Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I'd just like to say that the above description of a 'play date' is not something I've ever encountered as a nanny. Perhaps 'common practise' is a little unfair.


The odd personal business such as a post office run can easily be educational for young children to participate in- waiting and queuing, being quiet, handling money, following instructions etc, I would make a feature of it, not shun my work to do it.


Nannying can be lonely work- we have no colleagues, so going out and meeting other people who care for children is imperative for your sanity! Someone who you get on with and trust, and whose children get on with yours make the nannying day far more practical. It helps so much to have an extra pair of hands and eyes on trips out especially. Play dates are wonderful for developing peer to peer social skills and relationships, sharing toys which belong to someone, not neutral toys like in a playgroup, perhaps encountering others pets or house rules but of course, like anything it should be done properly.


Sarah

This thread would really put some parents off considering a nanny as a childcare option and I wanted to add my thoughts to the discussion from a mother's perspectives.


Is it expensive to have a nanny? Yes it is. Is it nannies' fault that it's expensive to have a nanny? Absolutely not. As someone has pointed out above, it is the market that dictates it. Of course in reality, there is a time lag between rates becoming inflated and parents realising it's just too expensive, so in the meantime, some parents might end up paying above market rate and some might not. But, that's just the way it is.


What's pushing the rates up, IMO, is a combination of lots of things. This includes the lack of other quality childcare options available (you only have to look at the waiting lists for good nurseries in ED), families in London living away from parents and family, meaning that the value of a nanny is even dearer in case of emergency childcare needs, long commuting hours in London making nursery/ childminder hours difficult logistically, to name but a few. The fact that nannies' gross pay is paid out of parent's net pay adds another layer to the discussion, as often pointed out on this forum. But, again, this isn't nannies' fault in any way.


In addition, I don't think it's fair to say that nannies shouldn't expect a big rise in salary coming from nursery backgrounds. That's not for us to decide. If I was a nanny looking to leave a nursery for a nanny job for whatever reason, I would want a higher salary to compensate for:


- less job security as a nanny (mother getting pregnant, children going to school)

- lack of other adult support

- less prospect of continous promotion

- no pension (not applicable to all but some large nurseries would be required to provide a pension now)


We, as parents, cannot put a value on this and only a suitably qualified job seeker can. Similarly, I don't think it's fair for some nannies to use the "looking after the most valuable children in your life" argument. Just because families can't afford to pay ?10/h, it doesn't meant that they love their children any less. We are all trying to do our best for our kids but sometimes reality means compromise.


With regards to other benefits such as food, I would say that you should be up front with each other about expectations from the beginning and then there is less risk of either party becoming upset further down the line.


The economy is hard and childcare is quite possibly the biggest cause of stress and financial burden for mothers returning to work. Inevitably, it is easy for us mums to get emotional about it, as I have. However, if I was a nanny and reading this thread, I would have been quite upset at some of the points made.


For mums looking into childcare - there are some wonderful nannies out there who can make an amazing contribution to your family life. We have never looked back. Don't be put off by negative comments made here and do take your time to meet lots of nannies to interview.

I completely agree with you amydown. There is not much job security in nannying, two of my employers moved abroad and all of a sudden I was without a job. Luckily I managed to find another one quickly but as a nanny you always have to be prepared for these things to happen.


Also, regarding play dates. I have never heard of nannies leaving any children on their own so please don't generalise and assume that this is what nannies 'do'.

I also agree that play dates is a very positive thing for children. I looked after a girl who wouldn't eat at all when I started, only nibble on things infront of the television. I introduced lunches and dinners with her friends during play dates so that she could learn that eating food could be a fun and a positive experience. And it worked!

Yeah I have been a nanny for 6 years in various parts of London and I have never experience that kind of play date. Common practice?? I think not. Not for a professional nanny anyway. I also think the wages are fair, for an EXPERIENCED nanny, I started nannying on a very low wage and have worked my way up through the years, even though I struggled with the cost of living at times. It is a good wage now though (thank heavens). But honestly if you don't think your nanny is worth the wage, you probably have the wrong nanny. I have always worked really hard and strived to give my best, for the children to experience as much as they can. I educate them, promote a healthy life style, and provide love and care. Parents are reassured that I'm calm and confident under stress and the children's illnesses. And , yes I do play dates but they are normally meeting another nanny and child in the park or on a cold day I may invite nannies and mothers over for a coffee morning (for the grown ups) and play for the kids.

I have worked for two nurseries in the past and the experience is completely different. I'm not even going to make comparisons. But I will say there are many positives to having a nanny and I hope this forum doesn't put off potential employers... (Especially as I'm currently looking for a new role)

  • 3 weeks later...

I am thinking about a nanny or nanny share having just been informed how much nursery fees for two kids (age 1 and 3) will cost. But I have always thought more about using a childminder rather than a nanny, mainly becaue I'm concerned how it works administratively employing a nanny: setting it up, paying taxes, NI, sick pay, potentially her maternity pay, and generally being the employer etc. It seems like it would be very onerous. Whereas presumably you pay a childminder just as you would a nursery, with a monthly payment, no further hassle. Is it a big hassle to employ a nanny? Are there guides (online or on paper) to show you how to do it?

