I recently hired a lovely nanny to care for my 4 month old son full time. In addition to checking her background and references, I also spent a week "orienting" her prior to my return to work. Also, I am privileged to work from home three days a week and have had plenty of time to see the nanny in action. She's amazing! She's competent, attentive, patient, and so loving to our son. We feel like we won the nanny lottery!Still, being a nervous first time mom, I decided to use a nanny cam just to ensure that Nanny was as great with my baby on the two days I don't work at home. To my delight, she absolutely has been. She coos with and sings to and plays with and rocks my son all day. But... I did notice something peculiar on the video two days in a row while I was gone. Nanny had a camera with her and took pictures of the rooms inside my house. This strikes me as peculiar behavior and I don't know what to make of it. If I bring it up, I have to tell her about the camera. Does anyone have any insight or advice?
84 comments:
LOL
I think that's hilarious.
:) Awesome.
I'll be honest, I took photos of the house I nanny in. I'm a live-in nanny though, and I took them to send to my mom so she could "see" where I live (she lives super far away).
I wouldn't worry too much about it.
I'm with Amy, I've never done that, but if I were going to that is what I'd use the photos for.
If you are uncomfortable with it you could ask the nanny to use your camera to take photos of the baby and maybe she'd stop taking pictures with her own? I never want to lug two around so I always use my employers.
I've taken pictures of the house of a family I babysit for. It's a multi-million dollar home and way more than anything I have ever had or will ever have. I just had to show my friends!
I can understand if the employer's home is also your home, but our nanny does not live here. It's peculiar and I can't imagine the purpose.
I can think of two purposes. One, she wants to show her friends where she works, two, she is casing your house for burglary at a future time. I doubt it's the latter. Caring for a baby seems like a hard way to case a house. Do you have a pretty home? She's probably just showing it off.
It is funny you are filming, and are bothered by her photos, and neither is telling the other. That's hilarious.
I will say it again if you don't trust the nanny she doesn't need to be your nanny. If it's that you don't trust ANY nannies then you need to find another child care option.
I'd ask her but be prepared for her to leave, I would never be comfortable being spied on without my permission and I wouldn't work at a place that did that. I did have one couple I worked for that was very upfront with the fact that they had nanny cams and I was ok with it, BECAUSE they told me ahead of time.
Now onto the picture taking. There was one time I took a picture of charges house but it was actually just the wall because I liked how the photos were arranged and was showing the set up to a friend that needed ideas on how to create a picture wall.
Yep, I've taken photos of most of the homes I've worked in (and never been live-in) mostly to show my friends things like "OMG LOOK AT THE SIZE OF THEIR KITCHEN". Haha when you live in a 600 sq ft apartment, that stuff is really fascinating.
Number one...it may be legal to spy on your nanny in all 50 states, but ethically you should have told her upfront you were going to be filming her...it is only the right thing to do. I am a nanny and if I found out I was being filmed w/out being notified, the trust and respect issue would fly out the window and I would walk out of there ASAP.
Number two...if you are going to film her then expect to see something that you will question...I mean after all, she doesn't know she is being filmed so of course there may be some quirks you may find out about her. Imagine if you were being filmed w/out your consent and your guard was down...imagine what kinds of things your friends and family would find out about you too! I do not think anyone snoops or spies on anyone and finds NOTHING ever. We all have quirks. Nanny cams are for nannies abusing or neglecting children, that is their function. Not something like you described.
I do not intend to continue to use the camera, but given that this is someone new that I am trusting with my helpless, voiceless newborn, I wanted to be *certain*. I do not feel this is violating any ethical code. If she has nothing to hide, there is no problem.
I am not bothered by her taking photos, I'm just curious as to why. I thought maybe she was considering decorating ideas, but she took photos in the nursery, as well as the kitchen/great room, and given that having children is not in her near future (according to her), it just seems peculiar.
"If she has nothing to hide, there is no problem."
Yeah I don't buy that, we are all afforded privacy as a right as American citizens. You may think that someone doesn't have anything to worry about unless they are doing something wrong but that's not what our country was founded on.
How would you like to be filmed while you are working without your knowledge? I certainly don't and it has nothing to do with hiding anything. I just want and deserve privacy as do each and every other person.
Once again I say, if you cant trust the nanny either get another one or find an alternative. Don't spy on your nanny, it's just bad business
Stick to the ethics arguments, TC. As an attorney, I can assure you that privacy (excepted in a very limited realm) is not a right granted to American citizens. Ultimately, my child's well being is more important to me than it is to offer my employee a privilege of privacy.
As an employer, I'm with OP on this one. I completely understand why a parent would choose to use a nanny cam. I find nothing unethical about it. I have never done it myself simply because I work odd hours so can frequently drop in on my nanny. However, I would not hestitate to do it if I had no other way to check up on my nanny. This site alone shows us that you can *never* be too careful.
Plus, it's not like nanny cams are a rare, unique idea. Every professional nanny knows they exist, and knows they are a possibility - so it should not come as a surprise if you are being filmed and you should do your job assuming you are. The idea that trust is inherent simply because an employer has done a thorough job in the hiring process is ridiculous. Trust is built over time and that's why employers use nanny cams early in employment, before trust is built.
Raising the issue of "How would you like to be filmed while you are working without your knowledge?" is a good one. My answer is I wouldn't love it. I'd be a bit embarrassed thinking my employer might witness me adjusting my clothes, scratching somewhere private, etc but I would NOT take it as a personal affront. I would understand that in any job where you care for people who may be too helpless or ill to speak up for themselves, the need to ensure safety of those individuals supersedes my desire for privacy. And I can deal with a little embarrassment in the interest of protecting a child or sick/helpless adult.
For OP, I agree with Village and many posters above that your nanny is just impressed with your home and taking pics to share with friends. Unless she was opening file drawers and photographing documents, I don't think you have anything to worry about.
If she has nothing to hide, there is no problem.
Bullshit. If YOU have nothing to hide, why are you hiding the fact that you use a nanny cam without her knowledge? If most people showed up at their place of employment and were told, oh yeah, we've been recording you in your cubicle every day since you started working here, I doubt you'd feel anything but outrage and violation. It has nothing to do with being guilty and everything to do with common decency and respect. You are a crappy employer; if the only way you can think of to safeguard your "helpless, voiceless baby" is to violate the privacy of another adult and keeping it a secret, maybe you should think of alternatives to nanny care.
Every professional nanny knows they exist, and knows they are a possibility - so it should not come as a surprise if you are being filmed and you should do your job assuming you are.
That's the rub. Using a secret nanny cam doesn't PREVENT misbehavior, it only catches it AFTER THE FACT. When it's TOO LATE.
While *some* nannies *may* operate on the assumption that they are being filmed, many will not assume this. Even if you think that "all professional nannies should".
