"Bob F" wrote:

Karen wrote:

-snip-
She will not be going back to this family. She pretty much was doing
it because of the strong referral. The family has tried to coax her
back, but refuses to acknowledge any responsibility on their part.
They seem to believe it's a one-way street, and try to make her feel
obligated to them for child care.

When they call back really desperate, let them know she would be happy to help
them out, with payment up from for the damage and the service.


Second that. I might also try to mitigate the damages on the
'lesson learned' and help out with a replacement pair of sneakers.

Jim

Karen wrote:
Greetings

This is a sensible group on Usenet, so I thought I'd ask here.

My daughter is paying her way through college by babysitting. She has
4 different families she baby-sits for regularly. She took on an
assignment for a new family through a referral. She normally doesn't
take any new assignments on, because the families she sits for, treat
her very well.
The family has 2 children, and the parents are both doctors. They
also have a pet dog. Within 1 hour, my daughter noticed the dog had
one of her less than a week old sneakers in it's mouth, ripped to
shreds.
She paid for these with her money, they ran her $75. The parents
refuse to pay for her sneakers, saying she should be responsible for
her sneakers. She left her shoes at the door, because they have a
very nice new home.
I say the people should have warned her about the dog being a chewer,
and should take responsibility for their pet.

Needless to say, she learned a lesson the hard way.

What do you say?

Assuming the facts are as you have presented them:

You've gotten some heartfelt suggestions, most along the lines of: a) Chalk
up the experience as the cost of doing business, and b) Avoid these parents
in the future. Let's look at some similar conditions:

I. You turn over your car keys to the valet ("Valet parking only") only to
have your car returned with numerous dents. Is your reasoned response simply
to avoid doing future business with the enterprise that wrecked your car?

2. You check your mink coat at the restaurant's door only to have it
returned slathered in chicken-fat. Rancid chicken-fat. Do you simply vow not
to patronize that restaurant in the future?

3. Change the facts in the instant case just a tad; what if the dog had
bitten your daughter instead of the shoes? Would you expect the dog's owners
to cover all the medical expenses involved?

I think your daughter has a learning opportunity here, a moment to stand in
righteous indignation, to look evil in the eye and beat it back into the
dark hole from which it tried to emerge. Suggest to your daughter that she
take the following steps:

1. Send a certified letter to the family outlining the facts: a) I was hired
to baby sit, b) Your dog destroyed my property, c) I was not warned of the
destructive nature of the dog, and therefore, 4) I expect to be reimbursed
for the damage. The briefer the letter, the better. Copy to the family
making the original referral.

2. Hearing nothing in ten days, trot down to the local small claims court
and file a claim. The clerk will walk you through the process. Send copies
of all the paperwork to the original referring family.

This is a slam-dunk legal case. The process above will cost the parents far
more than the $75. They'll have to pay that, of course, plus all the costs
associated with the filing of the claim, plus time off from work if they
want to contest to suit. If they fail to pay the judgment, the cost goes up
dramatically when the constable visits their office with a "levy and
execute" writ and seizes their computers to sell at auction.

A day may come when the courage of men fails - when we forsake our friends
and break all bonds of fellowship. But it is not this day.

An hour of woe and shattered shields when the age of men comes crashing
down. But it is not this day.

This day we fight.

By all that you hold dear on this good earth, I bid you stand ...

The Dr. Laura response, most likely. That the two doctors
are neglecting the most important job of all, that is
raising their own kids. By selfishly serving their own needs
for power, fame, etc, the doctors are damaging their own
kids. I'd have to guess Dr. Laura would suggest to walk away
from these selfish doctors, and maybe she'd suggest to
mention that to all the other known babysitter girls.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Karen" wrote in message
...

She will not be going back to this family. She pretty much
was doing it
because of the strong referral. The family has tried to coax
her back, but
refuses to acknowledge any responsibility on their part.
They seem to
believe it's a one-way street, and try to make her feel
obligated to them
for child care.

Uncaring people like these doctors, there's bound to be some
other trap, if the girl returns to her babysitting job.
Unfortunately, the kids are the ones who suffer. Frequent
changes of sitter, and also they are learning (from the
doctors) selfish and crass ways of dealing with the hired
help.

Even with paying for the shoes and upfront payment for the
sitting, I'd still not want to return.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Bob F"
wrote in message
...

