Nanny 20 weeks pregnant when she started job!!

[HantsPants]

Get this... I have just gone back to work 3 days a week, started on 1st September. Found lovely nanny. DD and DS love her. She has just told me she is... wait for it... 28 weeks pregnant and due on 23rd Jan!!! She was 20 weeks when she started, apparently did not know until she was 22 weeks. You may well be wondering why I did not notice her bump. Well, dear MNers, she is very generously upholstered and you can't tell (yes, really). Nanny loves job and DC and wants to take a short time off and come back to work with the baby.

I was initially supportive but DH dead against it. DD aged 6 and a breeze but DS aged 2 and very hard work not to mention has speech delay and needs nanny's full attention for his speech development and Makaton signing etc.

Do not want to pay nanny top whack to look after her own baby in my house and put her newborn baby's needs ahead of my own children's. Cannot imagine that this is anything other than problematic.

Thoughts anyone?

BEHAVE athene

regards smp, i thought employers/mb could claim back 105% back?

yes, but she's not been in the job long enough to qualify that's the point. Hopefully she can get that allowance Cheryl mentioned.

duh - true harriet

im blonde and tired

Maternity leave on no pay. Fuck.

My friend got made redundant quite literally the day before she found out she was pregnant. Nothing she could do in terms of improving ehr package as she hadn't told them.

I'm amazed you haven't taken more of a pasting Hantspants. I started a totally innocuous thread about a nanny's maternity pay once and it all went horribly wrong.

Squiffy is right as is Athene.

It's an inconvenience, yes, and we have had to employ someone on a contract in the meantime to cover maternity leave but it happens!

I would start looking for a maternity replacement now.

"Hesaysshesays - am also disgusted with you. Where does it say that her DP will not be taking time off to care for the baby (if ill), therefore enabling the mother to go to work? Sharing the time off is what happens in our house, in Athene's house and many others - your lazy sexism is the kind of low-level stuff that annoys the hell out of me. If you want to be sexist, then fine, fuck off and be sexist. But don't ever pretend that you are being anything other than that."

Oh dear I appear to have missed my very own mini-flaming! Shucks, I must check back more regularly.

Stillsquiffy, if you want to make assumptions about me, feel free but don't ever pretend they are anything other than that, assumptions. A badly worded post does not a sexist make.

Actually, hesaysshesays, what you said was pretty sexist. You have brushed it off like it was nothing. But telling someone that childcare comes with it when they hire a woman is really a pretty Victorian view in my book.

Childcare is a parent's issue, not a woman's issue.

Like I said earlier in the thread, I could have put person rather than woman but I didn't think about it as we were talking about a female employee. Like I said, badly worded, not sexist.

If I had meant it is only a problem with women than yes, I would be sexist. But I didn't mean that, as I have already said, therefore not sexist, just a mistake.

Childcare does come with it when you employ a woman who may have children, although I acknowledge that I did not mention the fact that it also come with it when you employ a man. It is not victorian, it is a fact, protected by law.

You are both making a very big issue out of a very tiny thing. To me it is more natural to see childcare as a female thing - because I am a SP who does not have the option of a man to take a turn at days off, it is not how I view it for other people but it is how I view it for me - hence the slip of the tounge really. Alltogether though it is not that big a deal and this obsession with making any slip of the tounge into a sexist issue actually does us all a dis-service.

As does telling people to fuck off but hey ho.

Agree with Squiffy. it seems many on mn are keen for the full force of employment law to be enforced unless they are actually the employers

I'm not surprised this nanny lied, it seems if you had known at her interview her application would have gone straight in the bin (illegal). As someone else pointed out, pg or not your nanny might have to ring in sick anyway or have other emergencies (flooded house, cat run over, etc) to deal with! Therefore, we all have to think about back up for our child care. Unfortunately this might involve you missing a board meeting or something but that's life.

Can't do it... will be having siezures with the stress of it all'

Also object to this line. Unless you do actually have stress related seizures??

Ok, now I did not tell you to fuck off. You'll have to take that one up with potty mouthed Squiffy.

But, I have not made a "mistake" into a sexist remark. You are covering up a sexist remark by labelling it a mistake, hence trivialising the sexism of the remark. I take issue with this because I think being silent about sexism sends the message that it is okay. And it is not.

Also, I let it go until you came on and tried to brush it off as a mistake for a second time.

I think people are being a bit harsh on the OP. Regardless of the employment law situation I don't blame her for being cross about it - its massively inconvenient. I suspect that the things people are taking offence at are more her letting off steam than her wanting to actually do the nanny out of her rights.

[lightbulb moment]

Do you and squiffy think I was posting in support of the OP Athene????

I have just re-read my first post and it could be read that way. Can I just try again to get my point across?

What I was trying to get across was this.... if you are employing a person (in this case a woman) they may get sick and have days off. When you employ someone you have to have in place contigencies to cover this, like it or not.

Therefore (because the op has particularly important reasons for not wanting last minute let downs) the op must already have emergency support in place - because she cannot expect her nanny never to get sick.

In view of this the nanny having a child should not really make any difference, if there is emergency cover available it doesn't matter who is ill, it is still there.

If the op has not got emergency cover, well, more fool her, it is her responsibility to make sure all situations are covered - including the situation where the nanny has a baby - it is just a fact, children or the potential for children come with employing people. It is something you have to allow for and is very wrong to try to get rid of the nanny because she is pg.

_

I strongly suspect that is not what you thought I had meant. I am really finding, recently that posts meant one way can be read totally another and it is difficult to see sometimes when you post.

