what's so off putting about employing a nanny with their own child??

[glitternanny]

I am stuck - really stuck.... maybe you kind MNers can help me understand...

I'm job hunting due to a reduction in hours with my current families and I have my own 18 month old son. He's been coming to work with me since he was 12 weeks old - I had a very short maternity leave partyly due to my commitment to my job and he is very very easy to look after, always has been.

I returned to work to one job I had and a new job where their youngest was just 3 months older than my boy - which was very challenging, they are now the best of friends.

I love my jobs, my charges love my son - him being with me just makes my day busier and in some ways harder but I am always the professional - I am very committed to doing the same job i would do without him with him there with me and more often than not I completely over compensate having him with my by ignoring him and leaving him to his own devices while doing my job.

My charges and my bosses (who often work from home) can back this up completely.

Also my son isn't with me for 1/2 the week (approximately) as his dad works shifts and when he's off my son stays with him.

I've never taken a drop in salary, I've rarely taken time off because of my boy and have his dad and grandparents/friends on standby if I need to.

SO WHY wont you mums consider someone like me?

I appreciate you are paying for your children to be looked after, but I am doing that - I'm still the nanny I am without him - I'm just busier when he's there, he's not with me all of the time, he's just part of the package.

OR mums want a salary reduction of 50% (my latest interview where the family totally loved me but want me for 1/2 my current rate even when he's only with me half the time I'm there) yes I'm lucky to have my boy there but this isn't a nannyshare, I am still working by your rules/requests/routine/preferences etc - I don't get to do my own thing like I would if I were a SAHM

I'm now trying to find childcare for my son so I can carry on working, which given that I'm leaving my house every morning at 6:20 and I'm not home until 6:30 (and that's only if my employers trains are on time etc) its really hard.

What can I do to make myself more employable? To get parents to at least meet me so I can get them to love me rather than seeing I come with my own child and am instantly dismissed.

I'm a great person, I am excellent at my job my charges love me and my bosses give me excellent references, I'm reliable committed and professional.

yes I was quite surprised. she mentioned the spd/pregnancy thing when talking about her previous job, can't remember how the next child thing came up but she mentioned it, I didn't ask.

'In my job, I would be expected to find alternative childcare asap so I could come to work'

and that's what a nanny would be expected to do! There is no difference.

'I haven't assumed'

You have assumed because you're not talking about her situation you're talking about NWOC in GENERAL. You said 'Part of my reason to employ a nanny is for some flexibility in hours (should i get stuck at work) and babysitting possibilities, this would be much more difficult for a NWOC'. Not much more difficult for this nanny, much more difficult for a NWOC. Assuming that all NWOC would have difficulties.

'if I am honest it would be a concern with any employee with one young child.'

So you are prejudiced against all employees who have children? That's a fact then, not an opinion?

'No, horrible is not factual, it's an opinion.'

You said yourself you know it to be illegal. It's not an opinion it's fact. You've listed a load of reasons why you wouldn't employ a parent. That is a prejudiced view. It's your view, ergo you are prejudiced. FACT.

Oh I'm bored of this argument Outraged. I was trying to help the OP understand what some employers may be put off by - so that she could seek to address these concerns up front if they do not apply to her. I accepted that some of my reasons may not be valid (legally or otherwise) and/or may not apply to all NWOCs.

I think it is unfortunate that employers are often reluctant to employ women who are likely to have more children in the near future, but I also think it is not unusual and not surprising. It is not "prejudice" without any practical basis - it is understandable reluctance to deal with the hassle of maternity cover etc. It helps nobody to simply shout "sexism" and say employers should ignore this factor - they won't.

Attacking posts like yours discourage honest posts on MN, which makes everyone the poorer.

Well, I'm sure the OP is thankful for your honest, openly prejudiced post. As it applies to all parents, not just nannies why not repost in chat so all the parents on here can learn why they're not attractive employment prospects?

Confronting horrible prejudiced posts does not make anyone poorer. People holding such views and not being challenged does though.

From a logical point of view, if two families were sharing a nanny, they'd each pay 50%. You can see why some families think that 50% is fair.

If you you keep 100% salary, then in effect you are being paid to care for your own DS, plus saving on child care costs.

If your DS is only there 50% of the week, then I think a salary reduction of 25% is fair: 50% for half of the week and 100% for the other half.