Employers who choose to use nanny cams should always let their nannies know they will be filmed, but not reveal the location(s) of the camera(s). This will do a much better job of PREVENTING mistreatment, which is what I'm assuming parents want to do, no? Or do they just want the thrill of spying on the nanny without her knowledge? And the thrill of "catching" her misbehaving?
Regardless, nannies who are unbalanced WILL mistreat children, nanny cam or not. And those bruises and scars will not go away just because Mom and Dad were clever enough to catch the abuse on tape.
Now you know she is good with your son when you aren't there you should remove the nanny cams. You shouldn't have put them in in the first place, it is a complete violation of trust.
If you tell her you have the cams she will either leave in which case you will probably not find someone who is as good with him or she will never trust you again.
As a nanny, I have no problem with nervous new parents like the OP using a nannycam without my knowledge the first couple of weeks. I want them to have peace of mind and see what a great job I'm doing. I don't see the point of having a cam if you tell the nanny about it. Then will be on her best behavior in the house, but what happens in the playground?
On the other hand, if I was working with older, verbal children, or had been with the family for some time and found out they were filming me, I would probably quit, because it shows a lack of respect and trust that would sour my feelings about the job.
Yes, Djembe, preventing mistreatment is the goal. However, the idea is that if the nanny is informed of the nanny cam, then mistreatment - if it were to occur - would do so outside the home. That is why you see so many bad nanny sightings, including outright abuse, at parks where there is minimal possibility of employer oversight. The goal is to find out if there are any early signs of abusive or neglectful childcare so you can stop it before it escalates. Your logic is simply flawed. No one is trying to catch a thrill for spying.
Truly if I were outraged at the thought of being covertly filmed at my job, I might relate to nanny outrage at nanny cams. But I am not. I actually *hope* there is random, hidden security camera filming and review going on to protect the patients I care for from the rare staff member who might be a bad egg. I know it's rare, but I have seen nannies on here voice no objection to nanny cams and I gotta say - that's the exact attitude I would want in a nanny. Someone who shares my belief that some discomfort and invasion of privacy is worth the cost to increase the safety of our kids. Haven't we all actually SEEN bad nanny cam footage? I mean even one single incident of abuse caught on a nanny cam justifies all nanny cams IMO.
Yes, Djembe, preventing mistreatment is the goal. However, the idea is that if the nanny is informed of the nanny cam, then mistreatment - if it were to occur - would do so outside the home. That is why you see so many bad nanny sightings, including outright abuse, at parks where there is minimal possibility of employer oversight. The goal is to find out if there are any early signs of abusive or neglectful childcare so you can stop it before it escalates. Your logic is simply flawed.
The logic is not flawed. Spy on your nanny without telling her, and she will simply mistreat your children with abandon (if she is inclined to mistreat them in the first place). That is not logic, it is common sense. Obviously if you tell her she is being filmed then yes, she can always move the abuse outdoors... but then she is truly irredeemable and so what have you gained by not telling her? You haven't prevented any mistreatment, you have only let it flourish in front of the cameras she didn't even know were there.
I don't see the point of having a cam if you tell the nanny about it. Then will be on her best behavior in the house, but what happens in the playground?
OK, so if you DO tell her about the cameras, she will behave well in the house and badly on the playground.
If you DON'T tell her about the cameras, she will behave badly in the house and badly on the playground.
Sounds like a no-brainer to tell her about the cameras. Or... maybe just not use a nanny in the first place if the world is so full of horrible, not-to-be-trusted, must-be-spied-on people.
Which actually... is kind of true and why I would never abandon my "helpless, voiceless baby" to a stranger in the first place.
OP,
I will say it does sound a bit odd. I leave my camera at home.
On the other hand:
1. I've taken photos with my MacBook's webcam, but that's with the Photobooth app and children making faces in front of it.
2. One employer had an incredible mural done in their dining room and I asked for permission to snap a photo of it using my cell phone. I still have that photo, I think it's an awesome idea.
I will say though, while I don't intend to have children of my own for at least another ten years, I already collect design ideas and preferences. Except the mural, I don't snap photos, but I've written a lot down about this type of soap I like, the style of sink, what kind of sippy cups I prefer, etc.
There's valuable information to be had. Take glass top stoves, I will never own one of these. Cleaning one is terrible.
Finally, I think what TC was trying to get across is the idea that as Americans we are used to some level of protection of privacy. Such as in our documents, homes, financial records and so on.
Now that may be government, but employers aren't exactly exempt either. There are questions you're simply not allowed to ask because it is recognized, in the law, that that information is simply none of your business. Call it what you will, it is recognized, in law, that there are things that simply do not concern you.
While you may have not violated any particular law enumerating any particular rights by recording your nanny, surely you must recognize, right or wrong in your intentions, you violated what most interpret as the spirit of what privacy rights we hold. Ma'am, if you decide to tell your nanny of this, you owe her an apology. I would also suggest being a little easier on TC, with respect, you came here for our help.
Best wishes.
TC,
I have mixed feelings on nanny cams. On one side I'm with you, I don't want to be spied on or at least, I don't want to know about being spied on.
On the other, I had an employer who ended things for, let's just say the voices in the back of her head, and I could have been saved from this heartache had they had a nanny cam. I never got a chance to say good bye. I can't describe how that feels.
So, for the record, they're not all bad. *sigh*
I know it's rare, but I have seen nannies on here voice no objection to nanny cams and I gotta say - that's the exact attitude I would want in a nanny.
I have no problem whatsoever with nanny cams -- the problem is in not having the decency to let the nanny know that there are nanny cams in place. Why do you think stores that have security cameras have prominent signs all over the place announcing their presence?
The goal is to find out if there are any early signs of abusive or neglectful childcare so you can stop it before it escalates.
You have got to be kidding, right? You would advocate keeping a nanny who shows "early signs" of abusive or neglectful childcare, so you can show her the error of her ways and hope to god that she doesn't escalate? Good luck with that. If anything, she would probably escalate out of camera range out of resentment over being spied on and without her knowledge and then being lectured like a naughty child.
Well, Djembe, I honestly don't understand your logic. Perhaps you can try explaining it a different way. You seem to be arguing:
1. If you use a nannycam and do not reveal it, then the nanny, "will simply mistreat your children with abandon" if she is so inclined.
Yes, I agree.
2. "Obviously if you tell her she is being filmed then yes, she can always move the abuse outdoors... but then she is truly irredeemable and so what have you gained by not telling her?"
You have gained the knowledge that have hired an abusive nanny. And the ability to fire her before serious harm can happen to your child. Is that not worth anything to you?
3. "You haven't prevented any mistreatment, you have only let it flourish in front of the cameras she didn't even know were there."
Yes, you have prevented future mistreatment because after catching an abusive act you not only fire the nanny, but you also report her to the police (with evidence) and save countless other children from future harm.
4. "OK, so if you DO tell her about the cameras, she will behave well in the house and badly on the playground. If you DON'T tell her about the cameras, she will behave badly in the house and badly on the playground. Sounds like a no-brainer to tell her about the cameras."