She will not be going back to this family. She pretty much
was doing
it because of the strong referral. The family has tried to
coax her
back, but refuses to acknowledge any responsibility on
their part.
They seem to believe it's a one-way street, and try to
make her feel
obligated to them for child care.

When they call back really desperate, let them know she
would be happy to help
them out, with payment up from for the damage and the
service.

Since it's not the parents responsibility to inform the
sitter of the dog's chewing? I suspect that selfish doctors
also have high power lawyers, and that could be even more
expensive to the sitter.

I sense the dog is as badly neglected as the kids. Doing in
the dog is only treating a symptom.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Steve Barker"
wrote in message
news
I'd say the next time i baby sit, the dog 'accidentally'
drinks some
antifreeze and dark chocolate. Not my responsibility to
watch what the
dog eats.

On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 19:53:12 -0500, "Karen" wrote:

Greetings

This is a sensible group on Usenet, so I thought I'd ask here.

My daughter is paying her way through college by babysitting. She has 4
different families she baby-sits for regularly. She took on an assignment
for a new family through a referral. She normally doesn't take any new
assignments on, because the families she sits for, treat her very well.

The family has 2 children, and the parents are both doctors. They also have
a pet dog. Within 1 hour, my daughter noticed the dog had one of her less
than a week old sneakers in it's mouth, ripped to shreds.

She paid for these with her money, they ran her $75. The parents refuse to
pay for her sneakers, saying she should be responsible for her sneakers.
She left her shoes at the door, because they have a very nice new home.

I say the people should have warned her about the dog being a chewer, and
should take responsibility for their pet.

Needless to say, she learned a lesson the hard way.

What do you say?



I am a bit surprised the parents would not make it right. The reason
I say that is because the home was her place of employment. Yes, I
think the parents should have told her more about the dog's behavior.
This is a bit difficult to analyze--do we assume she was dog-sitting
too? If the job was called "house-sitting" more blame is put on the
sitter because her job was to watch the entire household. Dogs
often chew or dig when frustrated or bored, plus you can't assume
every dog will behave the same way. I think she learned at lot about
this unfortunate experience. I would let her make the decision what
she will do about it then support her decision.

Lets see. They don't care about people, and don't
communicate with hired help.

So, the doctors don't care what you have wrong, and don't
tell the pharmacist what to dispense. Sounds like a
combination from hell.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Tony Hwang"
wrote in message ...

Hmmm,
Wonder how good doctor they are being like that?!

If Dr. Laura was reading this group, she would likely thank
you for your concern, and excellent observation.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"hr(bob) "
wrote in message news:8c035aab-37d2-4b08-b61d-


I'm even more scared about the Doctor's children, wonder how
they will
turn out when they grow up with that kind of example to
follow?

The ones gang members wear?

Seriously, I prefer to pay $25 or less for my sneakers, but
then, I'm not interested in impressing anyone. Or looking
kewl.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Roger Shoaf" wrote in message
...


Next question is what kind of sneakers are worth $75?


--
Roger Shoaf
If you are not part of the solution, you are not dissolved
in the solvent.

I just bought a new pair of shoes at Walmart for $12.

When there is a dog around, I put my shoes up on a table where the dog can't
get them.

I refuse to remove my shoes to go into someone's home. I will wait outside
if I am picking someone up there or whatever. I would never ask anyone
visiting my home to remove their shoes. (And I would of course never install
white carpet.)


"Karen" wrote in message
Greetings

This is a sensible group on Usenet, so I thought I'd ask here.

My daughter is paying her way through college by babysitting. She has 4
different families she baby-sits for regularly. She took on an assignment
for a new family through a referral. She normally doesn't take any new
assignments on, because the families she sits for, treat her very well.

The family has 2 children, and the parents are both doctors. They also
have a pet dog. Within 1 hour, my daughter noticed the dog had one of her
less than a week old sneakers in it's mouth, ripped to shreds.

She paid for these with her money, they ran her $75. The parents refuse to
pay for her sneakers, saying she should be responsible for her sneakers.
She left her shoes at the door, because they have a very nice new home.

I say the people should have warned her about the dog being a chewer, and
should take responsibility for their pet.

Needless to say, she learned a lesson the hard way.

What do you say?

