I think you guys overstate how much irritation my wife has about this issue. Please see “trivial” reference in the OP.
And no, as I said repeatedly, our sitters are free to work with whoever they want to.
That could still fit under the scenario I described- people say things different ways and such. Maybe your sitter didn’t realize your wife was going to flip out and just casually said it in that generalized way.
I’m sorry. You’re actually right. There’s no reason not to discuss small potatoes, that’s a great deal of what makes this message board fun.
I think the reason this got my ire up so quickly was the appeal to “The Mom Code”. There *is *no Mom Code. There are cultural expectations, and this one (not sharing babysitters) is so anathema to my own that it really hit me hard the wrong way. Almost as much as if you’d suggested withholding food from a starving child. It’s not you, it’s me.
My friends and I are really poor. Like, well below the poverty level poor. We’d never dream of keeping a good babysitter to ourselves anymore than we’d not offer food to one another when we’re hungry, or watch each others’ kids for free whenever we can. Our Code is that you share and share alike, whenever you can.
But I realize that this sort of thing may be in you and your wife’s Social Code, and since I’m entirely ignorant of that Code other than it’s not my Code, I really shouldn’t have joined in the thread at all.
They are mostly daughters of friends and friends of other sitters. You don’t poach other friends sitters. You know…mom code and all.
That was my reaction too.
I don’t see where the theft is occurring.
Where did I say my wife flipped out? I must have missed that part.
If it’s so trivial, why did you bring it up at all, and why do you refer to it as “poaching”?
Yes, but you also ask:
That she’s even considering discussing it means she’s blown it way out of proportion, in my (and apparently, everyone else’s) opinion.
How has she been unreasonable to any of her babysitters? We regularly offer them work. We pay them above market rates. We do refer them occasionally to friends. We are not their referral service or even owe them that consideration.
If you have the expectation that your clients always refer you, then I would say that you are the one being unreasonable.
Wow, I thought this thread was going to be about a babysitter stealing something from your house. Call me WTF-dazzled. By the way, “babysitter sniping” might be a more apt expression to describe this practice that you so bizarrely see as an issue. Business is business, buddy. If you want exclusivity with this babysitter have her sign a contract and start paying her a retainer whether you use her services or not. That’s the only fair way to get what you want. Otherwise holy shit - suck it up.
Omar: it seems to me that if you wish the exclusive services of a child-care surrogate, you should hire a full-time, live-in nanny (with the attendant increase in expenses and responsibility on your part). Otherwise it is actively unethical to try to restrict the money-making endeavors of your part-timers. Doing so is exploiting them in a selfish, cynical, and unattractive fashion.
That’s a big assumption. When a simple response of “No, I would just let it go.” would have sufficed. Instead, my wife is accused of being uncharitable, unreasonable in her dealing with babysitters, uncaring for our children, etc. etc. Typical doper responses, for a silly question. At least Why Not had the decency to admit, her over zealousness in her response.
No it isn’t. You and your wife have seriously screwed-up ideas about how to behave.
Once again another doper who missed the point.
Friends of other sitters? So… if the Babysitter Code worked like the Mom Code, your cadre would be replaced with a single sitter who wouldn’t care if you were unable to find a sitter when she was unavailable so long as she picked up all the work during the times that she was available?
We’re talking about a personal service provider at a quality level that’s hard to find, whose services cannot be replaced by just anybody. This is someone who will spend hours in your home when you’re not there. This is someone to whom you entrust the wellbeing of your children. If you find such a person, and want to be able to use their services rather than having them always booked working for someone else, you don’t broadcast their contact information.
It’s up to each household to find its own providers of such service, and it’s up to each service provider to find its own clients. Suggesting that the OP has no right to be discreet about treasured babysitters, or that the sitters are harmed by such discretion, strikes me as nonsense. It’s not his responsibility to ensure that his neighbors have babysitters, and it’s not his reponsibility to ensure that his sitters have clients. They’re capable of seeing to their needs without his help.
Mainly, though, it’s slitting your own throat to make it easy for others to use up a limited resource like this. Let them do their own legwork like you did, and reap the rewards of their own efforts instead of depriving you of the rewards of yours. While I’m sure it’s not the situation everywhere, I find it quite plausible that in the OP’s area, this is an unwritten code of respect and honor among most of the moms.
I’d say the woman in question has garnered valuable information by deceit, and is behaving quite unethically. In using that information, she is potentially creating a hardship for the OP. Sure, she has a legal right to hire any babysitter, no matter who else they work for. Morally though, she has the obligation to put more effort into her search than telling a lie and taking advantage of others’ trust.
I think your wife should talk to this gal. It may be that she hasn’t thought about how her actions could be detrimental to your lifestyle. Or she may be an underhanded snake, which would be good to know for future reference.
Stop saying this. It’s total bullshit.
Okay. What IS the point, then?
(bolding mine)
This is all very well and good. However, this thread got started because the OP’s wife did not do as the bolded section suggests. The question is: now what?
His point is that they aren’t upset that the sitter is getting business, but that other mom was dishonest re: her intentions in her getting the name of the sitter. As I said though, there’s no way for anybody to know that it wasn’t the sitter who offered, not the mom. And no sane person would say to the sitter, “Oh, that’s awfully nice, but I have to get permission from my friends before I hire you. Lemme give them a call and make sure it’s ok!”