Again, you are honestly, truly, completely missing the point of the nanny cam (regardless of whether you agree with their usage). I get some of the arguments about privacy and trust, even if I don't agree. But this attempt to argue that hidden nanny cams INCREASE the frequency of abuse is just plain odd. Your comments have such thready and backwards logic. I have to assume you are either purposely being obtuse or truly do not get it. It is NOT to prevent the abuse that happens during filming. Most people aren't watching it live. It is to catch early acts of abuse, so the nanny can be terminated and, if indicated, legal action brought. It is to prevent FUTURE serious harm from coming to your child and other kids.
5. "I would never abandon my "helpless, voiceless baby" to a stranger in the first place."
Another point that is completely lost on me. If you are simply anti-nanny for infants, it sort of obviates any other viewpoints you might have. Not really sure why you would even frequent ISYN if you don't use a nanny, don't believe that nannies can be trusted, and feel that "spying" on nannies is an invasion of privacy - what exactly do you get out of ISYN? (genuine question)
I think Manhattan Nanny makes an excellent point and I also think that is when most parents choose a nanny cam - new parents or those of a new infant who have no other way to check in. Again, haven't used one myself due to being able to drop in and now having older kids around even with a baby. Also, after the first few months when trust is built, I would feel no need for a nanny cam.
"Why do you think stores that have security cameras have prominent signs all over the place announcing their presence?"
So shoplifters will patronize their competitors.
This doesn't work as an analogy for nannycams.
Again, Djembe, I think we are speaking different languages:
1. "You have got to be kidding, right? You would advocate keeping a nanny who shows 'early signs' of abusive or neglectful childcare, so you can show her the error of her ways and hope to god that she doesn't escalate?"
Sigh. No, I would never keep a nanny who showed early signs of abuse. Nor did I in any way suggest this. I have to again wonder if you are purposely missing the point (to make a point I'm missing) or truly not getting it. The reference, taken in context, was to catching early signs of abuse on a nanny cam THEN TERMINATING THE NANNY! I suppose we should stop the back and forth because I suspect our communication skills are so different as to make the exchange essentially worthless.
djembé,
Please believe me when I say I say this with respect, but I believe you need to calm down and think through your arguments a little more.
A secret nanny cam may capture abuse after the fact, but it is hardly too late. Such abuse can get worse or more frequent with time and a well placed nanny cam could end it after the first time.
It's a lot easier for a child to get over being hit once on one day, then being hit on a daily basis for two years straight. Prevention in this case isn't about the first time, but every time that would have followed.
So stopping that later abuse is wonderful. It would be the saving grace to the child that suffered and to the children who would have followed in the care of the abuser.
In addition, if the nanny has done nothing wrong, and for whatever reason the employer has convinced his or herself otherwise, a good nanny cam can save the nanny and provide a reality check for the employer.
On the other hand, there's something in my gut that just doesn't like the idea. It does seem to be a violation of the trust. I am a nanny who feels I am a friend or member of the family I work for, and I make sure to let that known from the beginning, and who puts cameras to friends or family without first saying cheese?
That said, I think Manhattan Nanny brings up a wonderful and well reasoned compromise.
Nervous new parents with young babies or toddlers for the first few weeks seems to me an alright use and why I didn't want to go crazy on OP for having done it. Because as wrong as I feel it is and as bad as I would feel about it and believe me I would beat myself up over it, truth be told, in OP's shoes I could see myself doing it.
Besides, new parents deserve a break and also as a nanny, peace of mind for the parents is one of my goals.
With school age children, assuming no disabilities, there's simply no excuse. To those parents I say, you're not 007, learn to talk with your kids!
Alright, I shall quiet for now. :)
I'm a nanny and... As much as I hate the idea of my employers spying on me (ok, so I *do* pick my nose sometimes, and *yes* I make funny faces when I'm beating cake batter, and yeah, sometimes I get itchy in awkward places) I understand why they do it and I try to always assume I'm being filmed. Nanny cams are a modern reality, like it or not, and it's dumb not to be on your guard.
About the photos, I've done it too, and it's just to show off the house to my family. Keep watching; if it's innocent, it'll probably stop soon. If she keeps taking pictures, you might want to be wary.
As a nanny, I have no issue with cams. My current family never said anything explicitly about the cameras but most of them are out in plain sight, though it took me a while to notice them. Theirs are also used for security purposes, prior to my working for them as they have large bay windows and no blinds.
Though I suspect I may feel different given another family and they were for the most part hidden and secret.
I am sorry, but I have carefully read the comments on here pro vs. anti- nanny cams. OP, you said it was not unethical. I hope as a lawyer, you know that just because something is LEGAL does not mean it is ethical as well. The two are in totally separate categories. Yes, in 50 states it is perfectly legal to film someone w/out their knowledge..however if the Nanny finds out, the dynamics of the working relationship fly out the window. Why couldn't you have just done the "right thing" and told her prior? *Sigh* Well I guess that is water under the bridge now.
Sure nanny cams are controversial, partly because of the situation you are in. Nanny cams are designed for catching abuse (we have all seen those horrible images on the news where nannies are throwing children on the couch, etc...and it is hard as heck for me to watch those images...) and that is why these cameras exist and what their function is. But when people who use them complain about "other stuff" that doesn't pertain to abuse/neglect of the child, then that's why using these cameras get a bad rap. Anyone who is filmed w/out their knowledge does things that they may not want others to see if caught off guard. I may accidentally swear to myself if I drop something in the kitchen for example or accidentally kick the dog as I run past him. If a parent saw this, they may think...hhhmmm...."Is my nanny abusing my dog or cussing in front of my kids while I am not there?" (Audio is only legal in some states..I live in CA where it is not.) Sure taking pictures is not something you would expect, but you probably have a nice house and she is admiring things.
If it is really an issue and is bothering you, then don't listen to only us..ask your nanny why she was taking the photos...we cannot tell you the reason, we can only speculate. Once you tell her, don't be surprised if the mutual respect is compromised, but I hope you get a satisfactory answer.
This whole situation could have been avoided had you told the nanny about the cameras in the first place.
I worked for a daycare center where I knew they used cameras. It was a horrible feeling. I was constantly feeling like I was being watched (of course I was), and that is just not a good feeling when you're working with kids. It made me feel like I had already done something wrong. So now as a nanny, I act as though there are cameras, but I wouldn't want to know. Then I would feel as though my boss was watching me, and I don't think I'd be as good of nanny. Besides, if you tell a nanny a camera is in use, then she isn't going to be her real self, for better or worse.
Op you come on here asking for advice and when you get it, and it's not what you want to hear, you get upset.
I couldn't care less what you do for a living and as someone working her way through law school I know a few things myself. As it was pointed out to you just because something is legal doesn't make it right.