I think the sitter's parents should reimburse half the cost
of the sneakers. After all, it's not the sitter's fault.
Would be kind of the parents, but not totally necessary of
course. Help sofen the blow, you could say.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"dadiOH"
wrote in message ...


When they call back really desperate, let them know she
would be
happy to help them out, with payment up from for the
damage and the
service.

I think not. She should take her lumps and move on.

The $75 is pretty cheap to learn that there are lots of
jerks in the world.

--

dadiOH

hr(bob) wrote:
On Jan 22, 6:53 pm, "Karen" wrote:
Greetings

This is a sensible group on Usenet, so I thought I'd ask here.

My daughter is paying her way through college by babysitting. She has 4
different families she baby-sits for regularly. She took on an assignment
for a new family through a referral. She normally doesn't take any new
assignments on, because the families she sits for, treat her very well.

The family has 2 children, and the parents are both doctors. They also have
a pet dog. Within 1 hour, my daughter noticed the dog had one of her less
than a week old sneakers in it's mouth, ripped to shreds.

She paid for these with her money, they ran her $75. The parents refuse to
pay for her sneakers, saying she should be responsible for her sneakers.
She left her shoes at the door, because they have a very nice new home.

I say the people should have warned her about the dog being a chewer, and
should take responsibility for their pet.

Needless to say, she learned a lesson the hard way.

What do you say?

I'm even more scared about the Doctor's children, wonder how they will
turn out when they grow up with that kind of example to follow?

One should not read too much into the situation, but the idea that
bothers me most is that the owner considers the sitter responsible for
the dog's behavior....what if the dog runs off or bites a child? Whew!
Run, don't walk.

Sounds like the daughter is very responsible. I always had new sitters
come over for an interview - casual - and just visit and get familiar.
Any concerns about the house, the children, what to do in emergency,
etc., were discussed beforehand. That included a dog that would take
any opportunity to run off if the door was opened...I and children
didn't always notice when someone came to the door that the darn dog was
right there, ready to flee )

Roger Shoaf wrote:
"Karen" wrote in message
...
wrote

She will not be going back to this family. She pretty much was doing it
because of the strong referral. The family has tried to coax her back, but
refuses to acknowledge any responsibility on their part. They seem to
believe it's a one-way street, and try to make her feel obligated to them
for child care.


Well she has the right to set her rates as she pleases. If they want her
back she should up her rate she charges to pay for a new pair of shoes.

Next question is what kind of sneakers are worth $75?


I think it was Michael Jordans that sold for close to $100 about 20
years ago when my son bought his own shoes for the first time after
getting a job.

Jim Elbrecht wrote:
"Bob F" wrote:

Karen wrote:

-snip-
She will not be going back to this family. She pretty much was doing
it because of the strong referral. The family has tried to coax her
back, but refuses to acknowledge any responsibility on their part.
They seem to believe it's a one-way street, and try to make her feel
obligated to them for child care.
When they call back really desperate, let them know she would be happy to help
them out, with payment up from for the damage and the service.


Second that. I might also try to mitigate the damages on the
'lesson learned' and help out with a replacement pair of sneakers.

Jim

A neighbor came to my door long ago, claiming that my son had aimed a
bottle rocket at her boy, it hit him and burned a small hole in the
front of his shirt and burned his belly a tiny bit. Wanted
reimbursement for the shirt. Didn't know her well and the kids played
together quite a bit. I paid her for the shirt and apologized, doubting
that my son had done what she said he did. Kids about 12 and neither of
us witnessed the event. Next day her boy was out shooting off bottle
rockets and had one fly by his face, missing him by about an inch.
Don't recall what the shirt cost - not much - but worth it to keep the
peace. Didn't ever have a strong disagreement with a neighbor until
many years later, and it was their choice, not mine. Have had the best
and the worst of neighbors.

Stormin Mormon wrote:
I think the sitter's parents should reimburse half the cost
of the sneakers. After all, it's not the sitter's fault.
Would be kind of the parents, but not totally necessary of
course. Help sofen the blow, you could say.


I disagree....I've always allowed my kids to make mistakes and correct
the situation themselves, when appropriate, but this situation hints at
some really bad traits in the employer that I wouldn't want the daughter
to experience. Little "mistakes" are great learning experiences and an
exercise in avoiding big mistakes. First lesson: $75 for a pair of
shoes is a lot of money, esp. for a teen. Second lesson: working for
one's own support does not bring unlimited resources. Third lesson: be
aware of surroundings at all times. Fourth lesson: some people are
crass and selfish, no matter their status in the community. Carry on
with dignity and don't give in to their crass and selfish behavior
(i.e., don't go back for more, just for the money).

