Is £500 per week net really the going rate for a London nanny?

[Gangle]

Have been told this many times by nannies and agencies but, having looked through the ads on Gumtree and Nannyjob, it seems that lots of employers offer salaries of a lot less than this. We may be hiring a new nanny in the near future and it would help a lot financially if I could get her to agree to a salary of £375 net per week for a 4 day week or £475 for a 5 day week, or even less £350/£450) if possible. Will she think I am taking the piss though? Still works out to a salary of around 33/34k, I believe. I want to pay her as much as I can but paying £500 a week is going to make things tight financially. We paid our previous nanny £500 per week but this was a nanny share in which each family paid £250 so it wasn't so much of a big deal

If it's any help, I have also been aware of nannies expecting and asking for salaries at this level, and being unemployed months and months later. The ones who asked for £300-£400 net and expected less in the way of perks (i.e. paid their own Childcare Approval fees, did not expect leisure use of a car, etc) seemed to get work when and where they wanted it. Nuff said. I think around here, employers are getting a bit more clued up and less easy to bully. (BTW leisure use of a car and money towards Oyster cards is a taxable perk so technically dodgy).

My theory is that a lot of nannies who have sat on my sofa pestering for higher salaries believe all the nanny salary 'surveys' as gospel truth, and have no idea about how tax works, which contributes to their naivety.

BTW Frakkin, the net pay thing dates from 1911 when National Insurance was introduced for the first time, and employers started paying sixpence or whatever to the state on behalf of their domestic staff. A century later (some) nannies haven't quite adapted to this ... present company excepted, if course

cant always blame the nannys,i blame the agencys, just looked at 5 local ones in my area ALL state their jobs in nett

£8 NETT from tinies

£8/10nett harmony

nett again by tinies

£500nett harmoney

£8/9nett busybees

£10nett etc enchnated childcare

£8/9nett tigerlily

I'm in West London and £10nph is the going rate. For 8am-6pm, 5-days a week then you would be looking at £500 per week. I do know nannies that work for less £8/9nph but these are usually unqualified/inexperienced or nannies who bring their own children with them.

We paid £10 an hour ooop north and still didn't find Mary Poppins herself, plenty of much less qualified staff considered themselves worthy of £10 net.

I personally couldn't afford to live on less than £500 a week
BUT..
I work and live in central london, where a small studio flat is min £750 a month without bills. council tax is in the highest bracket, even things like a bottle of water in the news-agents is double most places.

Most nannies I know around here are on £10-£12 per/hr, and do 12 hr days, 5 days per week.

So yes I think £500 is very resonable especially if live-out

You learn something new every day

I've just moved back to my old job after mat leave and my car insurance went up by £400 a year. So it's expensive to live in London and that's why the salaries are high. I think when you're experienced you can get the higher rate because there is less competition.

Wow, so it does look like nannies (experienced ones at least, needing £500+ per week) will be reserved for only the very wealthy. So glad I'm happy with my cm :)

Not a huge suprise that wealthy people employ top nannies, is it? They also go on better holidays and have bigger houses.

No, not surprising or unusual at all. Just that if agencies keep saying that all nannies cost this much, it's going to price a lot of families out, which will mean fewer jobs available for nannies.

Star, that was my point. I knew of two shall we say 'elite' nannies who could not find work at £500 a week recently. Nothing wrong with them, just that people thought it was too expensive.

You can get a live in experienced nanny for £6 an hour net round by me.

The argument about affordability versus wages is a pretty weak one - after childcare and petrol and parking at work I have £40 a week left to live on, which works out at £2000-ish a year. I can't go to my employers and gripe about this and demand higher wages - they just pay me the going rate for the job and that's that. Tough.

The thing is, and we're seeing it already, if people will pay that then nannies will ask it.

If people can't afford it, they'll still have a nanny but they'll get a nanny who's willing to work for what they can pay, which might not be their dream nanny but for some people a nanny is the only viable option. Eventually the expensibe nannies will realise they've priced themselves out of the market and drop their rates a bit (and economise as best they can to live) because any job is better than no job.

Also people are getting a lot savvier about sharing the cost of a very experienced nanny, so even if it's about 25% more than the nanny would earn they're only paying what they can afford, and nannies are a lot more willing to do a share.

Equally nannies with their own children realise they can't afford to be fussy and drop their rates which means parents are getting a bargain.

So whilst some nannies will ask for and get £500/week, or even more, others are undercutting them! But there will always be those parents who want their DC to have undivided attention from a trained, experienced nanny with glowing references and are willing to pay for it. And there will always be nannies going for those jobs.

Quite Boffinmum.

I know a number of nanny employers whose incomes have taken hits in the past few years (mine has been cut by 60% and I was operating at a loss for a while) and that is starting to have an impact on nanny salaries I think.

Of course, it is in the agencies' interest to keep talking salaries up, given that their fee is calculated by reference to nanny pay...