I've been with my family now for 3 years, I've known them for about 4 and I started when their oldest was 18 months....10 months ago they had another one and I started watching him the day he came home from the hospital...4 days old (he was in the NICU for a day) He was and still is at 10 months a helpless infant yet they actually trust me enough to leave him with me and not spy on me. A friend of theirs just had a baby 3 months ago and I've watched their child starting when he was a week old...again no cameras and he too was and still is a helpless infant but they actually trust me.
You do what you want, but I will bet you anything the moment the nanny finds out about the cameras, be it you tell her or she finds them, she's going to leave and you just lost someone who loved and treated your child wonderfully.
Well, you should have told her about the nanny cam upfront.
There are so many reasons she could be using a camera to take pictures of your home.
She could have been simply testing out a new camera or trying out different features, and happened to do it during downtime at work. Maybe she is artistic and is creating some kind of piece that wouldn't necessarily be recognizable upon completion. Maybe she was fond of some particular item or baby gear in your home and wanted to recommend it to someone else, and took the picture to show it. Maybe she likes your style and wants to replicate it in her own home. You did a full background check, so it seems doubtful she is planning to steal from you.
My advice would be to trust your instincts. You seem to spend a lot of time around her so you should get to know what kind of a person she is.
That should probably tell you more than a web cam. That said, I don't know why she should be taking pictures two days in a row. Maybe she is interested in photography as a hobby?
I'm a nanny in a home with nanny cams and I do act like my normal self at work. I don't know anyone who could fake it that many hours a day for such a long time, especially working with kids.
The problem I see with not telling your nanny about the nanny cams is when you encounter a situation like this one- it's not necessarily a fire-able offense (like if you saw abuse or neglect and would let the nanny go immediately), but it's something you want to address with the nanny. But there's no way to do it that's not awkward, because nanny doesn't know about the cameras.
Op, I wouldn't worry because your nanny prob views this site and you gave enough information to let her know its you and that you have a nanny cam. Even if she isn't upset about the nanny cam, she prob gonna be pissed that you put this online at a open site rather then come clean and asked her yourself.
I could care less about nanny cams personally because I love the child I care and wouldn't hurt a hair on his head. So if you wanna watch me pick my nose, fart, scratch my butt and take a nap while he sleeps thats all you, just don't complain.
By the way you prob have a nice home that she most likely couldn't afford as a nanny, so thats why she is taking pictures of all your beautiful rooms...
Maybe you should give her a raise and let it go.
Nanny2, I meant that a nanny may not be her full, silly self with the child if she felt self-conscience about doing a duck walk or singing at the top of her lungs if she knew her employer would be watching. Not necessarily about pretending to be a good nanny.
OP, legality and ethics aside, your decision to use nanny cams without making it clear to your nanny prior to hiring that you MIGHT, at any time, under any circumstance, choose to use a nanny cam to observe her job performance has landed you in this little pickle.
You could have avaoided the whole issue if you had said to her, during contract negotiations, "I/We may choose to use a nanny cam at some point during your employment. Is that an issue for you?" Then she gets to choose whether she wants to work for you on camera or not.
Now you're screwed, because if you want to find out whther she's up to no good with your HOUSE, you have to admit you thought she might be up to no good with your child, and you cammed her.
You might want to be ready for her to walk ASAP. I would, in her shoes. Or, considering the market, she may simply start job hunting now, and walk with minimum required notice as soon as she can.
I would walk not because I have issues with the chance of being cammed. I do have tremendous issues with parents being sneaks about their right to cam me. Being honest and upfront is a basic foundation of the nanny parent relationship.
"As an attorney, I can assure you that privacy (excepted in a very limited realm) is not a right granted to American citizens."
Ever heard of the 4th Amendment OP?
Further more, yes, your home is your private property, so usage of a camera is legal. However, lets be honest, your ground gets a little shaky when you are filming someone without their permission or knowledge. Only a judge could truly decide whether or not what you are doing is a violation of their rights. Your nanny may not have a criminal case, but she could still sue you civilly if she so chose. If your nanny feels as though her rights have been violated without her permission, she has a slight case against you. Yes, you have the right to use cameras in your own home, however you CAN get into some shaky ground when you film anyone without their consent or knowledge.
Legally, you are correct. However, we both know many have won cases such as this against employers who did just as you are.
I shutter to see yet one more unethical lawyer. Philosophically, what you are doing is entirely wrong.
Treat others as you desire to be treated. I highly doubt you'd love to have hidden cameras spying on you at your place of work.
4th Amendment:
can you please cite the specific cases or precedent in which nannies have successfully sued employers for using hidden nanny cams?
also, fyi, the word is shuDDer not shuTTer. not one for minor grammar/spelling corrections, but seems like you might be misusing this word without realizing it.
"4th Amendment", I think you're confusing what the government can't do with what the employer can do and cases with voyeuristic employers with genuine concern. Recording in bathroom = win for nanny, recording changing table = win for employers. This could have been prevented with a couple simple searches and think you harmed your argument.
"would love a case citation", you're no better. For someone asking for a citation, you could have attacked with a few yourself. You also missed a valid point, there is something wrong about how OP did this. If it had to be done, it could have been done better.
june:
i am not a lawyer. i don't know how to easily search legal databases for the information. if i had it, of course i would post it. i am sincerely interested in the cases 4th amendment is apparently referencing.
since you feel knowledgable enough about the conversation to judge us both inept, perhaps you could provide the relevant citations you seem familiar with. it's not a contest. i actually want the information.
"would love a case citation", I don't believe you. I know you would love to position yourself as no more than a humble information seeker, but you went on the offensive when started attacking spelling. Combined with your comment, it is only reasonable to assume your post was intended to undermine the previous poster. Had you wanted the information, you should have tried a different approach. The opportunity has passed. Take this as a lesson and move on.
Seems that the argument is being attempted that if YO treat everyone right, they will return the favor. So, if you are a good person, you should have no need for a nanny cam because your nanny will be wonderful and trustworthy.
But that's just silly. An honest, empathetic parent can conduct backgrond checks and do their best to verify references and still discover they've been conned by a bad nanny who is borderline absive or neglectful of their child, or decides to have a group of friends come over for a beer while the baby is nappng, or otherwise skirt the acceptable protocols of the ob. Or not discover it, as the c ase may be.
To argue that it's "unethical" to be possibly filmed at work in your employer's hosue without your knowledge is like arguing that your "right" to privacy has been violated if your employer tracks your internet usage on a company compter and accesses emails you've sent. Guess what? It's THEIR time, and THEIR premises and THEIR equipment. Of course they have the right to observe you on the job, since they are PAYING you to do the job. To think you have some right to privacy on someone's payroll in their house with their newborn infant, is absolutely ridiculous. But yes, if your kids CAN talk, talk to them and let them COMMNICATE with you and that shold be more effective than a nanny cam.
Sorry for typos, my keyboard is *?<)^$'ed up!
so i assume that means you don't actually HAVE the information?
why don't you just stay home and raise your own child that way you won't have to take away "quality time" you spend with your child to spend countless hours reviewing and analizing your nanny cam findings?
