I decided to give up offering to work as a Nanny.
Much as when I, more often than before, have considered leaving the US it is not because I do not care but because I do care; about children specifically and Americans generally. I care too much to allow myself to add to and perpetuate what I believe is ripping apart the lives of individuals and society as a whole.
The caring for children has become a race to the bottom, and I see races to the bottom in more and more sectors of the economy. Although I feel confident that I could personally be able to stay ahead, I cannot morally sustain that coming at a cost of participation in what I see as destructive.
Down the drain
While race might be a good metaphor for markets for labor and services such as childcare or transportation, it carries a bias towards seeing individuals as having chosen; implicit in running in a race is the choice between that and not running. But when a force on a system wide scale is sucking down, in, and casting out, ever more people; dictating more and more of their choices in more and more areas of their lives; when individuals cannot opt out, and when those with the least or no ability to make a choice are the most likely not to succeed in adapting (and I do not mean succeed as in staying ahead or in the race, but succeed in staying sane and afloat); then it is not a race. Rather it is the centrifugal force of something else
An image comes to mind:
Much as when I, more often than before, have considered leaving the US it is not because I do not care but because I do care; about children specifically and Americans generally. I care too much to allow myself to add to and perpetuate what I believe is ripping apart the lives of individuals and society as a whole.
The caring for children has become a race to the bottom, and I see races to the bottom in more and more sectors of the economy. Although I feel confident that I could personally be able to stay ahead, I cannot morally sustain that coming at a cost of participation in what I see as destructive.
Down the drain
While race might be a good metaphor for markets for labor and services such as childcare or transportation, it carries a bias towards seeing individuals as having chosen; implicit in running in a race is the choice between that and not running. But when a force on a system wide scale is sucking down, in, and casting out, ever more people; dictating more and more of their choices in more and more areas of their lives; when individuals cannot opt out, and when those with the least or no ability to make a choice are the most likely not to succeed in adapting (and I do not mean succeed as in staying ahead or in the race, but succeed in staying sane and afloat); then it is not a race. Rather it is the centrifugal force of something else
An image comes to mind:
Let me give you a brief example, all too representative, of why I will not actively seek a job as a Nanny anymore.
For four days I provided for free the services I would be doing as Nanny for a family. It has been something I offer, as a way to let children and parents get a chance to assess my fit in practice and reality. It meant driving many miles to pick up and drive home a toddler and a 5 year old girl, and then plan and make meals, arranging play activities, and ensure that things were done that needed to in an environment safe and stimulating.
Every step of this I personalized in some way for each child given their specific developmental stage and distinct personalities. I took care to take note of what soothed each one if sleep was hard; what book to read and what form of reading was most appreciated, and where I had finished reading the previous time; the things most central to, and generally things learned about, the specific child when interacting with him or her.
As I always do when I start working with a new family, I reconfigured the apps I had on the extra tablet I bring with me specifically to facilitate communication and generally bridge difficult patches with a child.
I also, as always, invested myself and some money in getting my car tweaked to be a good place for these children to transition from the activities at their day center, to the next phase of the day; setting the stage for the step wise decrease of stimulation and gradual descent into rest and sleep, that I would attempt to create by subtle cues and strategic alterations of what activities I would facilitate and how I would interact over the course of the evening.
I would be relieved to leave when a parent arrived, which was always long after bedtime. As my duties included doing the dishes, laundry, and folding away the ready laundry, I had at most 20 min of time not actively engaged in a task I was to perform as Nanny.
After these days I was told, and it was expressed by children and adults alike, that I was a perfect match. The parents had found, through conversations we had had prior to these try out days, that my views and values as far as children, childhood, parenting, and my own role; were aligned with, and would work synergistically to theirs. I created and printed out all the paperwork; and was relieved to have found a family seeing the use of written agreements the same way I do; as protecting both parties, but most of all the children.
I was ready and invited to take the role of long term Nanny for and in this family; providing the two children personalized attention to meet both physical, social, and developmental needs of each child over the many changes that would come as they would grow.
Then I asked for minimum take home pay; specifically to be compensated for drives between their house and the children's day center, as otherwise I would have a take home pay far beneath minimum.
That broke the deal.
