Gah. No. I didn't look at the survey, but I could have guessed the answer to most of these questions interviewing our nanny for 30 mins.
Micromanagers like that aren't meant to have nannies. If I were a nanny I would run far far away. That family is Nanny Diaries material.
ETA - I just looked at the survey. They are only offering 5-6 hrs/day @ $15 an hour. I understand that families have different child care needs, but I generally think families who are unwilling to offer full time hours but don't offer hours making it easy to split with another family are looking to take advantage of their nanny.
I don't get why this is a "nanny" job. Isn't it more like a babysitter since it is just over 10 hours a week? $150 doesn't take you far in NYC (even Queens) from what I have learned here
Oh - you're right. I thought it was at least 5 days/week.
My husband thought it was crazy; I thought that most of the questions were kind of fair? But I defer to parents on this.
My cousin just had to fire his nanny (who had only worked for them for a week) because he happened to google her name on Sunday and found a police blotter report that she was arrested for assault on Saturday, so I may be a bit paranoid right now.
The nanny culture in nyc seems bizarre to me. It's such a low paid profession, people complain about paying their nannies a decent wage, and yet they feel entitled to someone who will play with their kids like Mary Poppins, teach them another language, and clean their apt. for like 10/hr.
Good luck to them. I would be surprised if they got even one response.
You can run a background check (with the nanny's consent) and require a drug test. Check references. Require proof of no communicable diseases. But hiring someone - in any setting - is part due diligence and part leap of faith.
These two would be super fun to work for. Run nannies run!
You can run a background check (with the nanny's consent) and require a drug test. Check references. Require proof of no communicable diseases. But hiring someone - in any setting - is part due diligence and part leap of faith.
All of this. If you're THAT paranoid about hiring a nanny, then I would say that one of the parents needs to be a SAH parent. If I was handed a survey like that, NO WAY would I want to work for that family. Even if I knew I would answer all the questions "correctly", it screams to me that the parents are going to be up my ass about everything and I couldn't make even the slightest mis-step.
The survey is like a great warning to applicants "stay away- these people are crazy. This job will be a nightmare." They've shot themselves in the foot and will have a much harder time finding someone.
I only read the summary, not the actual link. I guess I don't think any of the questions they highlighted are TOO too outlandish, but it's more that I think these people are out of their minds if they think this is an effective way to screen candidates. Good luck with that!
ETA: I guess they decided the same thing, the survey and the CL posting are now deleted
This sounds like something from a Portlandia sketch.
I don't think their questions (the ones in the article, anyway, the survey appears to be shut down) are all that unreasonable. But it's nuts to think that they can somehow keep track of exactly how often their nanny washes her hands. I could tell them that I wash my hands every 15 minutes - doesn't mean I actually do it. Unless they have a hidden camera in their apartment, which actually wouldn't surprise me.
If nothing else, it's a warning for people who wouldn't be willing to put up with this level of micromanagement ... better they know about this before they even start, rather than getting the job and learning how kooky these parents really are.
Like ECB said, if they're THAT picky then one of them ought to be a SAHP so they can be sure the kids are being cared for exactly how they want.