Live in role

[confusedalways]

So I'm starting a new live in role soon and it's become apparent that only lunch is included in my arrangement.

Isn't this odd for a full time live in role? I'm not to happy with this as obviously it means I'll be spending more money on food I hadn't planned on.

I sound really ungrateful and grabby though don't I?

For live in, I'd expect all food to be provided. Though it seems reasonable that you might have to make a small contribution (though I wouldn't charge, as an employer).
It hardly costs anything to cook a couple of extra sausages and a potato!
What's the nature of your role? Is it in childcare?

I think it depends. As long as the lack of meals is reflected by a higher wage then it's fine imo. Personally I prefer this as there is less worry over what to eat/nanny eating too much/wrong stuff/family not buying enough/stuff the nanny likes. I've done both and definitely preferred £25 a week extra to cover food when not on duty and be being able to buy whatever I fancied. I did have a separate kitchen though so it made sense. Do you have separate cooking facilities?

Are you in separate flat? Otherwise it's good to be a bit like university halls - lots of duplicates of named food items in the fridge.
Maybe they are just new to having a live in nanny and haven't thought it through, I'd just flag up that its unusual. Does it also mean that you can't use any of their staples when you're cooking and you and your employer are both going to be in the kitchen at the same time cooking different things!

Incidentally, when we hired our first nanny 7 years ago, I had no idea I was supposed to provide lunch. She was quite experienced and just helped herself to the very, very slim pickings in the fridge, until she brought it up at the month feedback meeting we had. She very sweetly asked if she could possibly have a little more bread in the shopping order and maybe some ham!

They've had nannies before so I guess this is just what works for them.

I'll have a separate mini fridge toaster and kettle. Not sure if they'll give me space in their fridge to or what.

Just seems strange I've never done it like this before.

Wages are usually lower for live in to reflect that accommodation and food is provided. If you're paid under minimum wage then it has to be included as that's the whole basis for the exemption.

I don't think a live-in nanny is going to be earning under minimum wage tbh.

A 60 hour week is a minimum wage of £378 (depending on age), potentially more if you count babysitting hours. Depending on location some jobs are advertised at £300 net, which is less than that. It's not impossible so worth bearing in mind for the OP....

It's about 3p an hour under minimum wage. Even if food is not included the value of rent is more than 3p an hour

But then the paltry accommodation offset should be applied which is fixed at £33.75 per week IIRC, which would probably bring £300 net to just over minimum wage but 3p or £3 the whole reason for lower wages in live in roles is the benefit of food and accommodation 'living as part of the family' etc. It's something nanny employers don't automatically consider - accommodation does not in and of itself exempt them from minimum wage requirements and the wage needs to be proportional to the additional cost of providing food or the nanny won't find it fair (see OP for case in point....).

Actually I think I was using the figures which come in on 1 October because I was updating something earlier with the new figure of £6.31 and not the current figure of £6.19 which works out to more like £370 for a 60 hour week (a whole £8 difference!). But having worked this out before £300net is 16p under minimum wage based on 60 hours, albeit that was live out where minimum wage definitely applies.