Omar, look at it this way. Say you have a favorite restaurant, but it’s small and always booked. Your friends asks for a recommendation for their anniversary, you give them the name of the restaurant, stipulating that they only use it for the one time. Then you find out that they’re eating there every week, sometimes twice a week! So far, it hasn’t prevented you from getting a table, although someday it might, but how dare they get the name under false pretenses! Don’t they know the restaurant code?
Omar, your wife was outwitted and made a tactical mistake in the babysitter turf wars. One should always keep the contact of a flaky babysitter at hand for just such occasions. Now the damage is done and under no circumstances should your wife broach the subject with the other mom. The only move left is to cheerfully ask if she has been happy with the services of your sitter. Then poach their gardener. That’ll get the message across that you are not to be messed with.
The problem is that you’re assuming too much. First off, you’re assuming that there is some code, known by your entire social circle including this other woman, that says that you don’t hire a babysitter who works with another family. You may think that’s true, but you surely can’t be positive of any such thing.
Secondly, you’re assuming what the actual content and context of the conversation between the other woman and the babysitter was.
Thirdly, you’re assuming that the babysitter who mentioned a conversation with the woman is the only babysitter the woman spoke to.
Fourth, you’re assuming that the woman never had plans for the night she mentioned and was instead looking to line up long term prospects, rather than the more likely and mundane reality of plans changing or being canceled (perhaps due to lack of available childcare, or an inability to commit because childcare wasn’t yet confirmed) or another babysitter (perhaps not one you even know) providing care on that occasion.
It calls into question why you consider this other woman a friend, when you’re so willing to believe the absolute worst about her and her motivations and call her a liar, all over a babysitter who you haven’t even found to ever be unavailable to you because she’s working for the other woman. In fact, I’d say that if this has been the subject of so much as a five minute conversation in your home, then this woman is not your friend, and you should act accordingly in future, for her sake.
Perhaps there’s a problem that you’re reading too little.
First off, you’re assuming that there is some code, known by your entire social circle including this other woman, that says that you don’t hire a babysitter who works with another family. You may think that’s true, but you surely can’t be positive of any such thing.
From the OP: “[She contacted us] begging for a referral of a babysitter for one time use only…” So this “one time” aspect was not a stipulation of the OP’s wife, but was brought up by the seeker. Pretty hard to imagine why she would inject that into her plea if she didn’t know about the “code.”
Secondly…Thirdly…Fourth…
I’m not seeing where the OP assumed such things, but then I’m not sure it matters much, either.
It calls into question why you consider this other woman a friend…
From the OP: “The mother of one my daughter’s classmates…,” “the mother of my daughter’s friend…” – he never said she was a friend.
She got the referral on the pretext of using the sitter that one time, then went on to contact the sitter for other times. Doesn’t really matter whose idea it was for her to try to use the sitter for more than the one agreed-upon time, she broke her word to the OP’s wife. And this is the crux of it. It’s not a matter of who has a right to do what, it’s a matter of saying one thing and doing another. I don’t see where “liar” is inaccurate, too strong, or based on assumptions (beyond the assumption that the sitter did not lie to the OP). Sounds like she did indeed lie.
Well, this is one part of the OP that I don’t believe.
I’m guessing the email read something like this: “My husband and I, like really need a night alone, you know? Can anyone please recommend a sitter? Please, please, please? OMG, LOL.”
It implies that it’s a one-time use thing, but certainly doesn’t spell it out or even signal an acknowledgement of this fake Mom Code, which seems to exist mostly in the minds of the OP and his wife.
I’d be happy to be proven wrong if Omar wants to post the original email verbatim.
Also, his monkey butler washes his sock garters, and they’re STILL covered in schmutz.
I don’t really care if you believe it or not. And I don’t have access to the actual e-mail, but in our neck of the woods and in my wife’s social circle the negatives of poaching babysitters is well understood. The e-mail clearly spelled out that she only needed someone’s babysitter for a one time use. There was no implication or assumption on my wife’s part.
And just to be clear, my wife mentioned this to me in a conversation we had yesterday, more as a laugh and knowing to not trust the friend in the future. She really hasn’t given it any more thought. I posted it here to see what sort of response it would get. It’s clear that many of you guys are true to form.
Someone that takes something deceitfully is a thief. That doesn’t neccessarily make it prosecutable. But it says something about that person and how you deal with them in the future.
So you’d rather your highly regarded babysitter miss out on another opportunity to make money, than to share her name with another family and risk her being booked on a night that you might need her.
Forget the Mom Code. Don’t YOU have a code of ethics that causes you to examine your own behavior? This girl makes $10/hour – a trickle in your bucket, but presumably a nice wage for her.
Besides, the fact that the thief has never taken her on a night that you needed the babysitter may not be a coincidence at all. It may be that the thief has said, “Given that I got your name from Omar, I don’t want to interfere with your arrangement. If they ever need you, please let me know so that I can arrange another sitter. I don’t want to step on anyone’s toes.”
The Babysitter Stealer was specifically noted as the mother of one of the kiddies’ classmates–not as a “close friend” who might readily get the information. The OP has slipped up & called her a “friend” in a couple of posts, but the woman in question is definitely not part of the inner circle of suburban hell. Why should she care that Mr & Mrs Omar are wondering how to deal with her in future?