I was brushing your concerns off because I thought it was blommin obvious I was supporting the nanny against her bad treatment (or potential treatment) by the op and therefore you were splitting hairs...but I can now see it may not have looked like that at all and therefore appeared far more serious.

Crikey... never thought this would get up people's noses like it has!! Squiffy, I think you should read my OP again and see that I rate this nanny very highly and stop eating sandpaper for breakfast. I have treated her abosolutely properly in every single way. My employment and treatment of her has been beyond reproach. She would verify this and has said to me how much she loves her job when all her nanny friends complain about theirs. For the record, I can read, write and add up and am familiar with employment law. I am well aware that I have to keep her job open for her for a year which I will do. She has not fulfilled her LEGAL REQUIREMENT however to inform me of her pregnancy by 25 weeks even though she had known by 3 weeks at that point. I also refer to finding a replacement WHICH WOULD BE FOR THE DURATION OF HER MATERNITY LEAVE. I also intend to conduct a risk assessment which is my legal responsibility.

BTW, I have been on the receiving end of unfair treatment after I became pregnant with DS so do not need any lectures on that front either thank you.

I think that having a month old baby in tow as a new mother looking after 2 other children is problematic. Legally I am not obliged to allow her to do this. It is totally at my discretion as an employer. This is legal fact not speculation.

Re DH. Yes, I do take over the management of the Nanny on a day to day basis but he is their father and his views matter. DS's development has been a source of on-going worry as he was born at 32 weeks with a severe acute hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy. That's being born dead, needing 8 minutes resuscitation after a crash C-section and spending a week critically ill and fighting for his life in neonatal intensive care. Funnily enough, I worry about him and do not want his care and development compromised because the nanny has her newborn in tow.

Good enough for you Squiffy or are you about to tell us all you're an expert on that too?

Ooh, Xposts. I know you didn't say that Athene, it is just a sore subject as I got deleted the other day for saying far less than what squiffy said to me to someone else... of course they complained to HQ about it and I haven't (and wouldn't) so I suppose I should just put up and shut up really!

Addendum: solongpumpkin - the seizures comment was figure of speech. Apologies if anyone offended.

Really, can certain individuals just lighten up a bit here? I have not incriminated myself, am not about to get sued and was just asking for thoughts from people rather than ways to hound nanny out of her job.

oh gosh. So sorry about your son. That must be horrible for you.

I am so sorry, I think I jumped the gun on advising you not to look for someone yet. I thought you meant to replace her, and not just for mat leave. But, I realise now I got the wrong end of the stick.

Obviously, if you have decided for sure that you don't want her back, that will probably sort this out because she probably won't come back.

I meant of course:
Obviously, if you have decided for sure that you don't want her back with a baby, that will probably sort this out because she probably won't come back.

Oh. and your DH's concerns are a tad more credible than "annoying accent".

you know what, I'm all for employees having rights, equal opportunities and all that but I think that there are times when employee rights go too far and this is IMO one of them.

We're not talking about a nanny who has worked for the op for a time and has then become pregnant, in that case of course she should have rights. But we're talking about a nanny who went to a job interview while already 20 weeks pregnant (didn't know till 22 weeks? yeah right. ), and then withheld that information for either six or eight weeks, depending on whether she did or didn't know, and she's the one with the rights?

I think any employer has every right to be pissed off at that. I would be.

It's one thing to employ people knowing that they may at some point have children, that's life, lots of women have children. But I don't think it's unreasonable to not want to employ someone who is already pregnant and who is going to leave in a matter of weeks/months.

especially when you are employing that person to develop a relationship with and care for your children, one of whom is vulnerable.

Hantspants - when i went back to work i made an agreement with my employers about my new hours which they have the right to review every 6 months. If you really like this nanny could it be worth discussing with her returning under the original conditions (ie sole charge of your children) but for you to review this in say 6-12 months. It may be easier when your ds is a bit older and she isn't getting to grips with her own newborn. You are under no obligation to change the arrangement but you are saying you would consider a change in the future when your own (and her) children and a bit older. She may then decide to take longer mat leave or get childcare for her baby.

Your own children might even enjoy have a baby around and you would get a reduction in fees.

When you start to consider the recruitment process and finding an equally suitable nanny 6-12 months of having a temp nanny might be worth it.

Athene, thanks for thoughts and sentiments. The day of DS's birth was worst day of my life. DH telling me that paeds had taken 8 minutes to resuscitate him is etched on memory forever. However, he has made incredible recovery and you would not suspect anything was wrong. I know how incredibly lucky we are.

WannaBe thanks for support. Much appreciated. Watch out for Squiffy's next incandescent post.

BTW, Nanny just told me she wants afternoon off next Wed for antenatal... get that... 5 whole days notice! Before anybody loses it again, I have given her time off, I have found cover and she is being paid.

hantspants - so sorry to hear about the early birth of your ds - must have been very streesful/ dreadful first few weeks (esp as 1st child)

She has not fulfilled her LEGAL REQUIREMENT however to inform me of her pregnancy by 25 weeks even though she had known by 3 weeks at that point

excalty what i said - she didnt inform you in the 15weeks before birth - as much as your nanny must have been in shock - she still said nothing for a few weeks

I do not beleive she did not know she was pregant. Tat lone would make me unhappy with the nanny as she has been deceitful and put you in a compromising position. I would take legal advice but I believe you can terminate employment under 1 year for no reason whatsoever. You do not have to make her redundant and she has no claim to unfair dismissal. I personally would not want to keep a nanny who hid her imminent pregnancy and before you all flame me lets consider the children here. Just get used to nanny 1 she then goes on maternity, get used to nanny 2 she then leaves for nanny 1 to return.

whoops sorry for the dreadful spelling. Pressed post instead of preview.