A nanny-share and a NWOC situation are different though. A nanny bringing her own child to work does not get the same benefits that the families n a nanny share would get. For example, she always has to go to the employers home, whereas with a share the families would take turns to host. She will only do nursery duties e.g. bed changing, washing etc. for the family not for herself. Her child will have to fit in with her charges, in a nanny share it would be give and take etc. etc.

Theres no other job you can take your child with you so why should nannying be any different. You either find childcare yourself or expect a significant reduction in salary to compensate for the fact that the employer is not getting exclusive childcare.

I can imagine it causes all sorts of problems, the main one being your child will always come first as per mothers instinct not the mindees. What if the parents wants their child to go to many activities, are they expected to pay for another child to join them? Wear and tear on the house, anothers baby/child belongings around and who pays for food and snacks?

Most peope who want a nanny want them for flexibility and sole childcare.

'Theres no other job you can take your child with you so why should nannying be any different'

That's a funny logic. All jobs should be exactly the same, with the same terms, same pros/cons etc.?

or are all jobs different?

Some things suit some jobs and not others. Why can it be ok for a nanny to bring their child to work, but not ok for a brain surgeon? Erm......

Well, a nanny job has an emotional quality to it that most jobs do not, in that it involves the employer's children. That's makes even more decisive if a parent prefers to have a nanny without children.

Sorry Outraged, you can argue till the cows come home but whoever pays the piper calls the tune. If you had a child, your unsympathetic attitude would make you particularly unattractive to an employer who is prepared to consider a NWC. Good luck with proving discrimination.

Nanny shares don't split the cost of 'an ordinary nanny wage' either - no nanny I - know does a share for the same rate she'd do a single family.

If they were same age I'd think it was great

I would worry a bit about the bond between the children making it even harder if the nanny decided to leave.

We have a NWOC - she started out as our CM, was fantastic but hated endless paperwork/Ofsted.

Being a teacher, I felt her pain; by the time I had 3dc, I was able to suggest she could just work for us as a nanny.

It's worked brilliantly. We have 3dc each - mine are 5-9, she has two the same sort of age & a teenager. Kids attend same school, are good friends.

However by the point we agreed she'd switch from CM to nanny, I'd known our NWOC for 4 years, & our dc had pretty much grown up together from babies. It's totally different from going into the same set up 'cold'.

If she ever quit - & once I'd finished having a breakdown! It'd probably be less of a nightmare if dh left! - I'd obviously have to look for a replacement, & whilst own dc wouldn't be an automatic deal breaker, because I know from experience it can work, & has many benefits, - I'd also be aware that it inevitably leads to tensions/rows between the respective dc.

This isn't a problem for me/NWOC. I know she treats my dc exactly as she treats her own. She's slightly less strict generally than I am, which is fine. We agree on all the important stuff, & when we disagree we have an existing relationship which makes it easy to discuss things.

If I had to start all over again with a new NWOC, all this would have to be negotiated, between me & NWOC AND between the two sets of dc.

At this point, tbh, unless he/she was head & shoulders above other candidates, OR offering to work for less (not 50% less!) I'd possibly feel it was an added layer of complication I didn't need. I'd probably be willing to be convinced, but I'd definitely expect teething problems.

Outraged seems to be a nanny herself and hence attacks anyone who has opinion different from the one she wants her family to have. Quite scary...
Nanny costs a lot of money to families and hence they want 100% attention to their children. My DS is above the age when he needs nanny but in general I wouldn't consider NWOC as well even at 20% lower salary. If I pay that much money I would like my DC to get 100% attention. If I want DC to experience other children's company around I would put him/her in nursery.

Growing up we had a live in nanny who arrived with a 2 year old and 3 years later had a baby. It was great for us as children as we all got on so well and although all much older than the baby loved having him in our family as well. We had a very carefree childhood and all muddled in together very happily. Can't remember any of us lacking attention or a kind word - our mother wouldn't have given us the intense one on one - far more a free range mother so I guess it suited her style of parenting well and was perfect for us and hopefully for her as she stayed 7 years.

mikulkin

I am a nanny. I'm not attacking anyone. I am not challenging anyone who has a different opinion to me.

I've challenged someone who said they wouldn't employ any parent, which is a prejudiced and I'm fairly sure illegal view.

