tired

lildeakin84 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But just > Because we are employed in a > 'care and service' role does not mean we > Should be given any less credit or merit than > those of you working in high powered positions in > offices. We are still 'emplyees' after all, not > 19th century 'staff' so please think about your > remarks before offending an entire Group of > people. It is clear as day that nobody on this thread is saying anything about nannies being in any way less than people in any other job. I actually think it's the other way around - nannies who say that the 'average' wage is ?13ph gross (or ?35k per year on 50 hours) have an inflated view of the value of nannies as a group. I quite agree with the other posters who have said that it is all a question of economics, demand and supply, calibre and negotiating position. That is how any profession or business sector works and that is why I find the whole nanny market so strange. In my profession, and any other sector, you see a job advertised, they tell you the salary they are offering and you either take it or you negotiate more based on your ability to prove you are worth more. So how come nannies go to interviews and tell the employer what they will earn - net of tax?! I have never heard of an industry where the employee dictates the deal or where everything is described as 'standard'. After all, Lildeakin84 said she didn't want nannies to be treated any differently to any other professionals... It's not just Ofsted that nannies expect to be paid on top, it's first aid courses, insurance and other costs. These things are necessary for the employer but they make the nanny employable so why should an employer be obliged to pay for the items which make the nanny attractive to them in the first place (and probably command a higher salary)? Yes, most parents do end up paying it but the point is that it should be up to each parent whether they do this and parents should not be feel pressurised into footing the bill for everything plus a huge nanny salary just because they are told 'that is the norm'. Now, nannies and food is a whole other debate (see Mumsnet for thread after thread about nannies that eat unreasonable levels of food). I know, because i've had one. I'm not saying all nannies are like that, of course not, but new employers need to think about these things as it can end up being another ?100-150 a month on top of all the other costs. I'm not saying refuse to provide any food or to treat someone badly but perhaps a few parameters wouldn't harm. But like I said, it comes down to the individual and whether they are likely to take advantage. Anyway, the point about food was just one example to let new employers know that everything is up for negotiation and not to think that these things are all 'standard'. The comments about parents realising it's a hard job are absolutely laughable. Does whoever said that think that us working mums swan off to work all week and then bake cookies all weekend? Try fitting 5 says of guilt redemption, love and laundry into 2 days and then you will see phenomenal hard work. Granted, being a nanny is not an easy job as jobs go. And yes, there are very tough elements to it (tantrums, nappies and cleaning up food for starters). But there are tough aspects of any job and the good outweighs the bad for a nanny IMO - daily walks out to the park, attending paid for classes and meeting friends most days. All with time to focus on doing just that - no admin, no housework or household management, no worrying what your husband will eat, all while manning a buzzing blackberry and looking after the kids at the same time. So to make out that it is somehow disrespectful to pay a nanny less than ?35k per year (full time) is absurd. According to this link: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/8928786/Can-you-live-on-the-average-salary.html#, that's more than a midwife, a firefighter, a teacher and a police constable. It's more than a nurse, a junior doctor (as someone has already pointed out) and a trainee lawyer. Those are all jobs that are crammed full of responsibility as well, aren't they? Given than nursery carers (which is where most nannies start out) get paid between ?14k and 18K per year (I think, but please correct me if I am wrong), it seems completely out of kilter that nannies expect double this amount once they get a nanny job, which is in many ways more pleasant than working in a nursery. And to all the nannies that are earning ?10ph, I am sure you deserve every penny and are excellent at your jobs. But I am glad that this thread has caused a bit of debate as I am sure it will make very interesting reading for first time hirers.

V good point Katgod - but cleaners only do a few hours a week and they have to make their salaries up by visiting multiple houses over the week, traveling between them etc. Usually, the more work there is in a job, the less the hourly rate is. Now I know I am at risk of causing a riot on here with my next statement but.... arguably cleaning is a harder job because it is extremely labour intensive, involves cleaning yucky bathrooms etc and is no fun at all.

Etta, I completely agree - it all comes down to the quality of the nanny at the end of the day and how easy or hard the job is. For example, when the job includes the usual nanny duties, one child is perhaps in school or nursery and one or both children have daily naps, those are all factors that should influence the salary in a downwards direction. Problem is, it is almost impossible to tell the quality of the nanny before she becomes ingrained in your life. As a novice, I was duped by what I thought were 'excellent' references but which I later came to realise were merely standard references. Winklepea, when you check refs, make sure you speak to the referees on the phone and I would not accept anything other than someone absolutely singing the nanny's praises! Of course, sadly as in all professions, there are a lot of very good references around which have been written by employers who are keen to shuffle their employee off their hands..that's why direct questions to the referee are always good. I wasn't at all saying that nannying is an easy job - far from it (I find it much easier in my day job!) and I completely agree with Mum2be that being tight is not the way forward when recruiting someone to look after the most precious things in your life. But that is the point I was trying to make to Winklepea who started this post - many mums feel so pressurised by the emotional side of recruitment and their own guilt that they lose sight of appropriate value for the candidate and this is often exploited by nannies (I think "ripping off" is a horrible phrase) because quite frankly, why wouldn't a nanny take all she can get? I wouldn't go for a job interview in my own profession and inflate information about my current salary so why should nannies - and they really do - not all of them but you have to be wary and wise as a nanny employer. Like I said, they all tell you their rate is ?10. And back to my original point, Mum2be, there is no way that ?10net is "an average wedge" around Dulwich - that is completely fanciful. I know many people with nannies in this area and I do not know of one that pays so much (I am sure there are some that do pay it but it can't be the average). Even a (very friendly and lovely) local nanny agency has told me that they very rarely place nannies in this area on 10net. and just for the record, I said "over SSP", ie that SSP is payable but a whole day's salary for being off is discretionary. I like this thread - and I hope it comes in useful for mums looking to hire their first nanny.

IMO, the nanny 'rates' are hugely inflated on this forum - have a look on Mumsnet and you will see the the usual cost is ?8-9 nph for an experienced nanny in central London. Nannies with less than 3 years experience are usually more like ?7net. All nannies will tell you that their 'rate' is ?10 net but they are just trying it on. I fell for it the first time as I didn't know any better (agencies will tell you it is ?10 because it is clearly in their interests to do so), I also think nannies on this forum like to bid up the 'going rate' using their posts on the subject. Nannytax survey is skewed due to so many people not declaring their tax properly (ie those who do declare all are the top payers (me included!) and this skews the survey results). Put it this way, I am the only person I know who has fallen for paying ?10nph - a friend of mine in Chelsea pays less! 10net on a 50 hour week is around ?35k - slightly crazy in my view. Don't get me wrong, I am sure lots of people do pay ?10net but the nanny would probably be utterly outstanding and the job would likely be tough/hours long etc. When I interviewed for my second nanny (more wisely!), all the ones who claimed that they were already earning ?10 were funnily enough still interested when I said I was offering less...! So don't be fooled like I was! And don't assume that it's 'standard' to feed the nanny/pay them when off sick (over SSP)/pay for Ofsted fee etc etc. You will read and they will tell you that this is all 'standard' but again, I was the only person I know who fell for all this 'standard' nonsense. Anything is up for negotiation! Sorry for the slight rant, it just annoys me when I see a first hirer being told the usual inflated rates. Good luck!