I’ll probably catch flack for this, but why do you consider them despicable– because they reversed their decision?

If they were within their rights initially, when they decided that they didn’t want their nanny bringing her newborn to work, why do you consider them monsters because they changed their minds?

Their sickly kid was their first priority.

People are allowed to change their minds. You understood their position to begin with, I don’t understand why it would be different. If I was paying someone to take care of my sick child, I would be concerned with them bringing their own new child. It’s not unreasonable of them to want their nanny’s primary focus to be on their child, and not her own needy newborn. So…they found a suitable replacement and gave you proper notice. Would you have rather they come home that Sunday and said “You’re out, don’t come back!”?

As for complaining about the ‘above and beyond’ nannying – that was your job. You obviously took it rather than left it; you knew she was a sick little girl who required extra care. To be honest, they sound like very fair, generous employers – treating you well, helping you out financially (I assume beyond your normal compensation), informing you of their new decision in a timely fashion. They didn’t owe you any more than they gave you.

Yeah, I’d have to say, they honestly sounded pretty reasonable. I don’t think this was so much a “bad” job but more of a “job that didn’t work out the way I wanted to”.

Agreed with Ted, sorry. If I had a sick child, I would not want my nanny to bring another child around them either. (And I WAS a nanny for 1 yr and 1/2. I definitely turned down play dates for my nanny charge if one or the other kid was sick, and this was just colds and not anything serious). Sorry but I wouldn’t have kept you either…..just due to the child thing. And they gave you adequate notice.

Employment laws which state that you can’t fire someone due to pregnancy, don’t apply in this situation, sorry to say. (Look at your state’s employment laws).

Hey, if I was 6.5 months pregnant and had assumed that I would be kept on indefinitely, a sudden change would definitely be upsetting. The OP understood that bringing her child was not acceptable, and then was later given the indication that it was acceptable in which she remained employed by them far longer than she would have while devoting herself to the family and sick child.

This was her worst job and she pointed out she was going above what was required by administering the child’s medical needs. Legal or not, this was a callous way to handle the situation with the OP and parents. I would definitely view these people ass monsters — Requiring an unqualified nanny to provide medical help is thoughtless to the sick child while causing undue stress on the OP’s pregnancy by firing her at 6.5 months pregnant.

Let me stress, no where did the OP suggest that she should bring her child home. She only understood that her child would need her during the formative months/years and that she needed to make a tough decision of remaining employed or quitting. When that decision was removed through the situation changing, the OP felt backstabbed by two people she had come to view as more than just employers when she was fired.

Sounds pretty crummy to me.

I agree with Meshell.
That’s a pretty messed up thing to do to an expectant mother! The OP could have been making other arrangements (like school) instead of working for them in that time. At 6.5 months pregnant, there isn’t much you can do…

And I’d be more worried about their baby getting her’s sick. She was the one with all the health problems!

Monsters? They gave her a months notice! No… no, you’re right. I bet they were related to Stalin.

Being an expectant mother isn’t some hallowed status. Good lord. Most women have children at some point in their lives. It doesn’t exempt you from day-to-day life, from the unpleasant parts especially. Like it or not, the OP’s ability to do the job she was hired to do would arguably be significantly impaired by her having a child. ‘Undue stress’ is a fact of life.

It was these parents’ job to look out for THEIR kid, not to worry about how TRAUMATIZED OP was going to be when they gave her timely notice. She’s pregnant, not porcelain. I hate this sort of patronization of pregnant women. They’re still fully operational adults! They’re not these compromised, delicate creatures to whom the world owes special consideration and deference. What, were these people obligated to keep on a nanny they felt could no longer devote her full attention to their special-needs child? Just to spare her poor pregnant feelings? They may have been friendly (which is pretty natural for employers who work as in-home child care), but the employee/employer relationship still existed. They fulfilled every duty to her. No legal or moral duty exists requiring them to keep her in their employ when, in truth, her ability to perform her job has been significantly compromised – the employers’ little girl would inevitably not have received the level of attention that her parents desired and paid for. Newborns are needy.

People get fired with less notice than a month, and for less legitimate reasons. I just don’t see how they’re such terrible employers.

See, to me, it looks like they never intended to hire her back permanently, but led her on so that they’d have someone lined up for their anniversary trip. Then, as soon as they came back, they had “changed their minds” but secretly meant to do that all along. Slimy.

They kept a nanny for nearly six months for ONE weekend? Doubtful. Six months is beyond enough time to line up a weekend babysitter.

