To think nannies are overpaid?

[Fr0thandBubble]

Inspired by another thread about how much people earn. Plenty of nannies earning £50-£60k per year apparently and one on £120k!

Our nanny has just left us (youngest about to start reception, thank goodness) and we were paying her nearly £50k for 8:30am-6:30pm Mon-Fri. She would also pick up quite a bit of extra money babysitting evenings and weekends L. She didn’t even have to do anything from 9-12 each morning while my youngest was at nursery - and then only had my youngest to look after until school pick-up time when she had my eldest too. And nannies these days are very reluctant to help out with any cleaning or ironing so she really was doing nothing much at all in those hours.

She was lovely but has no qualifications and is in her early thirties.

It seems wrong to me that nannies are getting paid more than most teachers when they don’t need any qualifications. What do you think?!

I think I need to give up childminding and become a nanny! I don't make anywhere near that a year and I work 7.30-6 everyday! And currently have 3 under 3 and a 3 and a half year old, but then, I also have my own kids.

YANBU. My role is in a different setting, but still working with children (some very challenging!), and I'm paid minimum wage pretty much.

@upsidedownwavylegs Not really, I work ridiculous hours in a professional job which requires a degree and three years training on top of that. It’s very stressful and not much fun! Not many people could do (or would want to do!) my job, which is why I get paid well for it.

My point is that nannies get paid really well without needing any qualifications or having to work that hard.

I'm similar to thehop, I babysit, iron, am happy to do dinner time clean up and bath time too, I'm NNEB trained, sole charge nanny experience here and abroad... And I charge less than £10 an hour!! Am in Glasgow, I'm not even sure of the correct rates here.. I think you pay well over the odds in London though.

Ha! Bet I can guess the job - lawyer?!

Nannies are paid quite a lot, but generally do a lot of hours (ours voluntarily does more around the house than yours!) and they do have to fund living in London.

Presumably you are getting paid more than your nanny. That's how you can afford to pay her 50K plus her NI and pension.

Obviously your work is much more important than hers.

The going rate here is £10-£15 an hour. More expensive than a nursery, but worth it I think.

@LittleBearPad It’s more than that - it works out as well over £40k as a gross wage (then I pay pension and employer NICs on top of that).

She did have them all day during the holidays but it’s a state school so holidays aren’t that long and she also took her 4 weeks a year holiday during the school holidays.

She did cook for them (but for lunch that’s generally a matter of making a sandwich and food shopping was done by us and delivered to the house) and wash their clothes (which is just a matter of chucking them in the machine - not much ironing went on!). So not too taxing I would say.

I was really making a point about the fairly fundamental error you made in talking about what your nanny gets paid when you actually meant what her employment costs you. Now that that bit’s cleared up, I’d say that £40kish gross in London for 50 hours/week isn’t really that well paid at all.

You sound like an entitled nightmare of a boss. Just because someone doesn't have a degree doesn't mean their job isn't important. I'm guessing you're something useless like a corporate lawyer...

@2bazookas Odd comment. Not “more important” but certainly more difficult, longer hours, more stressful and requiring of a much higher skill level.

that's about 14.50 per hour net, i pay my nanny 10-12 net per hour depending on what's involved (sometimes its tutoring/school pick ups) but I'm not in London. OP if you would pay your cleaner 14.50 an hour then why think that's high for a nanny? I wouldn't pay my nanny less than what i would pay for cleaning and finding lovely nannies and for that matter cleaners are worth it :-)

If you are unhappy with how much nannies are paid, why did you employ one? Why not use a childminder instead?

Yeah I guess they do get well paid. It's a problem I will never have to think about personally however lol.

That being I doubt you would want the person who is stepping in to be your children's primary carer to be paid a pittance? If you live in London you are competing with a lot of well of people who pay top whack for childcare

@birdy124 I promise you I am an absolutely lovely boss. Most of my friends thing I am too nice actually and an absolute pushover! And if you asked my nanny she would tell you exactly the same thing.

I don’t think my job is more important - but pay isn’t decided by importance (if it was then surely teachers would be much better paid than investment bankers?).

*think

Good for you for being highly paid. Most couples can’t afford a nanny. I would’ve loved to have had one, was unlucky with London nurseries for DC1 but v lucky with a fab CM later on.

Pay is mainly supply/demand, so your comments comparing working hours/educational qualifications/ skills aren’t really relevant.

The thing is you didn't have to send your youngest to nursery (then you may have felt you got better 'value' from your nanny). If you take out 15 minutes either side of the school run to get there plus an hour lunch break whilst they are at nursery, you are left with 90 minutes.

During this time your nanny should do some child related jobs - batch cooking, changing their beds, their laundry, tidying toys etc. If she was experienced with children and did a good job I'm not sure why you felt she was overpaid. Decent nannies are like gold dust and work hard for what they earn. As for earning extra babysitting that is overtime - it has no relation on what you pay your nanny.

Also, nannies often work 50-60 hour weeks which is a lot more than most jobs - if you worked it out for 37 hours it would be less.

[quote Fr0thandBubble]@LittleBearPad It’s more than that - it works out as well over £40k as a gross wage (then I pay pension and employer NICs on top of that).

She did have them all day during the holidays but it’s a state school so holidays aren’t that long and she also took her 4 weeks a year holiday during the school holidays.

She did cook for them (but for lunch that’s generally a matter of making a sandwich and food shopping was done by us and delivered to the house) and wash their clothes (which is just a matter of chucking them in the machine - not much ironing went on!). So not too taxing I would say.[/quote]
You sound like you’re going to lengths to understate the value of the work she did for you and overstate how much you paid for it, tbh. Why did you keep her on and pay that rate until the youngest went to school if you felt you were overpaying and she wasn’t worth it?

@upsidedownwavylegs More like £44k gross but you’re right, I did add on employer NICs and pension contributions into that.

[quote Fr0thandBubble]@2bazookas Odd comment. Not “more important” but certainly more difficult, longer hours, more stressful and requiring of a much higher skill level.[/quote]
You'll be paying more per hour for violin/piano/ballet lessons, you know.

And they don't even have the responsibility of keeping your kids alive, happy and secure in the absence of their mother for ten hours a day.

Then you should have gone with a cheaper option .

Why did you employ an unqualified nanny?

So that wasn't really her salary. What was her actual salary. Then it would be easier to make a judgement.

more important” but certainly more difficult, longer hours, more stressful and requiring of a much higher skill level.

More difficult, more stressful and higher skill level than keeping someone else's children alive?

Or just something that people are willing to pay more for?

Both your salary and your nanny's are a function of the economy. You might well ask why, if it's so over paid, don't more people want to do it?