I was told I couldn't expect that, because I would be an independent contractor hired to perform services, and not someone employed to serve a specific function and role. Basically, they considered me someone hired to DO nannying on their children; I considered myself taking on a role of BEING a Nanny FOR their children. Therefore obligations and rights on employees did not apply. I could up and leave, and be fired, for any and no reason without any notice or option of redress.
I objected to the risk I saw this exposing the children to; the continuity and quality of care and companionship, the ties and personal knowledge established by repeated interaction, could be ripped at any time. I knew I could not afford to work for less than minimum pay. I also warned them that hiring cheap might cost them later on; especially if the compensation asked for by an applicant is reflecting investments he or she has made to be professional and competent for the role.
I had no interest in saving my job; at that time I had already declined. I was providing information I hoped might lead the parents to reconsider later on, when hiring someone else.
I can understand if that is too abstract and distant to be a very compelling argument.
What is direct and very personal is being sued; for misclassifying an employee as contractor, and failing to provide legally mandated minimum pay and compensations.
Applicants for babysitter or nanny can exploit the opportunity to begin working for a family knowing they can turn around and sue them.
Is gut feeling reliable enough?
What is the hidden number of parents have who have had their property stolen or whose children were abused or neglected , but who didn't take legal action because hey were in violation of laws in hiring the perpetrator?
Because I have also found it a struggle to get parents willing to have written agreements; between just me and them, and to enable accountability and redress equally for them and me.
If the reason was a concern that signing an agreement would make them vulnerable, it is actually the opposite. In fact it might be the one proof they will end up having should they trust the wrong person.
Anyhow.
Later I asked the parents of they would write a review of me to include in my future applications.
They declined, having initially said they were very happy to be my references. The reason was, they said, "it had only been four days". That was incorrect, although perhaps not significantly, because after I had declined to be hired as a contractor providing services I still jumped in on short notice for two weekend evenings-to-night to let the parents have date nights.
However, even if that had not been the point would be the same; that the same amount of time with me that had been enough for them to chose to place their children and their property in my care unsupervised, and offer me to do so consistently and indefinitely, was not enough to allow them to describe or attest to the very abilities and qualities that made them confident enough to do that.
The greater threat and true tragedy
So, I have decided not to offer to be a Nanny anymore; it doesn't work given the investments I have made and would make to maintain professional standards.
Let me be clear; this might appear like a personal grievance, but my decision is not based on being jaded or angered by personal experiences like these. The true tragedy is that I see parents as squeezed to cut costs by cutting standards as those applying to provide care to their children, and that creates the downward spiral.
The same economic laws force the choices of both payer and payee; employer and employee.
For me it is financially unsustainable for me to uphold these standards, but it is morally unsustainable to participate in driving down pay and quality in the race to the bottom of in home child care provision.
It is inevitable as I see it that those with the greatest desire to do a good job; those most ready to facilitate accountability to professional standards of quality; those willing and wanting to provide companionship and care with the personalized touch requiring commitment to long-term relationships; those will be driven out of the marketplace by choice or by pure economic necessity.
Races to the bottom are affecting other markets than in home child care provision, but this one is taking the greatest risks and doing the greatest damage to those who have not opted to be a party in the deals made, and who are the most important to protect from harm.
For four days I provided for free the services I would be doing as Nanny for a family. It has been something I offer, as a way to let children and parents get a chance to assess my fit in practice and reality. It meant driving many miles to pick up and drive home a toddler and a 5 year old girl, and then plan and make meals, arranging play activities, and ensure that things were done that needed to in an environment safe and stimulating.
Every step of this I personalized in some way for each child given their specific developmental stage and distinct personalities. I took care to take note of what soothed each one if sleep was hard; what book to read and what form of reading was most appreciated, and where I had finished reading the previous time; the things most central to, and generally things learned about, the specific child when interacting with him or her.
As I always do when I start working with a new family, I reconfigured the apps I had on the extra tablet I bring with me specifically to facilitate communication and generally bridge difficult patches with a child.
I also, as always, invested myself and some money in getting my car tweaked to be a good place for these children to transition from the activities at their day center, to the next phase of the day; setting the stage for the step wise decrease of stimulation and gradual descent into rest and sleep, that I would attempt to create by subtle cues and strategic alterations of what activities I would facilitate and how I would interact over the course of the evening.
