to do with being rich either, we discussed furlough and I was happy to work and I live close by. So no public transport etc

Also it’s “the nanny” not “nanny” she’s a person who cares for children not a goat.

For most jobs, it was not possible to work from home with young children before lockdown and lockdown/the virus has not magically made it possible. It doesn't matter how many viruses are circulating, one person cannot do two jobs at the same time.

People trying to wfh while simultaneously looking after young children are either:
(1) neglecting their job;
(2) neglecting their children;
(3) neglecting both their children and their job; or
(4) working in a "non-job" or a job which consists of mostly staring at your inbox and sending a few emails a day.

I'm in category (3). My two year old split his lip falling from the sofa the other day since I wasn't paying attention to him as I was trying to work....And I'm behind with all my work commitments/late on all my deadlines.

If you're in category (4), no wonder you're finding it easy and you should just keep quiet and stop going on at the rest of us. If you're in category (1), (2) or (3), you should just admit that you're failing and take unpaid leave/quit/go on benefits/give your children up to the state/send them to live with those posters who seem to have it all sorted/fund your lifestyle through a GoFund Me campaign...

These are all options I'm considering at the moment. You see, I had a 2 hour class to teach remotely this morning (university level). I also had the two year old. I've been up since 3.30am planning it since I've lost my planning time. I had to teach it with my two year old attacking my laptop and shouting at my students (he likes to hammer on the keys and push down the screen). Even a new toy/unlimited Peppa Pig/2 chocolate eggs left over from Easter didn't manage to stem the carnage. It was a nightmare. This is an experience I have to repeat several times this week. I have no idea what state I'm going to be in at the end of it.

Anyone who goes about the 'spirit' of the thing just has no idea in my book. They're probably posting pictures of their 'lockdown' cupcakes on Facebook. I can't relate.

My only feeling towards those who still have nannies at the moment is complete and total jealousy.

@Twigletmama, yes, if you can care for your children yourself at home then you can furlough your nanny as not needed. Some of my friends with jobs that have got quieter or with older children doing this - and while the balance is hard, financially most will end up better off than usual, as the govt will ultimately reimburse up to £2500/80% of the wages paid each month.

However in our case, for example, we have young DCs and both work full time, and managing the crisis has meant long days that are not flexible. We initially tried having our nanny off on full pay, but it was not possible for us to care for them and work.

My work has said that they still require me to work full time. I cannot claim to my own employer that I need to be furloughed due to lack of childcare when that is not true, and even more I cannot then put her on furlough and claim she's not needed. Doing this would be fraud on the taxpayer, as it is entirely legal for her to come. (Even if it were not fraud, this would cost the tax payer £5000 a month and lose a significant further amount of tax paid in).

I would therefore otherwise have to quit. In which case I could legally pay her furlough until the scheme ends, after which she and I would both be unemployed, in the middle of a major recession.

And yet she is totally isolated, as are we, other than weekly supermarket shops and brief walks to the park and to work. What is the benefit to society or to us in stopping this?

It’s not against the rules and it’s none of your business. Yabvu

We furloughed our nanny, but it's not against the rules for nannies to work.

Morally? Assuming all parties are ok with it and the nanny doesn't need public transport, I think it's ok too. In the first few weeks when infection rates were rising I think everyone needed to stay home, but now it's levelled off it's very low impact, given our nanny walks to work. Much less so than resuming my tube commute

Also for some parents the furlough money is not enough as much as their mortgage is not really an option and only applies until end of June and only if the employee agrees and there is no work to be done.

Working mothers with nannies are absolute heroes as it is their tax money that pays for nurses to have wages and ensures the 2m universal credit claimants have money coming in. Without them we would all collapse financially as a nation and people would go hungry. They are also operating within the law.

Those sitting pretty at home with full pay have no idea of the difficulties working mothers face.

I actually think it is immoral to claim furlough for your nanny if you are still being paid a full wage. It is profiteering from state support on offer and, in my view, far worse than the likely minuscule risk to your nanny of coming if you are otherwise social distancing or self isolating properly and wfh. That money - in my case over £2k per month that I could have claimed - will ultimately be clawed back from state services or via taxation when this is over. And the breadth of state support means that it won't just be "the rich" that are paying.

If you are getting a full wage, your nanny either comes and you make sacrifices to ensure she is not at risk or you pay her from your own resources so that you are not better off.

This will not be a popular opinion with the middle class virtue signallers on here, who like to think that they are doing the right thing but the reality is that they are enjoying extra money to which they should not be entitled.

And @sisyphusrollstheboulder

You are a hero. We did what you are doing whilst self isolating and I was definitely a (3) neglecting my child and my work and on the edge of a nervous breakdown.

@Xenia

Are you seriously suggesting that the country would collapse financially without the taxes from the absolutely tiny proportion of the population who have a nanny!? Having a nanny is absolutely not the norm, the majority of people use other forms of childcare i.e a nursery

I have actually softened my perspective on this slightly after reading through all the comments and I can see that perhaps there are some circumstances where non key workers might feel the need to keep using a Nanny. However, for the large proportion of people I still believe this is morally dodgy.

Still using our nanny, she provides viral care for my children one whom needs 1:1 sdult support. Thank goodness not everyone is as judgemental as OP.

So many typos! Vital and adult