That said, it really, really bugs me when parents try to control every
situation for their children - all of a sudden, they are 18 or 21, out
of the house and don't know what to do when mommy and daddy aren't there
to "fix" things. BTDT.

wrote in message
m...
Stormin Mormon wrote:
I think the sitter's parents should reimburse half the cost of the
sneakers. After all, it's not the sitter's fault. Would be kind of the
parents, but not totally necessary of course. Help sofen the blow, you
could say.


I disagree....I've always allowed my kids to make mistakes and correct the
situation themselves, when appropriate, but this situation hints at some
really bad traits in the employer that I wouldn't want the daughter to
experience. Little "mistakes" are great learning experiences and an
exercise in avoiding big mistakes. First lesson: $75 for a pair of shoes
is a lot of money, esp. for a teen. Second lesson: working for one's own
support does not bring unlimited resources. Third lesson: be aware of
surroundings at all times. Fourth lesson: some people are crass and
selfish, no matter their status in the community. Carry on with dignity
and don't give in to their crass and selfish behavior (i.e., don't go back
for more, just for the money).

That said, it really, really bugs me when parents try to control every
situation for their children - all of a sudden, they are 18 or 21, out of
the house and don't know what to do when mommy and daddy aren't there to
"fix" things. BTDT.

So, your whole post is a regret of your own training of your children and
does not contain any usable advice for the OP?

If Mommy were a parent like you, the girl wouldn't be out working for four
different people babysitting, and she would have "poor darling"'ed her and
took her straight away to buy another pair of shoes, which Mommy would have
paid for. Just like you did with your kids.

No, she didn't do that, but asked advice here first, and is leaving her
daughter to handle the situation, albeit with a little guidance.

Good on her.

Bad on you.

Is that last kid still living in your basement?

Steve

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
Karen wrote:
Greetings

This is a sensible group on Usenet, so I thought I'd ask here.

My daughter is paying her way through college by babysitting. She has
4 different families she baby-sits for regularly. She took on an
assignment for a new family through a referral. She normally doesn't
take any new assignments on, because the families she sits for, treat
her very well.
The family has 2 children, and the parents are both doctors. They
also have a pet dog. Within 1 hour, my daughter noticed the dog had
one of her less than a week old sneakers in it's mouth, ripped to
shreds.
She paid for these with her money, they ran her $75. The parents
refuse to pay for her sneakers, saying she should be responsible for
her sneakers. She left her shoes at the door, because they have a
very nice new home.
I say the people should have warned her about the dog being a chewer,
and should take responsibility for their pet.

Needless to say, she learned a lesson the hard way.

What do you say?

Assuming the facts are as you have presented them:

You've gotten some heartfelt suggestions, most along the lines of: a)
Chalk up the experience as the cost of doing business, and b) Avoid these
parents in the future. Let's look at some similar conditions:

I. You turn over your car keys to the valet ("Valet parking only") only to
have your car returned with numerous dents. Is your reasoned response
simply to avoid doing future business with the enterprise that wrecked
your car?

2. You check your mink coat at the restaurant's door only to have it
returned slathered in chicken-fat. Rancid chicken-fat. Do you simply vow
not to patronize that restaurant in the future?

3. Change the facts in the instant case just a tad; what if the dog had
bitten your daughter instead of the shoes? Would you expect the dog's
owners to cover all the medical expenses involved?

I think your daughter has a learning opportunity here, a moment to stand
in righteous indignation, to look evil in the eye and beat it back into
the dark hole from which it tried to emerge. Suggest to your daughter that
she take the following steps:

1. Send a certified letter to the family outlining the facts: a) I was
hired to baby sit, b) Your dog destroyed my property, c) I was not warned
of the destructive nature of the dog, and therefore, 4) I expect to be
reimbursed for the damage. The briefer the letter, the better. Copy to the
family making the original referral.

2. Hearing nothing in ten days, trot down to the local small claims court
and file a claim. The clerk will walk you through the process. Send copies
of all the paperwork to the original referring family.

