I really don't hate her. I think we spend way too much time as women, judging other women who haven't made the same choices that we have. All she's saying here is that as a working mother who relies heavily on a nanny, she is finding it very difficult to contemplate the upheaval and change that will go along with accommodating her nanny's pregnancy. Why is that so evil? She's not saying that she won't accommodate it - she's just saying that its expensive and a big hassle. Which it is.I don't think she's expressed herself particularly well but I think she has several points here. I'm a working mother. I choose to be so. We could probably live without my salary - just about - but my salary makes life a lot better for our whole family. We have a nanny whom we have employed for nearly five years now. We all love her and she is absolutely the bedrock of our domestic arrangements.I do not believe that this makes me a crap mother who never should have had kids in the first place. I don't believe that it's actually anyone's business but my own, my kids and my husband's (ie the people it actually affects) and I certainly wouldn't judge anyone for wanting to stay at home fulltime or work fulltime and put their kids into nursery. Whatever works for you I say. This past year has been really tough as our nanny came down with a longterm chronic illness which has meant that she has taken alot of time off work, and hasn't been able to look after the children at 'full power' alot of the time. Legally we had to offer at least sick pay and allow the time off for as long as she needed it - we also had to cover tax, ni etc...and pay the cost of extra childcare. But she is our nanny, our friend and basically part of the family so of course we rallied round - we paid her as if she were working the usual hours, we found ways around the time off and we found her an excellent doctor. It was massively inconvenient and expensive but a relationship between employer and nanny isn't a straightforward one - for a start you trust them with the most important things in your life. I suspect this is what Katie thingie is trying to say but it's been Daily mailified (because obviously working mothers are causing the downfall of the nation) into some harridan having a go at her nanny and the conditions of maternity leave. How about we don't judge, just accept and maybe try to help each other out a little?

I hope she achieves a better work life balance soon as she is loosing grip on reality. Plus, the only loser in this whole story are her own children. Bummer that working mothers seem to say such ghastly things...

Let's not forget this is the Daily Mail - not renowned for portraying working mothers in a good light!

Wow. I hate this woman now too. Never heard of her. Is this a UK version of The Apprentice? What a selfish woman. Me. Me. Me. Doesn't' seem to care about her own children or her nanny really. It's all about her being inconvenienced. Maybe she should have hired an older nanny who already had her children. Some people. Article sounds sensational too. I think she wants controversy.

I sounds to me like a deliberately provocative article, or perhaps she is as blinkered as she sounds.

What strikes me is that she doesn't really differentiate between normal staff turnover and dealing with maternity rights. Staff do leave, for all sorts of reasons, and 5 years sounds like a pretty good run in this case - many of the nannies I've come across may do a year or two with a family. The issue of dealing with maternity rights is complex, but in this article is just thrown in with how annoying it is to have to find a new nanny.

One of the things I've found difficult to understand as a working parent, is that child-minders are self-employed, whereas you have to employ a nanny. It seems very strange, and potential rather inequitable.

I'm afraid I also find it extremely odd that on this forum there are so many comments implying that it's ok to employ people illegally i.e. without paying employer's contributions etc. Are these the same people who complain about public services, such as schools, being insufficient?

Addictions are never good. Hers is work.

Interesting article on the fallacy (or should that be phallusy?) of having it all in terms of children/career.
http://m.theatlantic.com/magazine/archi ... _page=true

"To succeed, I need to be able to perform in business like a man." interesting comment and quite at odds with the rest of her article.

employee/employer rights is a valid discussion to have and it maybe that the pendulum has swung too far in one direction - maybe.

what gets me is this; she values her nannies and yet doesn't value or respect the rights that protect them. that is a particular "urban" attitude I'm familiar with, where your status/rights etc are dependent on how "important" your job is. not a great attitude to have methinks......................

How DARE the nanny put her own needs/life/body first and get pregnant?! Some people eh?

so does that mean that if you employ a nanny directly you are liable for her materinty leave payments?
Another reason for the black economy.
How about an au-pair?

What hits me most from this article is her own attitude as a mother. I agree when she says why should she not have the same career or ambition as a father, of course our rights as women should be just the same if we want them to be. But I struggle to understand why someone with her attitude has children at all. She admits to only taking 2 weeks maternity with each of her 3 children and I find that desperately sad.

I. HATE. THIS. WOMAN

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/artic ... happy.html