What are other's views on this? Post Reply

[Scottov]

Scottov I think you are missing the most important point.
A nanny is a person that studied to be a nanny and can deliver excellent childcare within your home, care for your kids professionally and she is worth a lot!
A family choses to have a nanny and money is not a problem.

Given I have pointed out twice that qualifications need to be taken into account I am not sure its fair to say I am missing the important point that qualifications need to be taken into account.

personally, I think the comment that "a family chooses to have a nanny and money is not a problem" to be quite bewildering.

If money was a problem or a parent does not understand the difference between levels and quality of childcare, a fake "so called" nanny with no qualifications (and paid cash in hand) or an au pair will come into the picture.

just as bewildering is the assertion that the above must be true.

An au pair does not chose where to live. She generally finds a job from her country to improve her English, go to language classes and understand the way of life in England. She should be a very young lady that just finished high school or Uni. You should be her host family and care for her like if she was an extra child.

OK. a generalization, but ok.

A nanny is an adult that will take your place in the household in terms of responsabilities once you have gone to work. She pays insurance and she is registered with Ofsted.

again, ok.

If you think that an au pair is kind of a lodger that gets a room in exchange of childcare, good luck.

well, more or less, that isn't so far off the reality now is it?

As a live out nanny I earned £12net per hour in Nappy Valley. I know live in nannies that were paid £7/8net per hour and au pairs that used to be paid £65 per week plus travel card, 1/2 the cost of the language course, food and even shower gel, shampoo and toothpaste. Then I also met this poor young Spanish girl that left the family after two months as she was not allowed to watch tv downstsirs with the parents, she did not eat dinner with them as they used to buy ready made food for themselves only. She was not allowed to use olive oil but only seeds oil to cook and to put in her salad, she was allowed to eat only the sliced bread not the rolls, she could not have the nice jam etc and most of all she was expected to eat toddlers' portions. She was so sad and tearful all the time, poor kid.
Now you think what the parents saved in those two months. And think what the kids that she was looking after benefited from her being there.

I am not sure what good Nanny/Au Pair = good, family = bad, generalization does.

I would note that if you earned £12 net, that is equivalent to £32,500 or so as an annual salary based on 40 hours per week. that is a very, very good salary if true.

[Sessa84]

Yes dear Scottov that was an excellent salary. You are right. And working for AMAZING parents that would add up even 15 mins late to my salary and not expecting me to stay there longer for no extra money.

[AbbevilleMummy]

You're salary quotes for a live-in nanny are extreme. I'm sure there are some live-in Norland Nannies out there, probably in South Ken/Chelsea/Notting Hill who earn £10 per hour net, but the majority of live-in nannies earn £300-£400 per week net for around 55 hours per week. That equates to around £5-£7.50 per hour net.

There is no need to exaggerate the differences in pay as there is such a large difference in the first place. If an au pair is working the same number of hours as a nanny, with the same responsibilities as a nanny, then by definition, she is not an au pair! She is a very under-paid live-in nanny!

These girls are being exploited, but the problem is that so many of them are willing to be exploited just to be able to live in London. There are plenty of girls jumping over each other to get an au pair job or live-in nanny job from abroad. Years ago, when I was looking for an au pair when on mat leave, I advertised for 1 week and have over 200 applications! Supply far out strips demand and therefore some unscrupulous families take advantage of this.

[pie81]

If an au pair is working the same number of hours as a nanny, with the same responsibilities as a nanny, then by definition, she is not an au pair! she is a very under-paid live-in nanny!

Exactly Abbevillemummy. And an unqualified, inexperienced one to boot. I'm surprised that people are willing to leave their babies and toddlers in the care of someone who (in general) has no prior childcare experience and only wants to be in the country temporarily as a chance to see London, rather than someone experienced who has chosen childcare as their career.

Of course there can be wonderful au pairs who are naturals/experienced with small children, and who do want to do childcare long term. Vice versa there can be nannies who are uninterested and are just doing it for the money. So as a previous poster says the lines can be blurred. But I wouldn't want to take that chance myself. And that's leaving aside the whole question of exploitation...