Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Wondering if any parents or nannies can help with me the following question?

My eldest child is currently in a nanny share with another family a couple of days a week, the other family have 2 children, when the times comes, if my second child joined the share, should the nanny's hourly rate go up and if so, what to? (it's currently ?12 an hour not including tax and NI.)

Or would the nanny's pay remain the same even tho a sibling has joined and we just increase our percentage of the pay to 50% of the monthly total (we currently pay less than the other family as we have just 1 child in the share and the other family have 2) in other words it would benefit the other family but our nanny's pay would not increase? I know it's prob a stupid question but I don't have any idea what the norm is and wanted to sound it our before getting into discussions..

thanks!

Are all the children of similar age? We've had one child in a nanny share with 2 older children and have always split the costs 50/50 as the other boys were of school age so our child had one on one care for a large percentage of the time. Also do you share the hosting, again the other family have always hosted and by default our child ends up eating their a lot of the time which we don't pay any extra for. Not really helping you with answers but just offering food for thought on alternatives!

I believe the differing rates for sole care/nannyshare is to compensate the nanny for the logistical hassle of having to deal with two different families, rather than pure number of kids. For example, I think in most cases nannies charge the same for one or two children from the same family. Therefore, I wouldn't necessarily expect the nanny to increase her rates in this case. However, 4 kids is an awful lot for one nanny so she may well ask for extra in recognition of the increased handful. In any event, the split should probably go to 50-50, irrespective of the nanny's wage.


Your contract, assuming you have one, may also deal with this - worth having a look.

As a nanny I wouldn't expect a pay increase if the mother had another child. What you could do (assuming she's managing 3 children), is find a new family that has a new baby too or a child of similar age to your older child. If you're in a nanny share for the childrens benefit over financial reasons, could you have her on own her being your nanny only??? I agree with RichJ, 4 kids is a lot even for a very experienced capable nanny!

The share is at the other family's house and our nanny works 4 days a week for them, with my child sharing there on 2 days. By the time my second child potentially joined the share, their eldest child would have started school and their youngest might be at pre-school for some mornings, so I think our nanny would only have all 4 children for an hour in the morning and 2 hours in the afternoon, and this would only be on 2 days a week as she just looks after the other family's children the rest of the week. If their youngest does indeed go to preschool in the mornings on the same 2 days my children were there, it could therefore be that our nanny only had my two for that part of the day.

Sbot can I ask is your feeling that you wouldn't expect a pay increase for a sibling being added the same given that our nanny works from the other family's house and so they are, as it were, the primary family? Or does that make no difference to your thinking?

I looked into this for a potential nanny share for two sets of siblings 3 and 1. The feedback I got was that some nannies would consider it but they would be at the most experienced end of things, and would provably have worked with multiples. The difference between families of four and nanny shares are that you may not get the age spread of a family, twins etc aside, and that the children won't be used to the arrangement and be less clear about their role within it than a child with a larger family is.


We have three, and would like four, and I would recruit a nanny to look after them, but all four would not be around all day.

Would the nanny have to do the school and pre-school run with all 4 children on those days? That sounds very challenging! I have to say I would be worried about those ratios with one nanny, more so than the salary/pay issue.


Moneywise, my instinct is that if you had a sole-charge nanny for your family and added a sibling, that would be one thing. But adding a sibling to a complicated share like that would seem a bit more like a childminder situation and I think the nanny would be reasonable to expect more money.

We did a 4 child nanny share and it was fine. No doubt it depends on ages and behaviour of children. With toddlers it may be tricky but children of school age should be able to walk sensibly to school. Generally I have found they behave better for a nanny than a parent. We had 2 in reception, one in nursery mornings only and one in preschool elsewhere. So lots of pick ups and drop offs but a very easy time after school as they played with each other and did not need much input from nanny. I would expect to pay more because you get children need more from a nanny than older children.

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

    • Hi Hillbilly, Your obviously correct that the committee members must consider the scheme in the context of planning laws, Southwark Policy documents. Those policy documents are clear the site should be considered suburban. As a Councillor when this was decided I can assure we considered this site and all others in the then East dulwich Ward and the Dulwich Community Council area. Ignoring that as the officer report does unconvincingly in my view would be a poor decision. The officer report states I believe highly inflated economic benefit of students to help justify the scheme. I have a student currently and they really don't have the sums being talked about and nor do their network for friends.  The council officers report states students will move in at the academic yea start over two weekends/4 days. 360 students will suggest worst case 360 cars. Unlikely to be perfectly balanced hence 50-100 vehicles per day.  The proposed building top 2-3 floors look like metal cladding and not the local vernacular of bricks and tiled roofs. The top two stories and roof enclosures will be invisible for some distance. I don't think it unreasonable to call that out of character for the area. I think it would be hard to argue it would be in keeping.  Yes, we have a housing crisis. But we have falling student numbers. The site could be used for more regular homes that the proposed 53. Southwark has the highest number of unoccupied homes for a borough. Southwark Council fixing that and they have plenty of powers to really dent those figures.  The development will have a huge negative impact on the neighbouring streets in dominance of the proposed structures parking pressures, etc. Your username suggests you wont be one of those affected. Nor will I directly. But I hate to see injustice from a poorly thought through scheme. If you feel strongly you could attend the Planning Committee Tonight as supporter.   Hi malibu, Far from. The homes completed on Bassano and Hindmans were sites I proposed to the council for them consider for new council homes. I have campaigned for the council to approve schemes with 35% social housing for many years. I dare not comment on people football team :-0 Hi the-permit, Southwark has zoning for density to protect the character of areas and to protect peoples confidence to move into, purchase and live and put down roots in areas. East Dulwich is under Southwark planning rules suburban. In the north of the borough the density rules are much higher. Yes they could. developers quite often get approval for a size of scheme. Sit on it and then come back for the same site but more. It might be a new feasibility study to say they can no longer afford that much social housing, etc. Classic developer gaming of the system. We don't yet know the pricing of the student accommodation but the Champion Hill student accommodation when open was priced around the £200 pw mark. Some is proposed to be discounted, but likely that will inflate the mainstream pricing. You have to be a rich student for such prices. It resulted in mostly foreign students affording that.  Any developer is likely to set their pricing close to this. For transparency I live on Champion Hill.
    • So you are against affordable rents and ownership for those on low incomes, key workers etc.  Who is going to clean our buildings, serve in our shops, and look after us when we are old or ill? Some state intervention, particularly social housing, extremely welcome.  Sorry if I have misquoted you. Meanwhile with the quality of football I'm surprised that DHFC aren't considering relocating to Peckham Town FC.  
    • https://ukfoundations.co/ They highlight the most important economic fact about modern Britain: that it is difficult to build almost anything, anywhere. This prevents investment, increases energy costs, and makes it harder for productive economic clusters to expand. This, in turn, lowers our productivity, incomes, and tax revenues. In many cases today, as many of 40 percent of a new development’s homes must be subsidised for ‘affordable’ renters instead of being made available at market rates. These requirements function as a tax on new housing (and so local objectors often support them), redistributing income from every other private tenant to a lucky few. Countries with expensive rental housing also see movements for rent controls, and punitive rental regulations, like giving every tenant the permanent right to live in the property they occupy.
    • We also havent been getting any letters, this happens so often and its so frustrating 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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