I've challenged the logic in 'yes it could work really well and save me money, but I'm not allowed to bring my DC to the office/court/the building site, so why should a nanny bring her child to work?'. It makes no sense as an argument!

All the other arguments; split attention, more children in the house, more problematic etc. I think are fair points and I haven't said otherwise.

You really shouldn't be scared by someone having an alternative opinion!

Outraged: "I've challenged someone who said they wouldn't employ any parent, which is a prejudiced and I'm fairly sure illegal view."

It is not illegal to not want to employ a parent if that the parent wants to bring a child to work and that parent's child would affect the ability of the parent to do her job well.

You yourself admit that a nanny with child comes with problems such as split attention, more children in the house, more problematic etc. which you think are fair points.

It could work well, it could not but if a parent does not want to even go there because they want undivided attention for which they are paying top whack (even with a 25% discount), where is the illegality? What is your argument?

It is only illegal if the family sacks the nanny for becoming a parent even though she does not bring her child to work or the family refuses to employ a nanny who happens to be a parent but does not bring her child to work. The minute she wants to bring her child to work, well that is a different kettle of fish.

blueshoes have you read minipies posts? That is EXACTLY my point. She's talking about issues that effect all parents NOT nannies who want to bring their DC to work. She's talking about any nanny who has a child, even if that child is at home/in childcare. She made 4 points, one was about a nanny bringing a child, the other 3 apply to anyone with a child.

'It is only illegal if the family sacks the nanny for becoming a parent even though she does not bring her child to work or the family refuses to employ a nanny who happens to be a parent but does not bring her child to work'. I think we agree?

Here are minipies points;

• her child was clearly a very easy child. My concern was that this would lead to my child seeming "difficult" or even "a pain" in comparison. (of course, if her child was a difficult child, this would be an even bigger problem...!)

fair enough, although if the nanny had an easy child at home it could still lead to the nanny viewing the other child as difficult.

• I may be wrong about this but I think a NWOC would be less likely to bond as closely with their charges as a nanny with no children.

nothing to do with whether the DC are there or not, just that the nanny has children.

• I was concerned that a NWOC would have a second child quite swiftly, meaning I would have to find new childcare. yes, I know this is not a legal reason not to employ someone, however...

again no relevance to whether or not the child is brought to work, simply that the nanny has a child.

• Part of my reason to employ a nanny is for some flexibility in hours (should i get stuck at work) and babysitting possibilities, this would be much more difficult for a NWOC.

if anything it would be easer for a nanny who brings their child as no need to get back for babysitter etc. This applies to all parents.

Her points are not about a nanny bringing their child, they are about a nanny HAVNG a child. That is illegal I believe?

I'm not quite sure what you want me to say Outraged. I'm not going to stop having these concerns just because you keep telling me they are prejudiced and illegal.

As others have said, nannying is an unusual job because of the emotional bonding aspect. There are all sorts of things that people may want in a nanny, that would not be relevant in other jobs - and could well be illegal.

For example, many people want a female nanny rather than a male nanny. This is illegal sexual discrimination. And yet, it's the way many people feel.

My last two posts were to blueshoes, not you, because I think she has misunderstood my point. I don't have a problem with people not wanting a nanny who brings their child to work, my problem is with someone who won't employ a nanny who has a child.

I don't expect you to say anything, you've made your views abundantly clear. I will say 'some people are sexist' isn't really a justification for your horrible views. To quote my Grandma 'two wrongs don't make a right'!

I have done it and it's a hassle but if you've had the nanny for a few years already you can work around it but it's not as easy as having a nanny without children.
(I think there is an exception to sex discrimination law for domestic servants actually as they are in your own home and you CAN require they be of a particular sex)

I know a nanny who is struggling to find a job because she has young children even though she doesn't want to bring them to work with her and has childcare in place. I am one of her referees (she worked for us for a few months when our nanny had to take time off, and was brilliant) and even though I give a glowing reference, the parents I speak to always come back to the fact that she has her own children and so bound to be unreliable, not devoted enough to their pfb etc. Don't underestimate people's prejudices on this subject.

FWIW our nanny has a school-aged child for whom she has childcare but we pay her slightly less than the going rate on the basis that she can bring her DC along if she needs to.