I would be relieved to leave when a parent arrived, which was always long after bedtime. As my duties included doing the dishes, laundry, and folding away the ready laundry, I had at most 20 min of time not actively engaged in a task I was to perform as Nanny.
After these days I was told, and it was expressed by children and adults alike, that I was a perfect match. The parents had found, through conversations we had had prior to these try out days, that my views and values as far as children, childhood, parenting, and my own role; were aligned with, and would work synergistically to theirs. I created and printed out all the paperwork; and was relieved to have found a family seeing the use of written agreements the same way I do; as protecting both parties, but most of all the children.
I was ready and invited to take the role of long term Nanny for and in this family; providing the two children personalized attention to meet both physical, social, and developmental needs of each child over the many changes that would come as they would grow.
Then I asked for minimum take home pay; specifically to be compensated for drives between their house and the children's day center, as otherwise I would have a take home pay far beneath minimum.
That broke the deal.
I was told I couldn't expect that, because I would be an independent contractor hired to perform services, and not someone employed to serve a specific function and role. Basically, they considered me someone hired to DO nannying on their children; I considered myself taking on a role of BEING a Nanny FOR their children. Therefore obligations and rights on employees did not apply. I could up and leave, and be fired, for any and no reason without any notice or option of redress.
I objected to the risk I saw this exposing the children to; the continuity and quality of care and companionship, the ties and personal knowledge established by repeated interaction, could be ripped at any time. I knew I could not afford to work for less than minimum pay. I also warned them that hiring cheap might cost them later on; especially if the compensation asked for by an applicant is reflecting investments he or she has made to be professional and competent for the role.
I had no interest in saving my job; at that time I had already declined. I was providing information I hoped might lead the parents to reconsider later on, when hiring someone else.
I can understand if that is too abstract and distant to be a very compelling argument.
What is direct and very personal is being sued; for misclassifying an employee as contractor, and failing to provide legally mandated minimum pay and compensations.
Applicants for babysitter or nanny can exploit the opportunity to begin working for a family knowing they can turn around and sue them.
Is gut feeling reliable enough?
What is the hidden number of parents have who have had their property stolen or whose children were abused or neglected , but who didn't take legal action because hey were in violation of laws in hiring the perpetrator?
Because I have also found it a struggle to get parents willing to have written agreements; between just me and them, and to enable accountability and redress equally for them and me.
If the reason was a concern that signing an agreement would make them vulnerable, it is actually the opposite. In fact it might be the one proof they will end up having should they trust the wrong person.
Anyhow.
Later I asked the parents of they would write a review of me to include in my future applications.
They declined, having initially said they were very happy to be my references. The reason was, they said, "it had only been four days". That was incorrect, although perhaps not significantly, because after I had declined to be hired as a contractor providing services I still jumped in on short notice for two weekend evenings-to-night to let the parents have date nights.
However, even if that had not been the point would be the same; that the same amount of time with me that had been enough for them to chose to place their children and their property in my care unsupervised, and offer me to do so consistently and indefinitely, was not enough to allow them to describe or attest to the very abilities and qualities that made them confident enough to do that.
The greater threat and true tragedy
So, I have decided not to offer to be a Nanny anymore; it doesn't work given the investments I have made and would make to maintain professional standards.
Let me be clear; this might appear like a personal grievance, but my decision is not based on being jaded or angered by personal experiences like these. The true tragedy is that I see parents as squeezed to cut costs by cutting standards as those applying to provide care to their children, and that creates the downward spiral.
The same economic laws force the choices of both payer and payee; employer and employee.
For me it is financially unsustainable for me to uphold these standards, but it is morally unsustainable to participate in driving down pay and quality in the race to the bottom of in home child care provision.
It is inevitable as I see it that those with the greatest desire to do a good job; those most ready to facilitate accountability to professional standards of quality; those willing and wanting to provide companionship and care with the personalized touch requiring commitment to long-term relationships; those will be driven out of the marketplace by choice or by pure economic necessity.
Races to the bottom are affecting other markets than in home child care provision, but this one is taking the greatest risks and doing the greatest damage to those who have not opted to be a party in the deals made, and who are the most important to protect from harm.