Reduction in nanny's hourly rate if she brings her own child

[happyjustobeme]

Our lovely nanny is pregnant. She has been with us for nearly ethree years, and we have said that we would consider her brinmg her own child if she decides

It effectively becomes a nanny share, so of course there should be a reduction. 30% off would seem logical, since she'll be looking after 2 of yours and 1 of hers (assuming it's not twins!). No reason whatsoever why a nanny shouldn't pay her own childcare costs!

The three friends I have had who've had nannies back after they've had a baby, two gave pay reductions of 20% and the other no hourly pay reduction (this job became an after school only job - so considerably shorter hours).

Your nanny cannot be doing exactly the same job as before unless she completely ignores the needs of her own child. So there should be some reduction in her rate to address this.

Absolutely agree there should be a pay reduction. Why should she get free childcare while you have to pay through the nose?

duchesse In most cases a NWOC arrangement is not like a nanny share, for the reasons other posters have outlined. A nanny-share and a NWOC arrangement are different. If the OP wants a nanny-share then I totally agree that a 30% reduction is logical.

Yes agree with Outraged,

Do you want your children to accompany baby to clinic/doctors appointments, baby signing classes? Will nanny finish at reasonable time for her own child to go to bed? That is a parent who is late home would affect this. Can nanny do her own babies washing on duty? Make up feeds, batch cook baby foods.

Probably not, so will not be a nanny share in most cases.

As a nanny I would never want to bring my own child, especially if a baby. Not fair on them imo. I would rather be a childminder. My child in their own home.

As an employer I would not want a nanny with a baby, because purely for practicle/safety reasons a baby will often take priority.

But must work for some people. Maybe your nanny will not want to return with the baby OP. She is probably keeping all options open but may decide not to bring baby.

I'm not entirely sure tht I would want to have a nanny bring their baby actually - you are paying a fair amount of money for the service that you agreed at the start. I would find a pay cut hard to swallow though.

It cuts both ways actually- no the baby won't be able to go to its own classes but how many 3rd and 4th children do anyway? And it will be going to the youngest charge's things in the daytime including playgroups/ mother and baby groups etc so not entirely bereft of stimulation. And inevitably it will need time for its own needs- nappy changing, feeding etc. It's not realistic to say the baby won't detract from the nanny's attention- of course it will! That's not to say that it's a bad thing for the charge to have to share nanny's attention, but why should the OP pay for less 20-30% care? Or 50% in the daytime when it's just the toddler and the baby?

Of course the baby will detract from the nanny's attention, and of course there should be a paycut, but it is not the same as a nannyshare and the nanny's wage should not be cut by 30-50%. There is a post up thread (can't remember the poster) that explains why a NWOC arrangement is different to a nannyshare.

If the nanny is taking a 30 - 50 percent cut in wages. Then the nanny is also paying for childcare.
So her child should be entitled to everything the other children do.
To say that most 3rd 4th children do not do clubs is silly. The baby will be the first born in its family. Why should it miss out? I have worked as a nanny for nanny shares and all four children were treated equally re clubs/activities they did. They all did swimming and one other regular club or activity.
I think Duchess you need to consider how Nanny shares work.

Years ago we had a nanny, and she brought her own child with her. Because she was also doing her own childcare, that allowed her to work, we paid her ( on a rate suggested by her) about a third less than the going rate.

I don't think a Nanny can say the job hasn't changed, Cathpip, because the nanny no longer gives sole care and attention to the nannied child/ren. And taking a pay cut (in the form of paying for child care) is a reality for all working parents!

But in our case the children were exactly the same age, so did the same activites, were at the same stage of devellopment and diet, and were great friends to each other.

You need to think about things like what happens when the Nanny's child is ill. Or your child is infectious.

It all worked very well for us.

Also, a nanny will typically carry out household tasks like children's laundry, batch cooking, running errands, waiting in for parcels etc, putting a shopping delivery away, tidying (and possibly cleaning) children's room/playrooms. In a share this will 50/50 between families. In a NWOC situation the nanny will continue to do all this for the employer, but won't do it for themselves.

In a nannyshare it would be fair to alternate which house the share is based at so the families can alternate who has to get their children up, dressed and delivered before work. In a NWOC situation the nanny will always take their child to their employer's house.

A NWOC does not receive the benefits of a nannyshare, why should they pay for a nannyshare?

How many babies of working parents do clubs and things? Unless you have a nanny it's not very likely. Most babies go to nurseries or childminders and at best they'll get out to a carer and baby group once or twice a week if they're with a childminder. Otherwise all activities are done by the childminder or nursery. The nanny's child will be the child of a working mother. If she wants to have time in the day to take her child to clubs, then she needs to give up work. The only reason the OP's children are able to go to clubs is that she is earning enough wages to pay the nanny.

You can't have your cake (ie be with your child all day + get full pay) and eat it (be able to do whatever you want with your day). One of those things has to give.

duchesse I don't think the nanny should get full pay, but she shouldn't be paid as if it is a nannyshare, because it isn't.

'If she wants to have time in the day to take her child to clubs, then she needs to give up work'

or get a nannyshare? Which a NWOC situation isn't.

Alternator childcare for a nanny though would be very tough to find. Most are working 7-7 everyday, so would need childcare 6-8pm. Hence many become nwoc.

I wouldn't reduce pay. A nanny will be up super early getting her own child dressed out the house for an early start at employers, works all day in childcare, then comes home late and has to sort own child out. Picking a baby up at 8pm, home and on bed by 9pm, then up before 6am to get them at alternative childcare so they can start at 7 is unfair on everyone. A perk of being a nanny IMO is the possibliltily of taking your child with you.
Choosing to be a doctor or lawyer will not give you the chance to take them to work but that's your choice, and they are probably earning x amount more than a nanny hence they can afford a nanny themselves.

A nanny would have to put her child in cheaper childcare per hr than she charges to make it worth it.

forever, yes, that's what most people do. And you would surprised how little a non-partner doctor or solicitor in their 20s/ early 30s makes, especially if he or she is doing locum stuff. Probably barely enough to cover the nanny's wages. Of course the career progression will mean that eventually they will end up earning quite a bit more but people are deluded if they think those kind of professionals are raking it in.