The whole affair reminds me of* To Say Nothing Of The Do*g–in which a time traveler gets instruction on the mores of the Victorian Upper Classes. He learns that “servant stealing” was one of the favorite pastimes of bored women with little to do.
So someone asked your wife for a babysitting reference. And she gave it.
The asker seems to have implied it was a one use thing, or so your wife took her to be saying.
Turns out, that wasn’t the case, and having received the reference she intends to use it in the future if need be.
Now you’re both all butthurt because you don’t get to enforce the ‘once only’ assumption you made about the asker’s needs. As far as I can see asking you for a reference doesn’t give you any right to determine when, how, or how often I use it.
Thinking you get to say if she uses the sitter more than once, or every other day, is utter nonsense. As is the concept that this breaks some imaginary ‘Mom Code’ that you’ve clearly made up.
Why don’t you both just grow up already. If the asker had found the sitter’s number from an ad she posted somewhere, how would this be any different? It wouldn’t. She has the number, regardless of how she obtained it, and is free to use it as she wishes. That she was your sitter first doesn’t give you any privileges to determine who else she sits for or when. Imagining you do makes you look like an entitled ass, in my opinion. Especially when you invoke the imaginary ‘Mom Code’.
I see I’m late to the party because I couldn’t get a babysitter.
::groan::
Some of you who are expounding on the alleged “mom code” don’t even have kids, how would you know? I didn’t know there was something like that until I had kids. It does exist, it’s like high school–follow the code–if you don’t you’ll get gossiped about and shunned. It’s mostly stupid, but some of it makes sense.
It’s supply and demand. Omar Little’s wife made a mistake and, as already pointed out, gave up her intellectual property. It’s her own fault, but she can be a bit miffed since the other woman probably now has a tidy little list of her own based on her request for one night only. Had I been in the same situation I would have asked the other woman what date and time she needed a sitter for and checked with one of my middle tier folks.
The code is you don’t steal another person’s sitter–this as mentioned usually involves offering more money. Here, it’s not really stealing and it’s Omar Little’swife’s fault anyway. But it treads darn close to the line. That’s why we never discuss sitter salaries–it makes it easy to “steal” sitters.
Omar Little isn’t saying they’re going to “forbid” the sitter from working or yell at the other woman. I wouldn’t say anything to the other woman–she knows about expected behavior based on the “one time only” comment. Around here good sitters have all the work they want and it usually comes down to perks and how well behaved your kids are–there’s no reason to fuss about keeping your sitter from other jobs.
You want to discuss something serious involving screaming, fist fights, hair-pulling, and threatened lawsuits then let’s talk nannies. Ugly stuff, yet awesomely hilarious.
Some of us don’t have kids so how would we know? What about the ones who do have kids, does our opinion count? That’s just an incredibly silly thing to say.
“Saying there is a ‘code’, like in highschool…” is one of the most inane things I’ve read here in a long time. You do know that many people made it through school without following the imaginary code, risking the horrid gossiping and shunning and lived to talk about it, right? That you haven’t matured doesn’t mean the rest of us, haven’t. Some of us actually grew up. You should think about it.
“It’s mostly stupid…” Indeed, you’re at least right about that.
I’m sorry but why would your wife be negotiating for the babysitter? Does the babysitter already have this understanding with your wife? Does your wife also negotiate the babysitter’s rates?
This is absurd.
If your wife didn’t want to share a baby sitter, then don’t share one. Once you have shared the contact info of the babysitter you don’t get to negotiate the terms. The horse has already left the barn. If you/your wife were going to be annoyed by this person possibly using the babysitter on a different date, then you shouldn’t have shared the babysitter in the first place.
It’s like someone asking you for a place to take their honey for valentine’s day. You have this really great place that you always go to, so you reluctantly give up the info. Then you get upset (to any degree) that you see them there on any day other then valentine’s day?
Seriously this all seems entirely selfish to me to be annoyed by this.
You’ve already stated that you pay above the average rate. So, presumably, if it came down to it, the babysitter would choose your family over hers anyway.
This. What makes the OP assume that the woman in question was lying when it’s just as likely that her plans changed? I don’t know why that makes her out to be such an evil, poaching villain, but I can assure you, unless you are guaranteeing your babysitters a dependable, reliable, regular income, you have no right whatsoever to try to keep her off the babysitting market and hoard her to yourselves. If I were your babysitter, I would fire you as my clients and work for people who were willing to share resources.
I used to be a mormon and babysat for people who never had less than three kids. Quite often, there were church events for which all the parents needed sitters. There were only so many young women to go around. So we’d team up. Two girls would watch the kids of 2-3 families.
Sure your opinion counts. I think the perception of whether it exists also might depend on where you live and how many sitters are in your area. And I laughed when I read your comment. I think most of the “mom code” is BS. I don’t follow it and only learned about it by not following it. I was the shunned, gosspied about “older” “working” mom. I am the outcast! I avoid this altogether now, but my solution was to pay my part-time nanny an assload of money.
I still find it a bit absurd to even think along these lines (not trusting the person in the future). Are you certain that this other mother even knew of this code that you all have?
Also, has a similar situation come up and someone uses the ‘one time’ babysitter and then never used them again (going with the code)? I just don’t see why someone should automatically assume that your wife can/should dictate a babysitters schedule like she presumes to. Is this a frequent occurrence (the loaning of babysitters for a one-time sit)? Has it even happened before?
I avoid this altogether now, but my solution was to pay my part-time nanny an assload of money.