"case citation", what information? Do you even know what you're asking for anymore? If you're talking about what "4th amendment" posted, stop asking me. Look at my original post, what the heck am I supposed to cite? Tell me specifically, or grow up.
"4th amendment" should have cited cases, and in your attack, and it was an attack because you included a wonderful tirade on spelling, you should have made a more coherent argument that cited some sort of authority that would have knocked down what "4th amendment" said.
What "4th amendment" said was wrong, but instead of being humble and asking for information, you went on the attack and that was wrong. Why can't you understand that?
a quick addendum, it should read: "but instead of being humble and asking for information [or presenting a logical case for why "4th amendment" was wrong]"
Wow! Are you nanny's kidding!? she is ensuring the safety of her newborn child! TC show me the passage in our Constitution that every American has the right to privacy at all times in all settings!!!!
Show me one corporate setting or business w/o a camera!
yes the nanny-employer relationship is drastically more intimate (or should be) and should include way more trust and respect than a corporate or business setting but
A stranger is working in this woman's home handling the most precious and valuable of gifts!
I AM A NANNY
and although I would not prefer being nanny cam'd after watching videos of nanny abuse on youtube I cal totally understand why someone would put one up!
In any professional/ job setting you should assume your being watched!
but parents just so you know there definitely are other options, such as dropping by unexpected or having a stay at home friend go to a playground/other public place at the same time and just checking (just remember things can and do get taken out of context)
if you want to check to make sure your new nanny handling a child who cannot speak is doing her job. by all means get a nanny cam (honestly i would and will as well) but also don't keep it up for more then a few days thats borderline invasive when you already know she is doing her job
I act as professional as I would with or without a camera with or without my knowledge of it but i agree that i wouldnt feel as comfortable with one and wouldn't be as silly or fun to the kids
....also though at this point in my relationship with my current fam. i would be a bit hurt if i found they were taping me (& therefore don't trust me) so just keep that side in mind as well
I'm a professional" nanny. I snapped a few pictures of my current house when I started. No, I was not planning a B and E. Most people in my life are very intrigued by my job, and I just thought I'd show them where it is I'm spending all of my time. No other motive under the sun.
If nanny had a clear background check, great references, is great to baby when you're home, and when you're not, turn the darn camera off. End of story. There is no reason to be spying on her every move.
If you think for one minute (down the road), that something is up, turn it back on. But for now? If baby is happy, baby is cared for, and baby doesn't mind nanny and the exchange process (when you leave)? Leave it be. You saw the video. She doted on him/her when she thought no one could see her.
GIVE HER A BREAK. Breathe easy. Treat her well, and she'll treat you well. Turn the cameras off, and watch HER in person, interacting with your baby. Gauge your babies' disposition around her. No bruises, no screaming, no behavioral issues-baby is probably happy with her.
Be glad. Be thankful.
june,
yes, i know what i am asking for. same thing i've been asking for all along: "the specific cases or precedent in which nannies have successfully sued employers for using hidden nanny cams?" you can throw vague insults all you want. doesn't change what i have and continue to request from someone who claimed to have this information.
sorry you took such personal offense at pointing our a word misusage. as i said, it was neither a grammar nor a spelling error. it was misusing a common word. i offered the correction because it's the kind of thing you can go thru life not knowing (sort of like "for all intensive purposes") unless someone tells you. it was not a petty spelling correction, though for some odd reason you are fixated on it as such.
as i said, it's not a contest or a battle. despite your suggestion i have no desire to "attack with a few (citations) yourself." i actually just want the information 4th Amendment claims to have. sometimes things are exactly what they seem. am i doubtful it exists? sure. but i know my limits and the law is one of them. so i defer to someone who could easily be more familiar with it than i am.
your repeated references to this discussion with the word "attack" is weird. i'm not at war, despite your perception that ISYN is a battleground. i'm having a written conversation and interested in exchaning information and ideas. i'm not even sure what you are continuing to offer to the initial discussion beyond your attempts to police the interaction between 4th Amendment and I; deem us both unworthy; and provide some sort of handy grade school feedback as to how we should reword our comments to please you. um, thanks, but i think we can handle it on our own going forward, unless you have some personal insight to offer beyond critiquing our writing skills. you aren't our professor or our mom (unless my mom has learned more about the internet than she knew last week).
oh, and for the record, should i make a repeated word misusage (or if someone ever sees me with a piece of food sticking out of my teeth or some such thing) please do tell me. i won't take offense at being corrected. i won't accuse you of attacking me. i appreciate the chance to learn a little from others!
case citation:
1. Taken literally, yeah, what's the harm in what you said at 6:57 PM? But in today's polarized world, you could have done a heck of a lot more to be a little clearer about your intentions. You came off as a nit picky and rude. Let me ask a rhetorical question, when is anything literal anymore?
2. In response all I said was you could have done better and you missed a valid point that "4th Amendment" made
* Now here you had an opportunity to say "oh, that's not what I meant, I meant…"
3. Instead in response you claimed sincerity in your request, accused me of judging you as inept and asked for the citations "4th Amendment" failed to provide.
4. In response I said I didn't believe that you were sincere because how your spelling pointer combined with the citation request appeared like an attack on "4th Amendment" and for attacking your opportunity at the information had passed.
* Again you had the opportunity to say "oh, that's not what I meant, I meant…"
5. Instead you returned with "so i assume that means you don't actually HAVE the information". Another attack.
6. In response and as is only proper, I asked what information? I challenged you to provide a part of my post that requires a citation. I then repeated that your original post came off as an attack.
* For a third time you had the opportunity to say "oh, that's not what I meant, I meant."
7. Instead your response was to accuse me of throwing insults at you, which I have not done. In addition you tried to offer an explanation for the original spelling pointer, as if it were just a simple matter of language seemingly without appreciating the irony that that is all I've been going at you for, is a simple matter of language. Let me repeat, your original post came off as an attack.
I didn't like what "4th Amendment" posted, it was a rehashing of material others had already posted and suggested to me that he or she did not read the thread, which itself annoys the heck out of me. But an attack wasn't appropriate, so I defended "4th Amendment". Instead of saying "oh, I didn't mean that as an attack", you attacked me.
Remember? Your words: "since you feel knowledgable enough about the conversation to judge us both inept". That is an attack. YOU not I, made this a battleground. But instead of taking the high road you've continued with more accusations like "deem us both unworthy" and additional attacks like "provide some sort of handy grade school feedback". Had I provided "grade school feedback", believe me, I would have corrected the spelling of the word knowledgeable.
So at this point what hope is there for you? And where is the logical consistency between attacking me for providing "some sort of handy grade school feedback" and "i won't take offense at being corrected"? Because you seem to have.
