Charge more for children who don’t go to bed?

[Alwaysforgetthecrackers]

I do babysitting/childcare over the summer in a busy, tourist area.
The majority of the time I’ve always had 1-2 children and when I arrive, they’re in bed sleeping and stay asleep for the evening, parents give me the remote, kindly say I can help myself to food and all is great.
I recently sat for someone who had three very active boys, they were still up when I arrived, wanted constant snacks mum asked me to make and tidy things away. They all had different bedtimes, mum wanted me to play games with them, put them to bed etc, little one fought with me on this and eldests bedtime was literally just before they returned home, so I spent the rest of the evening getting him snacks, tidying after him, playing games.
I’m ok doing this…it did make me wonder though, should this be the same charges as basically sitting with the child already in bed?
Also, nice as this mum was, she initially queried the price being a bit expensive, whereas all
others have been very appreciative

Different families have different routines.

You're not morally superior because you get your kids to bed by 7pm.

Babysitting is always a bit of a gamble. You are paid the same whether the kids sleep throughout the whole shift or whether they wake up and projectile vomit everywhere. It's kind of luck of the draw I think.

Cant believe the comments moaning about what you charge 🤣 people are not paying an inexperienced teen they are paying for experience and peace of mind. I think you're vocalising what a lot of people would try and get away with if they are honest, the least work for the most pay. But I don't think you can charge more for a waking child versus a sleeping one. I think your price should just reflect that sometimes you'll have it easy and sometimes you won't.

Money for nothing, vs earning it.

lol - it's you that's overcomplicating this.

Child wakes up - no extra charge, that's what you're there for, can't be predicted. £15/hour to reflect the seasonal, unreliable flow of work.

An unknown six year old that must be entertained for another two hours, then needs snacks making and clearing up, and finally story read and cajoled to bed at nine - a measly £2.50 per hour additional.

Minimum charge four hours.

Sorted.

Ageist, and in my case, untrue on both counts.

And also, this doesn't make your argument stronger lol. Of course middle class parents want the flat-rate status quo to remain - it benefits them.

Others - and especially those with no skin in the game - can acknowledge that it's unfair.

Wow. I'm in the wrong job! That is MUCH more than I get paid to work all day with some of the most challenging children in the county, including heading off meltdowns, breaking up fights, helping with academic work and social skills, constant cleaning up and so much more! I think £15/hour is good pay for entertaining three kids and putting them to bed, and amazing pay if they happen to be asleep!

Same charge. I think you got lucky with having quiet evenings previously! It's part of the job.

What if you could only work for four months of the year, didn't get any paid holiday at all let alone 10 weeks, or any sick pay at all? No maternity or paternity leave, and critically, no final salary pension.

Honestly, I wish people could put their resentment aside and just think.

Yet I don't use babysitters and I'm saying the OP is taking the piss charging 2 tier prices.

I have however been both a nanny and a babysitter myself. Yes, it's a bonus if the children are asleep and stay that way. I've never expected that to be the case or thought I deserved more if it wasn't.

Then I might think about changing jobs?

It's your prerogative but I think the tricky part would be how would you advertise it/ let people know that's your policy without putting them off altogether.

Perhaps charge 20 an hour for more than one child.

or you could just charge a fair price which reflects the service provided?

And maybe, just maybe, 'thinking about changing jobs' might be harder for some demographics than for other, more privileged ones?

100% this.

Oh, I certainly did! I always babysat under duress - I had no illusions that other people's young children and babies were not my thing, and didn't ask anyone ever to babysit mine while they were very young.

The same parent asked me to water her tomato plants while on a 2 week holiday. She lived in the next street, so I said yes. Turned out she expected me to go at least twice a day for 2 weeks! She had very high expectations of what you could fairly ask another person to do, and I got my fingers badly burned until I learned my lesson.

It: I was trying to be gender neutral.

I think it is is reasonable to have a per child charge - IF they are awake? AND I would expect to pay someone for the booked period - so would not reduce it if I came back earlier than expected.
£15 / hour for one sleeping child and three wakeful pains in the neck is VERY different.
Say no next year! This is barely above minmum wage!!
Good luck xx

No, we had a monitor. But once they were in bed they never woke up, unless they were ill, but we wouldn't have gone out in those circumstances.

@thestudio most of what you said does apply... apart from the 4 months of the year thing. I supplement my day job with some self-employment. I reached the heady heights of £18k gross one year (which I think is fair enough with two degrees and two diplomas) but am currently earning nowhere near that amount!

£15 per hour is more than most nursery workers get (in fact I think it’s more than our nursery actually charges per hour)- so I’d say charge less for kids asleep and the same for awake who you actively had to look after. I think I’d be a bit surprised if my babysitter was charging more than nursery but I was expected to make sure they were asleep so the childcare I was paying by it didn’t actually have to care for my children.. so I reckon charge less for asleep kids and the full smack for awake ones!

I thought the OP was a teacher and doing babysitting in the summer months, I might have understood wrong.
I'm not sure that many people would earn a living just by doing evening babysitting - whatever that entailed - whether they lived in a tourist area or not

OP can absolutely charge whatever price she wants, that's her prerogative. It's the different prices that I feel are wrong and I don't think users of her service would be happy with either. I wouldn't want my child to be looked after by somebody that didn't want to interact with them, therefore charged a premium. Totally different if they said: oh can you give the house a once over whilst you're there, seeing as my child is mainly asleep? Obviously that WOULD require a higher price. Anything relating to the child's needs that evening though I feel is what they're paid for.

Exactly this... and if they ARE only working 4 months a year, it's not up to anybody else to fund the 8 months she doesn't work.

I think it’s an interesting idea for sure, and would probably be up for paying a little extra if I knew my kids would need a lot of stimulation. Don’t think it’s fair to complain when kids are awake though, pretty sure the average expectation is to do a little more than just serve as a camera/monitor!

Sorry for the tangent but while you’re all here…I’ve just had my second child, how does babysitting work? Do you usually book one babysitter per child? My 2 year old needs held/patted to sleep, so I’m not sure how one person would do that and get my 6 month old down…