Also, are the main differences between a nanny and a childminder: the number of children in the minder's care, and the place of work (ie childminder's home rather than your home)? There seems to be such a big difference in price!

Sorry if these are stupid questions!

There is no legal limit on how many children a nanny can watch but typically even with a nanny share you would expect there to be fewer children than a childminder. Yes, the other main differences are a child minder works out of their home and is self-employed (so yes, paid like nursery). My friends have a child minder they love (not in ED) and I think its a great solution if you find someone you click with. If you use a nanny payroll company that helps reduce the admin of employing a nanny but but costs a couple hundred quid. The main things you gain (in my opinion) when working with a nanny are more flexibility (particularly when care is out of your home vs. a nanny share in the other family's home), you can tailor things a bit more, and more individual attention, particularly when its not a nanny-share. Remember though that child minders (like nurseries) charge by the child so a nanny-share is only a bit more expensive than two with a good child minder unless you find one that will charge for only a portion of the day while your toddler is using the free nursery hours.



Good luck!

Thank you LondonMix that's helpful. I am still debating this, as other than the admin point of view, I'm concerned about my children socialising with other kids - my 3YO has made such great friends at nursery and loves the social side of things. However as you say the relative flexibility of a nanny (and, in some cases, a childminder) particularly with regard to hours/pick up is attractive.

I wouldn't worry too much about the "social" element of childcare too much in the early years. Our nanny is great at organising regular play dates so our 3-year old has a group of friends that he has seen a lot over the years. Also, if you can do a nanny share, it's a great way of kids learning to share from an early age. Besides, I don't think kids start playing with each other until they are 2-3.


Our main reasons for choosing our nanny option over a childminder were:


- more flexibility

- can be more involved in how the kids' days are structured, what food they eat, etc.

- I didn't want the kids to be driven around unnecessarily for school runs (not always the case and delends on childminder's charges)


Finally, I wanted as much individual attention as possible in the early days and felt that the right nanny would be best placed to provide this in my absence.


The admin side of things isn't too bad. We use Nanny PAYE for payroll (I think c?140 per year) and the company is great at offering advice.


Feel free to PM me if you have any questions.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Because they have been awful - scoring own-goal after own-goal. You cannot be an apologist for their diabolical first 100 days on the basis that the previous lot were worse - in the same way the whole of the 14 years of Tory rule was tarred with the brush of despair about their very worst behaviour in the latter years Labour run the risk of their government being tarred with the same brush on the basis of their first 100 days. It has probably been some of the worst 100 days of any new government and Starmer's approval ratings aren't as low as they are without reason. You know they are in trouble when MPs start posting the good bits from their first 100 days - it's a sure sign they know they have a problem. And when this government have a problem the frontbenchers disappear from media interviews and they roll-out the likes of Pat McFadden to provide some air cover. Yesterday it was farmers. Today it is the pensioners being pushed into poverty by Winter Fuel payments. It's a perceptual disaster and has been since day 1 - they have to get a grip on it else this leadership team is doomed. You highlight the very problem here. Farmers are not being gifted money. They are being gifted assets. Assets that they don't realise as they continue to work those assets to provide food for the country. Most inheritance is cash or an asset (a house) that people sell to generate cash. Passing a farm to younger family members is very different. On the news they interviewed a farmer whose family had owned the farm since 1822 and he broke down in tears when he spoke about his 13 year old son who was working in the farm to continue it - no doubt in the realisation that his son would be hit by a tax bill when he took it over. Given farmers are not cash rich then the decision would likely be that they would need to sell some of the land that generations had worked hard to build to fund the tax bill - and so many farms are on a knife's edge that it might be enough to send them over the edge.   There are many valid reasons why the government are doing what they are doing but those reasons are not cutting through and they are losing control of the narrative. That is a massive issue for them.  
    • Another great job by Simmonds Plastering. This time he decorated the newly plastered living room and added a pantry cupboard in kitchen.  He is reliable and works really hard.  Highly recommend 07949 180 533
    • Because land has been exempt from inheritance tax wealthy individuals (like Clarkson and Dyson) have used it as a tax avoidance measure. Clarkson is on the record stating that he bought land for precisely this purpose. It is people like him who farmers should be angry with, if anyone, because they have exploited a loophole, which is now being (partially) closed. Yes, I do grasp the concept of inheritance - it's were one is given money, or valuable assets by chance of birth (having done nothing to earn it). As money you have earned, is taxed, it seems odd that money you have not, shouldn't be. I assume you don't disapprove of income tax? Why do you think people coming into a massive, unearned windfall shouldn't pay tax, but a nurse who works hard for everything they earn, should? Everyone has to pay inheritance tax over a certain threshold. In my opinion, if you are fortunate enough to be gifted any amount of money (whether cash, or a valuable asset), to quibble about paying some tax on some of it, seems rather entitled. Most farms worth under £3m will still end up being passed on tax free. Those that do have to a pay inheritance tax will do so at just 20% on that part of it that is over the threshold (rather than the standard 40%), and they'll have 10 years to do so (usually it is payable immediately). So it is still preferential terms for those being gifted a multimillion pound estate. 
    • Ah yes, good spot! Thanks for the link. It sounds like they are planning a licensed restaurant with a small bar from reading through the application. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...