Mmairead– Right ON! Sing it, sister.

(Though, come to think of it, I have no evidence you’re a chick. I’m just hoping you are–)

@meshell, I know you only accidentally typed “ass monster” – but that was awesome. I agree that they are ass monsters.

You know what? They made a choice that they were within their right to do. That doesn’t mean it didn’t put the OP in a shitty position. It sounds as if money is tight, and if you’re under the impression that securing employment when you’re clearly far along in your pregnancy, knowing that you’re probably going to need time off when the baby comes? It’s not easy.

OP, best wishes.

I’m torn here. I nanny full time, and I would honestly think if I had a baby — cool, a new playmate for the kids. On the other hand, if I were bringing a baby with me I’d be more focused on keeping my child happy and healthy than the children I’m taking care of.

However that discourse has nothing to do with the BS that was what they did. If they’d said “we’d like to keep you on for a while to find a new nanny, but we don’t feel comfortable with you bringing your baby to work” I’d be on their side. But what they said was “naw,” and then they said “oh, wait, nevermind, now that you’re showing and completely undesirable to potential employers — we’ve replaced you” …that’s total BS. And yes it WAS BS because she was pregnant. Someone who isn’t pregnant and showing has a shot at finding another job, but just throwing her under the bus like that was lame.

Faith– You’re implying that her employers had the same obligations as her husband– that they were morally obligated to stand by her throughout the pregnancy. It should be remembered that they didn’t enter into any vows with her, they merely hired her to do an important job that couldn’t be put on hold for weeks (or months) at a time.

You yourself say that a new mother would likely be more focused on her baby than her job, and that a pregnant woman who’s “showing” would be “completely undesirable” to employers– I guess it’s common knowledge that a new mother isn’t expected to dedicate anything approaching 100% to their job. Some jobs are more forgiving of inattentiveness than others– lone caregiver for a sick infant isn’t one of them.

When the OP initially told her employers about the pregnancy, and they said they didn’t approve of her bringing her newborn to work, her plan was to return to school. Why does an additional month— after another change of mind— serve both to render her school plan unworkable AND brand the employers as evil fuckers?

A new playmate for the kids? Have you ever cared for a newborn? They are nowhere near playmates, for kids of any age. They’re, (to be blunt and unemotional), black holes for attention. Faith, you admit yourself your primary concern would be YOUR child, and fair enough. The sick little girl had no need for a playmate – she needed care and full attention, not a distracted nanny who is (understandably) pretty wrapped up in her own new firstborn.

And as for firing a pregnant woman being cruel because she was unlikely to get hired again – I was let go from my part-time job due to the economy, and I’m unlikely to get rehired anywhere else because of the time demands my school schedule places on me – they take a look at my availability and I know my application is going in the trash when I close the door behind me. It’s not fair, but if they need someone more available than me, it’s their right not to hire me. I don’t think my former employers OWED me that job because it was going to be so hard for me to find another and I’m in a tight financial spot. My circumstances are my responsibility, not theirs. (And yes, I’m a girl. )

Shitty part was that she was lead to believe that she will have the job even though her situation is changed. They kept looking for the new nanny behind her back for not disclosed period of time she was not given the same opportunity to go through for new plans (school, new job whatever). Everybody here keeps saying that she was given a month’s notice but OP indicated that they wanted to continue until end of the month. The end of the month could be next day or after 5 days or 29 days. My point is that she was not given equal opportunity and this sucks even more for OP as they lead her to believe that she will continue even when baby was born. Then suddenly one day which late in pregnancy they decided to let her go. Now the schools have deadlines and if you want to pursue admission you need considerable time before you actually start the school. No? She does not have same options as the non pregnant women or the those parents had. It is not like they suddenly found out that OP is pregnant. Bottom line is she was honest with them but they were not.

If you are deceived by your employer then that job does fall into shitty job category, pregnant or not pregnant.

I don’t think they were totally unreasonable, but I can sympathize with how the way it ended made you feel. I also wouldn’t find it too hard to believe that they lied to keep you around for their weekend-getaway, but they also then gave you a month’s notice. So not the least moral people ever, I guess.

I am pretty upset with this story. They led you on till you couldn’t get another job (literally, no one will hire a visibly pregnant woman) or get into school (she would have to wait 6+weeks after delivery to return to class), while their poor baby is receiving less than optimum care. I’m sure you did a good job in your capacity but a nurse or home aide would have been better suited for her medical needs. They were obviously cutting corners in that respect and then couldn’t make a solid decision for this woman who cared for their sick newborn until it was to late or at least convenient for them. Lame!