Frakkin, while I agree with you... your last paragraph.... I'm sure some people also want that for their DC and would be willing to pay it... if they could. But a lot of people can't. Doesn't mean they don't want that for their dc/ want the best for their dc.

and I know you didn't mean it that way, frakkin. I'm just very sensitive at the moment and the word "willing" sort of twisted in my stomach.

:( I didn't mean to make you feel bad, Star.

I couldn't think of a sensitive way to phrase it other than those who are willing to pay for it although I suppose I could have stuck a can in there as well, so please take the ammended verion - those who can and are willing to pay for it. Because there are plenty of very wealthy people out there who can pay and aren't willing... It's not intended as a reflection on those who would be willing if they could at all.

Thanks Frakkin :) Apologies for my oversensitivity

I do get around 500 net a week but I do a nannyshare so families do share the amount equally. Though I would not expect one family to give me 500 net in London as it is way too much if you count tax and NI as well. I would be expecting for a 5 day week around 450 net (10hours per day, I have level 4 qualification (currently doing the foundation degree) and 7 years experience with babies and toddlers.Hope this helps.

It's been my personal experience that many of the families who CAN pay a fortune for childcare fall into two camps: the ones who DO pay a hefty sum but require the nanny's soul in return, and those who DON'T pay a fortune but instead pay peanuts for the cheapest care available, often using illegal immigrants, and bleed them dry.

In a lot of wealthy families it's not the money that's the issue but the attitude they have that dictates the sort of care they will pay for.

I get soooooooo many other mums complaining to me about their nannies. I have to bite my tongue most of the time as if you choose to pay 4 euros an hour you are not going to get a highly educated and dedicated nanny.

I understand 99.5% of families want the best for their DCs but I do not understand people choosing to pay peanuts instead of a decent and fair wage, and then complain about the person they have hired.

Why is nanny salary always quoted in net rather than gross? That has always mystified me. Does it happen in any other occupation?

Yes I think nannies are the preserve of the wealthy on the whole - see if you can find a good childminder is my advice!

Grrr wrote out a huge reply and signal went / the thrills of working in the middle of nowhere

was the general drift of not every wealthy employer falls into those 2

My family are wealthy and lovely and treat me well and when things went a bit tits up in the rw earlier this year they were over 100% supportive and def don't want my soul lol

as have been most of my other familys. I have always worked for wealthy familys and all have treated me well

every parent wants the best childcare they can afford

I didn't mean every wealthy family. Just the ones I have been exposed to. In the USA most of the wealthy families I came across in my neighborhood hired Mexican/Jamaican/Brazilian nannies as they are half the price of a stereotypical American/European nanny. I lived in that environment for 4 years and saw many nannies pass through those families doors. Low pay + huge expectations = unhappy nanny.

I was lucky and still am. I work for a wealthy family who wanted to pay a fair/decent amount. But I have sold my soul in a way as with big paychecks come big responsibilities.

Anyhoo I agree. Parents generally want the best they can get.

I didn't mean every wealthy family. Just the ones I have been exposed to. In the USA most of the wealthy families I came across in my neighborhood hired Mexican/Jamaican/Brazilian nannies as they are half the price of a stereotypical American/European nanny. I lived in that environment for 4 years and saw many nannies pass through those families doors. Low pay + huge expectations = unhappy nanny.

I was lucky and still am. I work for a wealthy family who wanted to pay a fair/decent amount. But I have sold my soul in a way as with big paychecks come big responsibilities.

Anyhoo I agree. Parents generally want the best they can get.

Agencies I feel are responsible for the Net pay situation these days... as they are the ones who keep advertising Net wages... and I presume they tell nannies what net wage to expect.

Last agency I was with, I choose because they advertised Gross salaries. I've noticed though that now they have gone with advertising some jobs as Net, though certainly not all. Seems to be a bit of a mixture... so maybe they are testing how specifying the salary in Gross vs Net affects applicants applying for the jobs.

If there was some control over the ways agencies operate, then they could all be told to stop advertising Net wages. However their is controlling body... anyone can setup an agency and often they are setup by ex-nannies. Best agencies I've come across are not owned by ex-nannies (though they may have an ex-nanny on their staff) but by people with an recruitment/HR background.

My experience has been like wrinklyraisin.
I also have found that because I once worked for one incredibly wealthy HP family I tend to command higher wages just by association. Not complaining but I know when I go for a high salary then I can expect to surrender my soul for a while. I'll collect it from passport control or butler on my way out

In this market nannies have to adjust their expectations like everybody else. It is not a given that they get 500 net, a car, gym membership, eight weeks paid holiday and cash bonuses every so often.

The best jobs I've had were definitely at the lower end of the (london) payscale so £300 - £350 net a week (live in) but they were so much nicer to work for. Anything over £750 net and you can kiss your soul goodbye.