.... WHAT?!
Feature Ad:
1) LIVE OUT Nanny needed for loving family in Boston (Boston)
Hello, We are a lovely and loving family situated in Boston. Our children are the most important things in our lives, and we see to it that they get the best care available. We need care beginning August 3, 2009 for our 4 children: 5-year old daughter (she has obsessive compulsive disorder, so you must be comfortable keeping both yourself and our home immaculately clean), 3 year old son, and 4-month old twin sons. Below are the details of the position:
Schedule: 7:00 am - 6:30 pm, Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday; 8:00 am - 11:00 pm on Saturday; occasional Sunday from 7:00 pm - 9:00 pm, to join us for dinner.
Holidays and time off: You will be allowed to take 3 personal/sick days per year, without pay. Anything beyond that will result in termination of employment. You will have Christmas Day, New Year's Day, and the evening of Thanksgiving off, with pay if we see fit.
Duties include: Childcare, driving older children to activities, arranging playdates, taking our daughter to her psychologist's appointments, vacuuming, general housekeeping, laundry, meal preparation (we have recipes written out in detailed fashion for you), errand-running, grocery shopping at several different local locations, and other odd-jobs around the home as we see fit.
Candidates must: be legal to work in the United States of America, be experienced (at least 8-10 years professional experience), non-smoker, have your own reliable car with proof of immaculate driving record and recent inspection, be on time, be flexible with scheduling, be available at 1 hour's notice in case of an emergency, have a cell phone so that we can call and check in with the children throughout the day, have a clean background, provide proof of infant and child CPR/First Aid training, and have had a negative TB titer, a negative chest x-ray, a negative Varicella titer, etc. within three months of starting the position. We will give strong preference to candidates with a degree in a childcare-related field.
Salary is $200 - $250 per week, commensurate with experience. This is non-negotiable. There may be a $10/week stipend for gas, if my husband and I think it is appropriate for the amount of driving you did that week; we will check mileage on your vehicle.
All applicants interested in this opportunity may send their resumes with at least 5 professional references to the Craigslist email address above. Provide your telephone number and hours when you can be reached. We will contact you if your response interests us. We anticipate that the response to this opportunity will be overwhelming, so I suggest that you reply early. Good luck. Regards, Kimberly and Thomas
Original URL: http://boston.craigslist.org/gbs/kid/1260450068.html
__________________________________________________________
Special thanks to blondie41489 for our Feature Ad. Also, thank you to mbargielski, sarahsimanskey and thenanny2009... All of you did an awesome job this week! Remember, CL-WTF will be Posted every Saturday. Please send next weeks Ads HERE or use MEEBO.
TO READ THE REST OF THIS WEEKS SUBMISSIONS: PLEASE CLICK HERE!
49 comments:
AHAHAHA!
These people are lunatics!
Are you freaking kidding me? Before I even read the part about the pay I would never work for people like that.
They are looking for a nanny, and a housekeeper?
$10 in gas.
This has got to be a joke.I don't even think any illegals will want this job.
#1 sounds horrible-I love how they will pay you for holidays and gas if they feel like it...wanna guess how many times they deem you unworthy of that little perk?
The pay on these kill me-I was a live-in nanny in New Jersey 21 YEARS ago and I made $800/mo M-F. So basically people are wanting to pay 1988 wages!!
#20 just needs to join a playgroup...or find a friend with a child:)
Wow @ the entries in the "How Much" section! I pay more to board my dog when necessary, than these people are wanting to pay their nannies/sitters lol
I knew that first one was going to be low pay, but I didn't think it would be THAT low. My goodness. Have these people ever had help?
And they are treating a child for OCD? What a surprise.
Umm #5?!!!
Oh wow never leave parent alone with the baby??? No Matter where they go?? At Chuck E Cheeses, WTF!
Oh come on, anyone with half a brain can see that #1 is a joke... they hit every possible ridiculous point that could be hit. No way is it serious.
as of now, it's been flagged for removal. gads, that posting made my brain ache. *shudder*
So #1 really thinks that someone with a degree in child development, 8-10 yrs professional childcare experience, 5-10 references and CPR training is going to beat down their door to work for $3.84/hr?
That first one is really insane! I couldn't believe it when I got down to the salary and read it!
Yes! My chuckie cheese submission made it! My husband and I were so skeeved out by that ad, that I had to send it in. That's not the first time I've seen it posted. My husband's first reaction was, "WTF" so I knew it would be perfect :)
Btw, I pity the kid in that situation, whatever the situation actually is!