That said, fine, I believe you - you didn't mean your original post as an attack on "4th Amendment". Still, for the record, you could say you didn't mean it. Because, you want to.
case citation:
A small addendum if I may. If not clear in the post above, I didn't believe you were sincere in your 8:41 PM post because in that post you accused me of judging you inept.
Tell me, would you have responded kindly to such a post?
As a mother of three, I completely understand OP wanting her child safe and sound. + Again, I have seen the horrible footage that exists about bad nannies.
My point is that the nanny should have been told up front about the cams. I believe then OP would not be in this situation at all. While I am not a huge fans of nanny cams, I would work for a family that had one as long as I knew. Once I found out that they had one and never notified me, then the trust would be eroded for good. Then I would wonder...was there one in the bathroom as well? That is illegal in 50 states, yet how could she prove to me that she didn't put one in the bathroom? Again, the trust would be so eroded that I would never know where I was being spied upon. Was there a secret camera in the stroller when we went out? Etc.
I do things when I am alone that I wouldn't necessarily want my employer to know (don't WE all at one time or another??!) Yes, I may leave the water running longer than I should, or I may doze off on the couch for 10 minutes while baby is napping. But if a camera were on, I would feel super unnatural like I was in a show or something. + How do I know my employer want to get a "second opinion" and show my footage to other people whether for fun or advice..who cares?? That is why these cameras come w/such controversy guys. Because they haven't been around long enough for proper boundaries to be set. How do I know my employer didn't put them in the bathroom, then show her hubby or worse...other friends?? You might say, "Of course not, who would do that?" But once trust is gone, who knows what the employer might do behind the nannies back? It's like if my hubby were caught cheating on camera and he was only caught "kissing" another woman, but denied they ever slept together. Well once the trust was eroded, like I would ever believe him!!! Just a comparison folks.
!!! I'm with the nanny.......*Sigh* I never brought up the constitution and I never once said we are guaranteed privacy in all settings. Please learn to read and comprehend....there have been people that have brought up the 4th amendment but it wasn't me.
If you want to be nanny cammed without your permission you go right ahead. I simply do not. Now if you did read what I wrote I did say that I have worked for a family that had nanny cams BUT they were upfront with that information they didn't hide it from me and I was ok with it BECAUSE they told me.
no, june, i have no desire to correct my original post. what i said was what i meant. no matter how many times you write oh so kindly giving me permission to do so. i feel no obligation to correct YOUR misinterpretation of MY post. but, please, feel free to continue replying and repeating yourself over, and over, and over again.
it's already obvious you are a must-have-the-last-work type. so feel free to reply and have it. then you can feel like you have won. i can feel sorry for you. and we'll both be happy.
I've only been filming the nanny for two weeks, as it's only during the past two weeks that I've been working outside the home.
The cameras capture video-only (not audio) and are located so as to view the kitchen, great room, and nursery. I review them quickly, fast forwarding through them and only pressing play if something catches my eye as being unusual. I am not looking to catch the nanny in embarrassing moments, just ensuring that my son was being treated well. The photo-taking caught my eye as being peculiar.
Armed with extra peace of mind that nanny is doing great with my baby, I will probably continue to film while I am away but only check the tape if something seems amiss with my son.
This is in no way illegal- for those "lay lawyers" citing the fourth amendment, if you want to give legal advice, go to law school. I don't think it's unethical, either. I am not spying on a friend; I am reviewing the performance of an employee. I am not looking to see if she farts or picks her nose or adjusts her clothes; it's not my business and I'm not making it my business. I am just ensuring the safety and well being of my son, and I won't apologize for it.
OP if you honestly do not think it is unethical to video tape someone w/out their knowledge, then all I can say is it speaks volumes about your character. Sure as a parent (I am one 3x over), I value my child's safety as #1 at ALL times. But what you are doing is deceptive. Why not just tell your Nanny? She obviously loves and cares for your baby while you cannot, the very LEAST you could do is show her some respect and let her know about the cameras. You also owe it to your son to treat his childcare provider w/the utmost respect which will insure he will only get optimal care while you cannot provide it.
case citation:
If you have no wish to correct another's misinterpretation, you shouldn't be here. We are polite enough here to say, "oh, I didn't mean that". It isn't too high a standard to set. That said, again, I don't believe you. I believe you intended it as an attack and I think it is shameful.
As for having the last word, I don't care for it. You can go on for all time for all I care. Just be polite about it. Be willing to say you screwed up, because for the record you did screw up.
And no one won, it wasn't a contest.
OP:
You're a real class act, you know that? You ask for our advice, we give it and you say you'll drop the camera use. Great, but then you return, attack the weaker arguments, ignore the stronger arguments and blow off the ethical argument. You then proceed to go back on your original promise to drop the camera use. A real class act. I wouldn't trust you.
June,
I didn't promise anyone anything, and I'm not sure why a promise to you (or anyone here) would be relevant, anyhow. You're not working in my home. The few people here that "get it"- the nannies that understand the point of the camera and who are neither offended nor put off by them- are the ones I'd want in my home.
Further, the only advice I sought was for ideas as to why the nanny would be photographing the rooms in my home. I never sought nor invited your opinions about the camera, because frankly, I don't care.
What I did say is that my intention all along was never to film every day and review the tapes every day. It's unnecessary. But, I will continue to leave the camera on (it only holds 48 hours, anyway), and if something happens to warrant suspicion on my part, I might go back and look to see if the tape provides any clues.
I have a friend who had the same nanny for 3 years and they loved her. One day, she came home to find her one year old had fractured his leg. The nanny said he'd fallen off a pottery barn chair- a foot off the ground- but the orthopedic said it was not possible for that fall to cause the baby's specific injury. A nanny cam that had all but been forgotten- my friend said she hadn't reviewed the tape in over a year- was reviewed and they found the one year old had fallen down a flight of stairs while the nanny used the bathroom. While I would hope most nannies have better sense than to leave mobile infants unattended EVER, I do realize that all of us will make a stupid judgment on occasion. The fall alone was not grounds for firing, but the lying about it? When the child could have had head trauma or other broken bones that a fall off a foot-tall pottery barn chair would not have caused anyone to suspect? That's the kind of breach of trust that is grounds for immediate termination- and, in my friend's case, it was.
Bottom line: Any nanny worth her salt ought to know that your employers' children are worth more to her than ANYONE'S purported right to or expectation of privacy ever will be. If you're doing a good job, it doesn't matter if you're being recorded. It just does not.
I will say again, I work in a home with cameras everywhere, and while people are suprised when I tell them, it feels normal to me now. My employers didn't exactly tell me about them, but they didn't exactly hide it either. To all the nannies who say they wouldn't feel as comfortable being silly with the kids if there was a camera, I think eventually you just learn how to function without being fixated on the camera. When you are really engaged with a child, you give them whatever it is they need, no matter who is watching. I don't say that as a criticism, just to point out that you can be against something in theory, but in reality find that it's not a problem.