This is a slam-dunk legal case. The process above will cost the parents
far more than the $75. They'll have to pay that, of course, plus all the
costs associated with the filing of the claim, plus time off from work if
they want to contest to suit. If they fail to pay the judgment, the cost
goes up dramatically when the constable visits their office with a "levy
and execute" writ and seizes their computers to sell at auction.

A day may come when the courage of men fails - when we forsake our friends
and break all bonds of fellowship. But it is not this day.

An hour of woe and shattered shields when the age of men comes crashing
down. But it is not this day.

This day we fight.

By all that you hold dear on this good earth, I bid you stand ...

The same thing can be accomplished by telling the people she won't babysit
for them any more, and why. By thanking the friend for the referral, and
why, and a caution to the person referring her. By telling other sitters
that these people are cheapskates who will probably charge her for the water
she drinks while in their house. That won't get the $75 back, but I
guarantee it will cost the cheap doctors more than that in the end.

And all done without a shot fired or a bunch of drama. That's what an adult
would do, and the lady is really trying to teach the daughter the lessons of
how to be an adult, and not a child by running around screaming and making
threats and involving other people in the fray.

Steve

Karen wrote:

My daughter is paying her way through college by babysitting. She has 4
different families she baby-sits for regularly. She took on an assignment
for a new family through a referral. She normally doesn't take any new
assignments on, because the families she sits for, treat her very well.

The family has 2 children, and the parents are both doctors. They also have
a pet dog. Within 1 hour, my daughter noticed the dog had one of her less
than a week old sneakers in it's mouth, ripped to shreds.

She paid for these with her money, they ran her $75. The parents refuse to
pay for her sneakers, saying she should be responsible for her sneakers.
She left her shoes at the door, because they have a very nice new home.

Your daughter has to do the mature, morally correct thing: disable
the nanny cams and spread dog urine and feces all over the house. It
also wouldn't hurt to start feeding the dog uppers so it goes crazy
against the owners.

On Jan 23, 12:45*am, RobertPatrick wrote:
Steve Barker wrote innews




Karen wrote:
Greetings

This is a sensible group on Usenet, so I thought I'd ask here.

My daughter is paying her way through college by babysitting. She has
4 different families she baby-sits for regularly. She took on an
assignment for a new family through a referral. She normally doesn't
take any new assignments on, because the families she sits for, treat
her very well.

The family has 2 children, and the parents are both doctors. They
also have a pet dog. Within 1 hour, my daughter noticed the dog had
one of her less than a week old sneakers in it's mouth, ripped to
shreds.

She paid for these with her money, they ran her $75. The parents
refuse to pay for her sneakers, saying she should *be responsible for
her sneakers. She left her shoes at the door, because they have a
very nice new home.

I say the people should have warned her about the dog being a chewer,
and should take responsibility for their pet.

Needless to say, she learned a lesson the hard way.

What do you say?

I'd say the next time i baby sit, the dog 'accidentally' drinks some
antifreeze and dark chocolate. *Not my responsibility to watch what
the dog eats.

awww, that's bad. *Not to mention cruel. *The dog only knows as much as the
owner tells it. *It's the owner's fault. *Who the hell are you?
Are you Vick?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yeah, I agree. Unbelievable how sick some people are. What
happened here is the doctors fault, not the dog's. This is not only
1000X worse, but criminal as well.

On Jan 23, 10:37*am, "Steve B" wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message

m...





Karen wrote:
Greetings

This is a sensible group on Usenet, so I thought I'd ask here.

My daughter is paying her way through college by babysitting. She has
4 different families she baby-sits for regularly. She took on an
assignment for a new family through a referral. She normally doesn't
take any new assignments on, because the families she sits for, treat
her very well.
The family has 2 children, and the parents are both doctors. They
also have a pet dog. Within 1 hour, my daughter noticed the dog had
one of her less than a week old sneakers in it's mouth, ripped to
shreds.
She paid for these with her money, they ran her $75. The parents
refuse to pay for her sneakers, saying she should *be responsible for
her sneakers. She left her shoes at the door, because they have a
very nice new home.
I say the people should have warned her about the dog being a chewer,
and should take responsibility for their pet.

Needless to say, she learned a lesson the hard way.

What do you say?