#1 posted their ad on another website!
http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/60808.page
Man, these people got annihilated on craigslist and with good reason! People dug into them so hard, it was fantastic!
Hmmm...
Infant twins + 3-yr-old + 4-yr-old with psyc. issues
Terrible schedule
(Maybe, possibly, if you're really lucky) 3 paid holidays per year
0 paid sick days
$4 per hour (max.)
Yep, I bet a lot of professional with a degree in education and 8-10 years experience will be jumping at the opportunity to send their resume and 5 references, as well as their complete medical history.
Just read all the backlash #1 received on craigslist... so funny... and it's been flagged for removal.
It's nice to know we're not the only ones who think these people are crazy... or that it's most likely a joke...
This week was great. There was not one posting in which I couldn't understand why it was posted. Some weeks I have doubts... not this week!
Their five year old daughter has OCD? Hmmmmmmm,now why doesn't surprise me?
THREE sick/personal dayS?!?! Good luck trying to find someone that will work with those criteria!!!!
The first people are HORRIBLE! They want to pay someone ~$3/hour to watch 4 children??? One with special needs, and 2 are small infants? Holy crap! Not to mention all the other stuff. They are completely crazy!
Funkytown:
I only get 3 sick/personal days/year. I find it completely reasonable. Why would I need more?
The issue with this ad's days are that they are UNPAID. Whereas I am paid for my 3 days. So far its been 6 months and I've only needed 1. Unless you come down with a deathly flu or need surgery, you shouldn't need more.
3 sick personal days and only Christmas day, New years day and the EVENING of Thanksgiving off? So not even the standard 5 major Federal holidays. That is ridiculous.
I just can't even get past the first one. It's just horrible.
I understand number 5. Often when there has been domestic violence in a family but the dad hasn't abused the child (just the mom) the judge will order that the dad have visitation, but that it be supervised. Often the court decides that no one in the family is fit to supervise because of the hostility between the parents. So they tell them to find an outside source. I have seen people post on other sections of craigslist looking to hire someone to supervise the visit. Sad.
Or... let's just get it out in the open and say what #5 might be? That he may have molested a child or maybe the mom suspects something of that nature is going on... otherwise, why would the dad need to be supervised in the bathroom with the child?
I was thinking the same about #5. Sounds like their may be a court order. Supervised visits, and I am assuming only in public places. Not in the home of either parent.
But wouldn't the court assign someone to watch over the child? I thought they had their own people come in and supervise visitations.
I call it like I see it said...
Or... let's just get it out in the open and say what #5 might be? That he may have molested a child or maybe the mom suspects something of that nature is going on... otherwise, why would the dad need to be supervised in the bathroom with the child?
Why does it always have to be the Dad that is accused?
Maybe the mother has the money. In which case, the courts will be bought and Dad will be screwed. I wouldnt advise anyone get involved in such a sordid situation. When accusations fly, who is to say to whom they will not stick unto.
Number one actually made me shudder! I would rather be homeless than work for them. . . Oh wait, for $3 an hour, I would still be homeless even while working for them! LOL
Some of the comments here prompted me to go back and read number five. Here is what I think of some of the comments, and what I think of the post itself.
As one poster said, when a parent is ordered to have supervised visits by the court, they are assigned to have someone with them, unless they live with their family, etc. Usually supervised visitation takes place at the courthouse or local PD.
It is VERY RARE that this happens in domestic violence cases when the domestic violence has only happened to the mother. Usually, especially if it is a guy's first offense, they still get regular, unsupervised visitation with the child.
As far as the theory that the child was molested? I see no evidence in this post that this happened at all. It is wild speculation. And if a parent did suspect that, they need to take it to the police.
If both parents have shared custody, one cannot "decide" that the other needs to be babysat, no matter how much money they have. One cannot "buy" the courts when it comes to the children, no matter how much money one has. I admit that while family court when dealing with custody issues is heartbreaking and challenging and sometimes it seems as if the system does not work, they are always in favor of what is in the best interest of the children. And no matter what a parent suspects the other one of doing, they are not in charge: the courts are and they will deem what is the appropriate type of visitation. Money has absolutely nothing to do with it. It is very difficult to prove a parent is unfit or to terminate/infringe on one's parental rights in any way.