I think if someone were going to abuse my child they would do it no matter what. Unless you have cameras in the car, how do you know what happens on daily outings and such? And even if you have them in the house, who's to say the nanny won't abuse my child in some other part of the house where she knows cameras are illegal. She may abuse him in the bathroom if she really wants to do it.
Why is that nannies are filmed, yet daycares do not typically have cameras? Or public schools? You hear more stories on the news about coaches abusing minors and such, yet nannies are under worse scrutiny. It's not fair.
Nanny Sarah-
Nanny is not permitted to take my son in the car, as there's no use for it. We live in a very walking-friendly town- and we're just a few blocks from town center- so if she wants fresh air or to grab some lunch, she can take him in the stroller. Perhaps my logic here is imperfect, but I think it's less likely that she'd abuse him on a busy street surrounded by people than she would in my home where she is alone.
As for the issue of how I know that she's not taking him into the bathroom to abuse him, it's quite simple. The cameras are positioned so that I can see the bathroom door. There's no reason for her to take him in there, so if I saw her do so on camera, I'd bring it up to her, or if there was indication of foul play, fire her. The layout of the house is quite open so that my two well positioned cameras can see where she is going. As it is, nanny and baby spend virtually all of their time in the great room, kitchen, and nursery, as there really is no reason for them to be elsewhere.
My system isn't perfect. But in my mind, I've done and am doing my due diligence, as best I can, because it's what my son deserves. I suppose I could operate under the assumption that the nanny- in spite of a clean background, stellar references, and evidence of kind, nurturing care- is actually evil AND knows of the cameras (their existence and whereabouts), so she somehow manages to evade them and abuses my son there. But that's too extreme for me. I'm cautious, but fairly reasonable. And for now, that's good enough for me. I'm not sure how the alternative- no cameras- would be better. My system may have its loopholes, but doesn't no cameras have even bigger ones?
OP again, I am a mother myself and understand your need to protect your son w/the utmost care that you can. No one is disagreeing w/your mothering. That is not my issue w/your situation at all. My issue is that I believe you are jeopardizing your working relationship w/your nanny the way you are going about using the nanny cams. These are functional cameras and can benefit both nanny and parent, however by not telling your nanny, you are in a sense deceiving her. You have not really told us why you are not telling her about them in the house. Why didn't you just tell about them up front? You could have avoided this situation up front. Plus the fact that you have the cameras positioned to see the front bathroom door could be a gray area legality-wise. When caring for a small child, sometimes nature calls and you need to keep the door open since anything catastrophic could happen in those seconds you are doing your business. I know from personal experience as both a nanny and a parent. That is an invasion of privacy to have the cameras positioned at the front of the bathroom door as sometimes the provider must keep the door open just to be safe.
Anyway, this is just my opinion. If a nanny is okay w/this set-up, then more power to you both. But you need to TELL HER and stop being so sneaky. And don't think that a nanny wouldn't be abusive or neglectful on a crowded street. As the nanny sightings/pics on this website show, it could happen anywhere!! There is simply no 100% way of protecting your child from a bad provider. Sure, there are loopholes in the camera situation, but loopholes also exist w/bad nannies. If someone wants to do something abusive or neglectful, and they have access to your child, then they will find a way.
OP:
You said "I do not intend to continue to use the camera" and later "I will probably continue to film". At best, you're inconsistent and unstable, at worse, you're a flat out liar. None of that makes for great employer material.
OP, you did ask for our opinion of the camera. Here's you, "If I bring it up, I have to tell her about the camera." Did you really think that wasn't soliciting our thoughts on the camera use? You were trying to find out how your nanny would react to the nanny camera by test detonating the revelation on us.
Now obviously you wanted us to react positively, you made for a feel good move that would skew the data in the way you wanted it to turn out. That is, you gave yourself an excuse from the get go, "being a nervous first time mom".
Point is, you did and do care what we think about the camera. You do not care in the slightest what we think about the photos your nanny took, because no answer any of us gives on that subject will prove satisfactory. It's obvious you intend to ask your nanny and to do so you're going to have to reveal the camera, so any negative reaction to the camera here is instant blasphemy.
As for your story about your friend, and your so called bottom line, I know exactly what you're doing. You're testing the unjust anger you're going to have towards your wonderful nanny should she voice even the slightest concern.
You should have told her from the get-go that you might use a camera and whatever arguments exist for or against recording are irrelevant. You are in the wrong. Have a nice day.
Wow June. You sure seem to think your opinion is super important. Why is that?
Well spoken June!!!
ITA Reallly. June is our latest super annoying addition to ISYN. We should give out awards! If you follow her replies through the whole thread (which, trust me, takes a lot of patience to read her long monologues), you'll see her ego in full flare! I also find it funny that she replied to someone above that she doesn't need the last word, but was actually replying to get the last word! Now I totally expect you and I will be reamed by Her Highness for daring to contradict her. Let's get out the popcorn and let the show begin!
reallly:
Those are the words of a troll. How is that a relevant response to what I said above? If I had to bet, I would bet that you're either OP, pissed that she's been exposed for what she is, and not sure how to respond, or "case citation", who is annoyed with me for having dared to defend TC. Although I wouldn't be surprised if they were one and the same, I don't think they are. My opinion is no more important than any other, but some could think through their arguments a little further.
Nanny Lisa:
Thank you. *hugs*
i agree with reallly:
I’m super annoying? Well, I appreciate the info. Hello "case citation", you think we can't see through it - how many have launched into an attack into the first few sentences? You are the person who first said they didn't want the last word. In response how does one such as I not interested in the last word but rather content respond except to say so? Oh but here's the catch, because that satisfies my having had the last word, so I must have wanted it, yes?
Then there is this post. Where you “expect to be reamed”. Now if I dare to defend myself, you must be right, yes? It's this circular logic that limits you my friend. You set it up that if I say anything, you must be right. I'm sorry to say and I say it with all the respect I can, that is pure nonsense.
Let's recall what I said. I said: "As for having the last word, I don't care for it. You can go on for all time for all I care. Just be polite about it. Be willing to say you screwed up, because for the record you did screw up. And no one won, it wasn't a contest."
Oh wow, that’s like something Hitler, Mao or Stalin would say, isn’t it? I guess I really am the tyrannical self proclaimed dictator you portray me as. Torturing and executions must be just around the corner. I think to start I'll strap people to a chair and force them to watch Barney videos for twelve hours straight. The nannies and parents will have an immunity to it, but trolls will suffer and I’ll find a way around the immunity. This post was 440 words, that’s like a mini-novel by your reckoning, I wonder if I could get it published?
