How do I split nanny share pay with new baby?

[sheepburn]

Hi (first time poster here!)
I am currently in a 4 day share with one other family (my DD is 2 and other family's DS is 2). I am currently on maternity leave and return to work in May and would like to include my new DS to the share (he will be 9 months).

Mum of other family thinks costs should be 1/3 paid by her and 2/3 paid by me as I now have 2 children in the share. This does not seem right. We plan to rotate share at both houses as we do at the moment.

What are others experiences here so I can share with other family (nanny is paid £11 per hour net for share).

Thanks

If the nanny isnt being paid anymore then the share should stay the same IMO. If however the nanny is charging more then you should be responsible for the extra cost.

I think she's probably right tbh. At the moment your DD get's 50% of the nanny's time and her DS gets 50% of her time; you pay 50%, she pays 50%. If your DS joins the share her DS is now only getting 33% of the nanny's time (your DD gets 33% and your DS gets 33%). It's fair then that she pays 33% and you pay 66%.

I think she's right too.
You should be paying 66.6% and she should be paying 33.3%

I think the nanny probably does a lot of things with the children together, not say putting 1 child on a seat for an hour and doing something with the other. Take childminders for example, other peoples fee doesnt go down just because they get another mindee. The nanny should be the 1 who benefits out of the extra child (she is doing the work) rather than the other parent.

I think your friend has a fair point, but maybe you can use the change in cost share to get some additional benefits for your money?

E.g. If it is more convenient for you when the kids are looked after at your house, because you don't have to worry about drop offs and pick ups, maybe you could negotiate 2 days at yours, then 1 day at hers rather than an equal rotation of days.

Nannies and childminders are paid differently. Nannies will often cost more than a childminder, particularly for one child. If the other mum is paying more for her son to be with a nanny she should get a nanny service, not a chilldminder service where extra children are taken on and you continue to pay the same.

The OP will still benefit as if her child was with a childminder it would be double fees for two, here should would only be paying 16.6% more than she is now (difference between 50% and 66.6%).

How do nanny shares usually work when there are different amounts of children in each family from the beginning rather than part way through as here? It might seem fair enough for the OP to pay more due to having more children but it seems rather unfair for the other share partner to get a bigger reduction. If they were at a childminder she would keep paying the same rate for her child.

If the nanny increases her charge (does that generally happen when a baby is added?) then it does seem right for the OP to pay the extra cost.

There's no way you should pay 2/3 & her 1/3 - that's ridiculous. Is the nanny being paid any more? If the nanny is asking for more money (which would be reasonable) then you should pay that. If the nanny isn't asking for more then probably the nice/polite/reasonable thing for you to do is find something that would help the other parents out in some way that you are happy to do - either host the share more often or less often (which ever they'd prefer) or maybe pay the nanny to take the kids to something the older two would enjoy that the baby wont hinder.

At the end of the day, you need to come up with something you are all happy with (ALL being both sets of parents & the nanny) or the share will fall apart, but 'fair' is not 1/3 & 2/3 split. No way.

'If they were at a childminder she would keep paying the same rate for her child'

Yes, but they're not. They're with a nanny. If they were with a childminder the OP would have to pay double fees, but they're not with a childminder!

Of the shares I know it is worked out as above i.e. you pay for how many children are with the nanny. It's really the only fair way to do it. The other family should get a reduction in cost as they're getting a reduction in service.

Nannies are not paid per child, although when an extra child is added there is often a small rise 50p-£1 ph extra.

QED - nanny shares can be very difficult to set up due to a number of factors, but assuming all else is equal (which it very rarely is) then sometimes the parents with more children will pay a bit more (maybe 100G a week), but not always and to be honest, they are very rarely 'all else is equal' so maybe one has 2 children, but is home an hour earlier, or one of the older children goes to nursery 3 mornings a week but the other child doesn't. There really isn't a 'usually' and it's all down to negotiation.

Some nannies will ask for a pay rise when another child is added to the family - some wont. Some of those that ask for it will get it and some wont. Some parents will offer it, some wont. There are arguements for & against. The majority of MN nannies tend to say they don't ask/don't get more for another child, that doesn't mean it's reflective of RL.

The bottom line is, everyone needs to be happy (both sets of parents & the nanny) if anyone of those is unhappy with the arrangement it will all fall apart - usually after a fairly massive disagreement!

HoHoHo - I don't think you can have that both ways. Making the parents pay 'per child' for a nanny, but not paying a nanny per child, why should only one set of parents benefit out of this arrangement? In most instances if the family with one child had another child they wouldn't pay the nanny more, so why in this situation should they pay the nanny 2/3rds of the cost because they are in a nanny share? The parents with one child are not suddenly getting significantly less care for their child.

It really is not the only fair way to do it. It is ONE option, that's all.

It is the only way I would except that it is fair if I were in this situation.

TBH I think the agreement between the parents is unrelated to the agreement between the employers.

The nanny is asked to look after 2 and then 3 children, she needs to ask for what she feels this is worth. In this case it seems £11ph net. As long as the nanny receives this it is of no concern to her who pays what.

If the nanny is employed by only one family, they wouldn't pay an extra 16% for one extra child, but in a share they bill has to be split somehow. IMO (and with the shares I know) the fairest way to do this is based on number of children. I think in this case the nanny having an extra 9 month old to look after will be significantly more work, therefore the other child will receive less time/attention. I don't believe it is in any way fair for the other parents to pay the same for one child as the OP expects to pay for 2.

*accept (not except!!)

*the agreement between the parents and the nanny is unrelated to the agreement between the employers

I would disagree with that hohoho. Bad feeling or tensions between the parents impact on the nanny and if one family is paying more then they might feel more bound to that family.