I am just speculating but it seems to me from this post that it may have to do with a disabled parent. It seems to me that the people in question are trying to work things out, for whatever the reason. I do find it very strange that they posted this on CL and if I were looking for a job, I would indeed steer clear of this one, unless I got some more information and it did have to do with a disabled parent. I would not want to get involved in any type of domestic violence/ custody issues with the people I was working for.
I hate it when people say this, but here goes. #1 has to be a fake. Nobody hoping to hire anybody includes such offputting statements as "as we see fit" in the ad. The salary, the lack of time off, etc., all point to somebody trying to make a point about how badly nannies are sometimes treated.
Plus, the ad has been flagged for removal from Craigslist.
Maybe a disgruntled ex-employee posted the ad and gave her employer's contact information? It sounds much more like it is written from the perspective of a disgruntled employee than by a hopeful employer.
OK, I had to read #5.
Looking back, I think I actually saw one of these visits taking place once. Unfortunately, the dad arrived about an hour before the child and spent his entire waiting period staring at me. I was holding my new baby girl at the time and I eventually got so freaked out that I worked it up in my mind that he was planning to steal my baby! I reported him to the staff and insisted that they gather, en masse, all around myself, my friend, and our pile of children as we went into the parking lot. Just as we were leaving, a woman arrived with a handicapped girl, who the dad greeted on bended knee with open arms, as if he hadn't seen her in a long time. I felt like such an idiot. (Although in my defense, when I approached the manager I was told that the staff had already been watching him because he had been there for so long wihtout a child and looked suspicious.)
Fathers get screwed 90 percent of the time in divorces. They never get the children, even if the mother is useless. It's still automatic that they go to the Mom. Unless she says she doesn't want them, but you know Moms; they won't say that even though they might think that.
And as for minute muggles reply, you are sort of correct-except if the family has money, they can have an agreement to hire private people. How do I know? I was once hired to watch Dad and keep notes on him. He had agreed to have a nanny with him at all times, including bath time. That's all he knew. He just wanted his children.
My notes were too positive and I was fired and replaced with a more creative nanny.
baker,
alot of people get screwed in many different ways when it comes to custody battles. everybody is a loser in divorce. while I agree that physical placement tends to go to the mother unless she can be proven unfit, I think your post shows a great deal of disdain for divorced mothers in general. i am not sure why you feel this way, but that is the way it comes across.
I have lived through this. there is no winner in divorce. there is no winner in custody battles. and every case is different. sometimes fathers are "useless" as well and fight for custody just to get back at his wife for leaving him. every case is different and the courts do have to put the best interest of the child first.
I have a friend who is a single dad and he spent a great deal of time with his daughter, more than the mom did. they are now going through court and she wants him to have limited visitation. I told him to draw up a time line of the last five years for his attorney documenting how much time he has spent with their daughter.
the family court's goal is to keep things as status quo as possible. if the mother has been the primary care provider for the child, it stands to reason that she should have physical placement of the child for most of the time unless she can be proven to be unfit. As I said before, it is extremely difficult to prove someone unfit. If the Dad thinks the mother is a bitch for finally wising up and leaving him, that doesn't equal unfit.
:)
minute muggle,
okay, but you're delusional. the family court is filled with people who depending on your state are ammendable to having their palms greased. you're kidding yourself if you think everyone is all about truth and justice for all.
In my state the state has no obligation to provide the person to supervise the visit. My state doesn't have the money. Instead they will award supervised visits and it is up to you to find the person to supervise and then get the courts approval. I know because I worked for legal aid. There is actually a business now that is essentially a daycare for parents. You pay them an hourly rate (to have visits at their location) or a higher rate to have them come with you on a visit.
baker,
I am far from delusional and you completely misunderstood my post. I do not think everyone is out for justice and truth. Far from it.
I have been through this situation so I know first hand what I am talking about.
#5 sounds like they are trying to get a monitor. She shouldn't have used babysitter. This happens all the time when one parent needs monitored visits.
dad actually doesn't have to do anything at all. Supervised visitation could be from one parent lying about the other. This happened to my friend. His ex filed for divorce and she told the judge that he was a flight risk (he wasn't at all)
why do we assume that this is the dad who needs to be supervised... there are far worse mothers out there.
i doubt that. the courts would not order supervised visitation unless there was proof of negligence.
Minute Muggle, I am sorry, but once again you are mistaken.
I know of a man, when his children's mother filed for custody she told the court some terrible and untrue things.
A court date was set and the father was only allowed two hours a week of supervised visitation.
The mother was being a royal b**** as the father had been the childrens primary caregiver all of their lives and they became very confused and sad.
