Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.

Nanny days

22nd Jan 2010
Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.

 January 22 – And now for something completely different – a domestic spat.

No, I assure you, my wife and I have not fallen out. All remains blissful on that front, but like many working families we engage some help to manage childcare (and cleaning responsibilities) so along with my other duties there is a domestic payroll to manage. And that means staff too.

And so to the nanny. Or should I say, ex nanny? She’s been with us for some time. She didn’t fit the usual stereotype for such a role. Middle aged, a mum of children who’d left home, she knew when and when not to leave alone. It’s a key quality.

Until that was the snow came, when she was one of those who claimed it was impossible to get to work. It compounded a feeling we’d had for some time, that we were being treated as her job creation scheme and that it was our job to cover her unavailability when I always thought we’d engaged her for the exact opposite purpose.

So, when on the Saturday two weeks ago when the thaw was starting and she told me – despite all roads around us being clear and she living less than five miles away, that she was snowed in I was a bit incredulous. Apparently it showed. But I checked my facts. I drove to her house – where indeed there was still a little snow coverage on the road, which I negotiated with ease, albeit at low speed.  

I advised her of this and that if matters remained as they were we’d expect her at work. She was livid – a trait not seen before. Apparently I did not trust her. On the Monday she quit in a fit of anger but clearly intended to serve her notice, which was a relief.

Not being a relationship that hangs around when dealing with such things we advertised for a new nanny – received (perhaps unsurprisingly in the current climate) quite a number of telephone applications – from which all below 25 were weeded out, and this week we managed to fit in two interviews. If the person we’ve chosen and who met the children) is half as  good as she appeared to be at interview we have a star on our hands. That of course is to be proven.

But the youngest offspring did, of course, tell the existing nanny that she’d met “the nice new lady who’s going to look after us when you can’t”. So last night on getting home I met a livid nanny. I think the reality of leaving had hit home. She had, I gathered later already said her goodbyes and told me she’d discussed leaving with the children to make clear it was not their fault, it was mine.

Not a subtle approach, especially when coupled with an immediate request that she might continue to meet them. I’d have agreed though except it was clear that she was intent on telling me, and my wife when she arrived home, just what all her perceptions of our faults were.

I tried to suggest she was being unwise in light of her request to continue seeing the children. This, apparently, was indication of my willingness to use them as a weapon. I’m aware I have been used as a target by them many times – usually when laying something violent, but I was unaware I used them as a weapon and as a result it was game, set and match -  employment over time. Her notice period was rapidly curtailed at our choice.

Shame really.

And a good job the new nanny has agreed to start work on Monday.

Maybe things will work out for the best. I hope so. 

Tags:

You might also be interested in

Replies (7)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By aburt01
25th Jan 2010 11:51

Anger management
Seems nanny lacks control of anger? True colours often show through when things get close and personal.

Conclusion: if unable to control anger, evidently not someone to bring-up the children in the long run. Nanny, you are the weakest link. Good bye.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By stevie
25th Jan 2010 18:30

All under 25 weeded out?

Is that legal these days?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
26th Jan 2010 01:19

Silly Billy

So Nanny was a bit of a silly billy and mistook you for a troll.

Do you worry you might the [***] of jokes now we know that nanny got your goat?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By anzanijohn
27th Jan 2010 12:26

Age Discrimination
It is a clear breach of the Age Regulations to refuse an interview to someone solely on the grounds of their age. There is an exception on the grounds of a "Genuine occupational requirement". I feel that the chances of CEO justifying his actions on this basis are slim tending towards zero.

It is also not at all sensible to tell the world that you have breached the regulations.

I do hope that he does not act/sanction actions on the same basis in either of his paid jobs as he has just done as an individual employer.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By masont
27th Jan 2010 12:41

age regulation
Although not a legal expert in this matter, if the advert stated that the requirements were for a degree in childcare and a minumum 5 years experience - you do'nt have to mention an age specification, but the requirements by definition stipulate an age condition.....

bit like the adverts that state, must have a degree in Accounting, first time professional passes and an ideal first move from audit - it does'nt mention age anywhere - but the specification indicates somewhere between 25-30, or am I really too cynical?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By anzanijohn
28th Jan 2010 14:03

From direct to indirect
With reference to masont's comment.

The only change is that the advertisements suggested could be held to be indirectly discriminatory rather than directly.

Unless the employer could justify why 5 years experience or any other criterion was needed then it could be held that it was put in solely to exclude young candidates and hence be indirectly discriminatory.

Presumably when the CEO's children [or other poster's children] are under 25 he/they will be happy for them to be excluded from jobs simply on the basis of age?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By eyreliz
01st Feb 2010 11:32

It wasn't just me then!

Reading this it seemed spookily familiar.  We also had a nanny until 3 weeks ago (she is 21, so hopefully I don't fall foul of the age regulations).  She had been with us since September, and had been wonderful.  Then, after the Christmas break we had the snow.  Suddenly not turning up to pick up the kids from school due to snow, then she had a day in A&E after a snowball fight with the kids (who are 7 and 9) suspected fractured skull, but thankfully not. 

The next thing we knew she resigned, then the next day retracted her resignation, and then resigned again with 2 weeks notice.  The reason she told us was that she had become too attached to the kids, and therefore was blurring the lines between parenting and childcare.  The reason she told the kids was that there was another family who needed her more than us (more money, better hours perhaps?!).

Like your blogger we went into immediate military action - identifying after-school clubs, willing parents to share childcare, changing my meetings around to match the kids.  Once she found out we had sorted ourselves out she got her dad to write to us, saying that she couldn't come back at all due to her "fragile state" which in a way brought closure on a rather strange time.

Funnily the kids don't miss her at all, and I'm finding ways to work around the school hours.  I keep spotting the wayward nanny (the joys of a small town) with other children in the car - looking rather sheepish and trying not to catch my eye!

I also know that these things always work out for the best, but don't want to repeat it again.

Thanks (0)