I see the other parent's point but I feel that actually it might be better to negotiate a small raise for the nanny and the OP pay that. What would happen if the other share family had another child? Would it go back to 50/50? Would the nanny then get a raise? Who would cover that?

I'm in a share like that. When baby joined, I got £1 net an hour payrise and they split the pay as 1/3, 2/3. It was agreed between the families, I didn't have an input.

Shared between number of children is fair.
Sorry
You may want your own nanny now for convenience etc if costs are not that much more.

'Bad feeling or tensions between the parents impact on the nanny '

Possibly, although if everyone is being prof it shouldn't. As chipping said it needs to be agreed between the families, but IMO the fair way is 1/3 v 2/3 and if it were my share and I had a second child I would pay 2/3. If I was the parent with the one child I would expect to pay 1/3.

'and if one family is paying more then they might feel more bound to that family'

Maybe. Though I'm sure most nannies understand the concept of fractions and that it's not that one family are more generous, simply that they have more children. Even without the pay issue. in a share situation the nanny often has a 'favourite' family, one that she would choose if put in the position (often happens when both families have a second child.)

'What would happen if the other share family had another child? Would it go back to 50/50?'

Yes.

We are in the exact same situation as the OP, in that I am about to pop with our 2nd. We have spoken to the other family and we agreed to give our nanny a pay rise from £10ph net to £12ph net as she will have more work with 3 and for the split to change from 50:50 to 2/3 us and 1/3 them.

So we go from paying £5ph net to £8ph which isn't quite double, so we're happy. It's also less than trying to find a nanny of our own. And the other family does have a slight reduction but as many posters have said the nanny will be spending proportionally less of her time with their child.

I don't think you can compare this situation to CM as it's a nanny and there are lots of differences between the childcare.

At the end of the day both families need to be happy and what works for one nanny-share may not work for another and you just have to do what's right for yours!

I honestly can say I don't favour any of the families in this share, I see them as equal. I adore the kids and if I would need to choose one of them, I would be in trouble.

As for if the other family have another , yes the share would go back as 50/50 although shares at that stage usually come to the end anyway.

The problem is that there's another child coming in to an existing arrangement. If there's no payrise now but the other family have another and them there is a payrise AND it goes back to 50/50 but on the new figure how does that work? I wouldn't say the share would necessarily end - it depends on the age of the other children but 4 is manageable under certain circumstances (eg spaces in car).

I don't think it's fair in the OP for the other family to get cheaper childcare, equally I don't think it's fair on the other family to get proportionally less attention. The fairest solution IMO would be to fix a new 'per additional child' rate. One could split the costing out according to the relative convenience of a nanny (equal) which is part of what attracts a premium, food costs (unequal), care (unequal), household expenses (equal) etc and yes, the OP comes put on top but the value of the nanny for the other family is not necessarily diminished.

Plus as a nanny I wouldn't have been happy knowing that the costing had been altered so drastically because then I'd feel that I wasn't expected to provide an equal service to both families. Attention should be divided according to need but those needs change.

It's just dangerous to quibble. Would they expect to shoulder more of the cost if the OP hadn't had another baby and instead sent the older one to preschool? Or will they expect a reduction if they decide to do 2 mornings preschool?

I'm not following the logic of the '50:50' argument at all on this one, and as OhFraktiousTree has expressed the issues in more depth (as I would expect ) I am going to follow her lead:

If there's no payrise now but the other family have another and them there is a payrise AND it goes back to 50/50 but on the new figure how does that work?
Both families would have two children cared for so they split the cost 50:50 - where is the problem?

I don't think it's fair in the OP for the other family to get cheaper childcare
The corollary of that is that you do think it is fair for the family to get twice as much childcare for the same price! Why?

equally I don't think it's fair on the other family to get proportionally less attention
Now that I can agree with

One could split the costing out according to the relative convenience of a nanny (equal) which is part of what attracts a premium
Yes it is part of what attracts a premium, but equally there is a premium because my child(ren) are getting the whole of a nanny's attention (or in the case of an equal share, 50% of a nanny's attention) as opposed to say 25% with a childminder with 3 other charges. As soon as the share becomes 2+1 the other family is not getting that 50%, they are getting at best 1/3, but as a 9 month old requires a lot of looking after it's probably less than that!

Plus as a nanny I wouldn't have been happy knowing that the costing had been altered so drastically because then I'd feel that I wasn't expected to provide an equal service to both families.
Absolutely you would be expected to provide more service to the family that is paying more - how else would you cope with the fact that they have twice as many children, one of them only 9 months? Spend 50% of the time with the only child, 50% of the time with the 9 month old and ignore the older sibling???

Would they expect to shoulder more of the cost if the OP hadn't had another baby and instead sent the older one to preschool?
No because this would not be their decision: they may get more of the nanny's time for their money, but they didn't ask for it so can't be expected to pay for it.

Or will they expect a reduction if they decide to do 2 mornings preschool?
No because they would be deciding to change the arrangements unilaterally and cannot expect the other family to bear the consequences.

Also don't forget that the other family is going to have to put up with a whole load more equipment at their house and the additional wear and tear of a child that isn't theirs. I think 2/3 + 1/3 is a bargain!

It makes sense in my head, probably because nannies are usually just per family so 2 families for me split the cost 2 ways.

But nannies do not get paid per child. I work for two families on different days, one family has four children the other family has two children they pay the same.

redglow there is no dispute about how much the nanny gets paid. The dispute is which percentage of the nanny's pay each family contributes. They are two seperate issues.