When the case finally went to court he was awarded 50/50 parenting time and all restrictions were lifted, as there was nothing at all wrong with his parenting.
The court system does favor mothers, and women have a lot of power over this sort of thing, especially between when a case is filed and when it actually gets heard in court, when the truth, hopefully, is revealed.
Sadly, any kind of accusation can be made by anybody about anybody...and in many sorts of crimes (especially those involving abuse or sexual abuse of a child)the protocol is to act as if it's true and then work backwards from there to allow the accused to prove his innocence after having first been assumed guilty. I can see why they have to do it that way, because the protection of the children has to be such a high priority that they can't ever err in allowing a guilty party access to the children. But on the flip side, I think there should be serious charges leveled against anybody who is found to have made false claims of abuse against anybody, if they knew the accusations to be false when they made them. This should NOT be tolerated, EVER. As it stands, there is hardly any downside in making false claims of abuse in child custody cases. That stinks.
Minute Muggle, I have to agree with Lola here. There are so many men out there who get screwed in custody battles.
My husband's first wife left him (and basically abandoned their three kids) two days after Christmas. She didn't see them for a year. When they finally went to court for custody, she saw them every other weekend, which she oftentimes didn't even show up for, which left us with three angry and confused kids.
Finally, a little over a year ago she got her head out of her butt and realized that she had made a mistake. She took us back to court and even with all of the documentation of her missed weekends the courts still gave her the kids 40% of the time (Sun night-Tues morning and every other weekend). They also awarded her child support because he makes more than she does.
It was the most udderly ridiculous thing I have ever witnessed. I mean, now she's a halfway decent mother (she overcompensates for abandoning them by having few rules and standards at her house), but still, she abandoned them for a year and gets to see them 40% of the time (we live in a "no-fault" state and it takes A LOT to get full custody of your kids).
I agree, Mom, I never thought of it that way. There should be some sort of reprecussion if someone knowingly makes false claims whether it be for custody or restraining order or what have you. I have seen many good people get their names strewn through the mud.
To all the people dismissing everything I have to say: I am not wrong. I am speaking from personal experience. I think it is ignorant to dismiss everything I say as wrong when I have been through it myself.
I agree that people who make false accusations should have to pay. Of course this happens all the time. I have had false accusations made against me and I know how it feels. I have also had perfectly true things I have said, backed up by the police department, been denied in a court of law. I have seen purgery in action. It's not a fun thing to be told you are a liar when you are telling the truth.
Nightmare:
I never said that men do not get screwed in custody battles. What I said was that everyone gets screwed in one way or another.
Of course there must be an investigation if accusations are made, especially if there are children involved. This is the law. It is in the best interest of the child.
Lola: you speak of power? Well I have been through this myself and there is a profound sense of a loss of power for both parents, not just the dad. Again, it is ignorant and rude for you to automatically dismiss everything I have to say when I have been through it myself. Every case is different, and we can site instances on this board, but the fact remains that there are specifics to each case that we are not aware of. I am very sorry for all of the people, mothers and dads, who have been falsely accused of negligence.
I am also very sorry for children of parents who have stepparents who speak ill of their stepchild's parents, mothers and dads alike. Too often the stepparent has a hand in trashing the other parent and trying to get them away from their true mom/dad which is so unhealthy for the child.
Hahahah @ #7.
"and I will answer suddenly."
Minute Muggle, I do apologize for any hurt feelings. When I said you were mistaken I was only referring to this:
"i doubt that. the courts would not order supervised visitation unless there was proof of negligence."
The courts DO order supervised visits without proof of negligence. That's all. See?
Have a great day :)
thank you Lola. you have a great day too.
ARE YOU PEOPLE OUT OF YOUR FREAKING MIND???? GET REAL!!!! FIRST OF ALL YOU PAY NOTHING, THEN YOU HAVE ALL THESE PATHETIC DEMANDS, THEN ON TOP OF THAT YOU HAVE THE NERVE TO "CONSIDER" GAS MONEY!!! OH AND LETS NOT FORGET THEY HAVE TO HAVE A CELL PHONE THAT YOUR NOT PAYING FOR??? WOW!!! SHALL I GO ON???
LEGAL TO WORK IN THE U.S. MY A**! YOU WANT A SLAVE!!! AND IM SORRY TO TELL YOU, THOSE TIMES ARE OVER......
Okay, um. Happy as we are to have you, we don't allow all caps comments.
This has got to be a joke, just something to get us in an uproar right?
Post a Comment