Please, if you choose to respond, let’s talk about things like OP’s intentions, arguments for an against nanny cameras, or anything on topic. This isn’t. Best wishes to thee.
okay, i admit to breaking my word by posting here, but feel it's warranted to prevent someone else getting blamed for being me.
june: i haven't replied to you again until now. i said you could have the last word you obviously need (and i'm sure will reply to this AGAIN to have). i did not say anything else until you said antoher person was me. i will stick to my plan to not get into discussions about specifics with you again. it's clear that goes no where.
case citation:
Yes of course, how foolish of me! That wasn't you. It could never be you. No one ever uses a second or third name to backup a bad comment of theirs. It just isn't done. That you're so quick to respond, is just coincidence.
And again, your circular logic that if I respond, you're automatically right. As I said above my friend, that just isn't the case. This concept of having the last word is yours, you brought it in. It is important only to you. I do not hold you to any promise of being quiet. That'd be pretty darn silly of me.
You never discussed the specifics of anything related to the topic with me. You attacked TC and when I defended TC, instead of being a humble human being and saying, "oh, that isn't what I meant", you attacked me. You accused me of judging you inept. I did not do that.
When I said I felt what you said was an attack, you brought in the concept of a battlefield or contest. Not I. You tried to argue that I was wrong for feeling attacked and you were wrong to argue that. People can feel attacked without necessarily thinking about battle. You're rather careless with your attacks. Indeed, except maybe and just maybe the first, can you show me one post you've made that hasn't included one?
I'm sorry, but there is nothing to be won here. The only thing going nowhere here is trying to win anything. Now again, please, if you choose to respond, stay on topic.
What are your thoughts on nanny cameras - do you believe they should be alright regardless, do you believe they're a violation of the trust regardless, or do you see some happy middle ground or compromise? I would love to know.
Best wishes.
June, you're right. You don't need the last word. You need the last 8,000 words. And, since your opinion is really NOT that important, I'm skipping over most of whatever you're spewing about. I can see from the length and frequency of your posts that you have no intentions of letting anyone get the last word if it contradicts you.
I'm taking bets now...Can June just shut it and let this drop, or will she feel the need to reply yet AGAIN, just to prove that her opinion is no more important than anyone else's? June, no accusations on you here. You can congratulate yourself on being "right" all you want, but if yoy reply again, I and whoever is with me wins the bet. Oh, and just so that I'm complying with your orders, my oipinion on nanny cams is that they are a great idea and people like you, who may seem fairly normal at a job interview, don't like them because you get caught at shoit you shouldn't be doing.
OK, don't answer.
...3...2...1
really?:
When will you learn that it doesn't work? We're not fools here at ISYN, we all know this last word nonsense is no more than an attempt to silence me because you don't like what I have to say, not because of anything I need and you're very transparent about it now.
Look, you simply cannot say that (1) my opinion isn't important, (2) imply that anything I say just isn't worth reading, and (3) claim that I am a bad nanny, and then suggest that my saying anything in response, that is any attempt to defend myself would be out of some need to have the last word.
ISYN knows that my response is done because my opinion is important, like yours and everyone else, and what I say is worth a fair hearing, like what you say and what everyone else says. In addition, I am not a nanny. I am a mother and an employer. If I may toot my horn for a second, a darn good one too.
I've never used a nanny cam. When my children were younger, I always had family available until my mom passed. My littlest was four and the eldest seven by the time I first had a nanny. I'm iffy on the subject. It does seem to me a violation of the trust, on the other hand I could have seen my using one if I hadn't had my mom.
Still, I would have said something to the nanny, I know me and I know would have said something. I would have put at least the possibility into the agreement. I think OP is in the wrong for having not and I do believe OP has shown herself to be dishonest. OP doesn't care what we think of the photos her nanny is snapping, do you really think any answer we give will be satisfactory to her?
She just wants her anger to be "right" should her wonderful nanny voice the slightest bit of concern after the revelation that OP has filmed her and thus OP is bound to respond very negatively to anything that would suggest a negative response from her nanny. She is testing her anger, nothing more.
Look, I don't know why you're going out of your way to keep the nonsense going. It is you and not I that keeps it alive. I simply maintain the right to respond to attacks upon my person and that is not an unreasonable right to reserve. If you had wanted it dropped, you could have chosen to respond about the cameras alone. I wouldn't have raised the dead.
So here is your chance again. Respond, on topic about cameras, without the attacks. We can have a discussion on your thoughts. It seems you're for no holds bared use of them, is this a correct interpretation of your meaning? Please tell me if it is or isn't. Best wishes.
June...hugs right back from Nanny Lisa. :)
HeeHee! I win!
Oh and June, I guess you missed it the first time since ypu're asking me to repeat my opinion on nanny cams, so I'm reposting it for you. Let me know if there's sopme part of it you still don't understand, k?
My opinion on nanny cams is that they are a great idea and people like you, who may seem fairly normal at a job interview, don't like them because you get caught at shit you shouldn't be doing.
Oh, and take your "best wishes" and shove them. I'm not getting married so I don't need any wishes from you.
And have a nice day.
At this point, I'm pretty sure June has a mental illness. I don't think she even possesses the ability to moderate her verbal or written output.
June, Good Luck and I hope you get the help you need soon!
Nanny Lisa:
Thank you. :)
really?:
Sure, you win. What I wonder, but that's immaterial. Want a ribbon, or do you prefer a trophy?
really?:
I'm a mother, but of course you didn't read my post.
i agree with really?:
How many names do you need? As for moderating output, what exactly? I offer observations, you offer attacks. I am reading your posts, in their entirety, before responding. You skim, poorly, mine and miss the point of each.
That said, my questions are rhetorical, I've tired of this fight with you and I've said my piece on this thread. So you know what, have the floor.
Tell us more about your Masters in Psychology perhaps? I'm giving you no more attention here. Best wishes, hugs and kisses too, whether you want them or not.
Buh-bye.
Ok, OP. I won't begrudge you the use of a nanny cam. I personally like it a lot better if I know it's there as a nanny, but I tend to assume it's there for the first few weeks of employment anyways. My other nanny friends do the same.
Just to reiterate a bit about the photo taking. I'm in my early twenties and have no intention of having kids any time soon, but I have taken pictures of at least two employers nurseries. I've done so because I've liked design or a creative piece. I would never publish them publicly, like online, which is what I would think would bother you more. Mostly I have shown them to my mother, or my pregnant cousin. On one case I've taken pictures of someone's home just because it was so beautifully decorated.
It might be a little odd to you, but I don't think there was anything wrong with her taking pictures. I doubt any harm was intended. Maybe you could ask some time about her taking pictures of the baby? That way you could broach the subject without admitting to the nanny cams.
I think she may have been innocently taking photos of a home that she considers to be beautiful :)
I can understand why a parent would want to use a nanny cam, but as a nanny, I would be very uncomfortable with it. I certainly never have and never would abuse a child or do anything to upset the trust that parents place in me. I do, however, sing badly at the top of my lungs with kids, have "silly dance" parties, play 'dog' or 'cat' or 'elephant', make up stupid songs for cleaning up and washing hands, etc... if I found out that someone had been watching me on a nanny cam I would quit for sheer embarrassment.
Post a Comment