There’s alot of pregnant women who are all ‘Im the most special fucking person ever’ but OP doesn’t sound like she thinks she is fantastically entitled.

I would have the two babies fight and upload the video to U-Tube.

I didn’t read all the comments but you know by law they cannot fire you for being pregnant. If you still did all of your work and your pregnancy did not cause any work related issues than they had no right to actually fire you. These people are absolute jerks in my opinion, they gave the OP mixed messages, no notice and basically fired her for being pregnant sounds pretty shitty to me

I dunno, my thought was also that they kept her around to have an experienced nanny that they would feel comfortable leaving their child with while they went away for the weekend, which also happened to be her birthday weekend. THen they come back and say, “we’ve replaced you even though we never told you we were looking for someone else! Happy birthday!” If they decided to start looking for someone else, they should have told her so she could plan out her future instead of suddenly having to figure out what to do about employment. I bet if she and her husband had known she was not going to keep her job, they would have saved money differently. A few months makes a big difference in that kind of situation.

Laura: I didn’t read all the comments but you know by law they cannot fire you for being pregnant.

That law does not apply to companies consisting of less than fifteen employees. To enforce it would leave tiny companies and individuals forced to keep on someone who cannot really be as productive as they were when there is no one else to cover for them. It’s one thing to ease the work burden of an employee or have them take three months off when there are other employees to pick up her workload. That’s obviously not possible when she’s the only employee. Seriously, do some research before you go handing out advice.

It’s called at-will employment. Unless you’ve got a contract, your employer generally doesn’t NEED a reason to fire you.

I don’t think at-will employment covers discrimination. Laura’s suggesting (if I’m reading this correctly, and correct me if I’m wrong) that she was fired because she was pregnant which is necessarily gender-based discrimination (that is, a man can never be fired because he’s pregnant). Larger companies can be at-will too, but they are bound not to discriminate against employees who belong to protected classes.

The employers fired her for a rational reason– her pregnancy guaranteed that she wouldn’t be able to perform her job for an extended period (one assumes a certain amount of time-off would be required), and after the baby was born she wanted to divide her workplace attention between her own baby and theirs.

Offhand, I don’t believe that ‘discrimination’ laws would apply here.

Imagine if they did, though— do you think it would be fair, sane, and just? Should a person employing a lone caregiver be expected to suffer the hardship of extending a (mandated) pregnancy leave? The employer would be totally fucked– unable to fire, while the job has been abandoned for a period of weeks or months.

Sometimes well-meaning legislation has the opposite effect. If hiring the ‘protected class’ has too many potential negatives, employers would simply avoid hiring that class. And who could blame them, if employee pregnancy means that one’s small business (or household, in this case) will suffer profound hardship? Sane employer hiring decision: avoid women of child-bearing age.

I gotta agree with Lisa. They are her employers, not her parents or her husband. They are not required to financially support her and stand by her through her pregnancy. If it wasn’t going to affect her job, then they’d be despicable for firing her because of it. But if I were her employer, and her choices were a) leave or b) bring her newborn baby with her and give my sick, needy kid half or less than half the attention (everyone is agreeing newborns are black holes for attention, even the “ass monster” crowd), then yes, I’d fire her or ask her to leave so I could hire someone who’d give my kid their full attention. I’m hiring a nanny, not a friend.

I would feel bad about it, make no mistake, especially if I liked her – it would be a shitty decision to have to make. But ultimately, MY kid and MY family come first. She and her husband made family planning decisions without consulting her employers, and that’s as it should be – it’s their decision. But that means that they have to take personal responsibility for it. Mmairead’s right, pregnancy is not some hallowed status under which women lose their own agency and need to be protected from pebbles under their mattresses.

Yes, if I were the OP I’d be hella upset, freaked out, and fearing for the future – she’s in a shitty position. But I’d still feel the same way. Sometimes, situations are awful without anybody being at fault, and you can’t just try to pinpoint blame on someone to make yourself feel better.

That is horrible. People like this really make me sick. The audacity to have you work an entire weekend while preg and then fire you!? You are better off NOT working for such people. I would love to feature your story on my blog, Bad Nanny, which I have recently started. It is half humor/half serious about the woes of being a nanny and the crazy employers that go with it. Let me know what you think. email me at badnanny4you @ gmail and visit the site! Good luck!!!