Assuming the facts are as you have presented them:

You've gotten some heartfelt suggestions, most along the lines of: a)
Chalk up the experience as the cost of doing business, and b) Avoid these
parents in the future. Let's look at some similar conditions:

I. You turn over your car keys to the valet ("Valet parking only") only to
have your car returned with numerous dents. Is your reasoned response
simply to avoid doing future business with the enterprise that wrecked
your car?

2. You check your mink coat at the restaurant's door only to have it
returned slathered in chicken-fat. Rancid chicken-fat. Do you simply vow
not to patronize that restaurant in the future?

3. Change the facts in the instant case just a tad; what if the dog had
bitten your daughter instead of the shoes? Would you expect the dog's
owners to cover all the medical expenses involved?

I think your daughter has a learning opportunity here, a moment to stand
in righteous indignation, to look evil in the eye and beat it back into
the dark hole from which it tried to emerge. Suggest to your daughter that
she take the following steps:

1. Send a certified letter to the family outlining the facts: a) I was
hired to baby sit, b) Your dog destroyed my property, c) I was not warned
of the destructive nature of the dog, and therefore, 4) I expect to be
reimbursed for the damage. The briefer the letter, the better. Copy to the
family making the original referral.

2. Hearing nothing in ten days, trot down to the local small claims court
and file a claim. The clerk will walk you through the process. Send copies
of all the paperwork to the original referring family.

This is a slam-dunk legal case. The process above will cost the parents
far more than the $75. They'll have to pay that, of course, plus all the
costs associated with the filing of the claim, plus time off from work if
they want to contest to suit. If they fail to pay the judgment, the cost
goes up dramatically when the constable visits their office with a "levy
and execute" writ and seizes their computers to sell at auction.

A day may come when the courage of men fails - when we forsake our friends
and break all bonds of fellowship. But it is not this day.

An hour of woe and shattered shields when the age of men comes crashing
down. But it is not this day.

This day we fight.

By all that you hold dear on this good earth, I bid you stand ...

The same thing can be accomplished by telling the people she won't babysit
for them any more, and why.


Wrong. The same thing cannot be accomplished because by taking them
to small claims court, there is the distinct possibility that she
could win and collect her $75. Also win or lose, it will cost the
doctors the time to appear in court and if the court finds in the
girl's favor, the doctors may learn from it. The girl will also
learn from the experience. Is it worth doing? That is up to the
girl to decide. It's also very possible that once served with the
suit, they may just pay up, not wanting to go to court and appear to
be taking advantage of a baby sitter.

I'd say assuming the facts are as stated, she has at least a 50-50
chance of winning.





*By thanking the friend for the referral, and
why, and a caution to the person referring her. *By telling other sitters
that these people are cheapskates who will probably charge her for the water
she drinks while in their house. *That won't get the $75 back, but I
guarantee it will cost the cheap doctors more than that in the end.

And all done without a shot fired or a bunch of drama. *That's what an adult
would do, and the lady is really trying to teach the daughter the lessons of
how to be an adult, and not a child by running around screaming and making
threats and involving other people in the fray.

Steve- Hide quoted text -



Who suggested anyone run around screaming and making threats? Also,
according the post, the daughter is of college age, not a child.

wrote in
:

On Jan 23, 10:37*am, "Steve B" wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote in message

m...





Karen wrote:
Greetings

This is a sensible group on Usenet, so I thought I'd ask here.

My daughter is paying her way through college by babysitting. She
has 4 different families she baby-sits for regularly. She took on
an assignment for a new family through a referral. She normally
doesn't take any new assignments on, because the families she sits
for, treat her very well.
The family has 2 children, and the parents are both doctors. They
also have a pet dog. Within 1 hour, my daughter noticed the dog
had one of her less than a week old sneakers in it's mouth, ripped
to shreds.
She paid for these with her money, they ran her $75. The parents
refuse to pay for her sneakers, saying she should *be responsible
fo
r
her sneakers. She left her shoes at the door, because they have a
very nice new home.
I say the people should have warned her about the dog being a
chewer, and should take responsibility for their pet.

Needless to say, she learned a lesson the hard way.

What do you say?

Assuming the facts are as you have presented them:

You've gotten some heartfelt suggestions, most along the lines of:
a) Chalk up the experience as the cost of doing business, and b)
Avoid the
se
parents in the future. Let's look at some similar conditions:

I. You turn over your car keys to the valet ("Valet parking only")
only
to
have your car returned with numerous dents. Is your reasoned
response simply to avoid doing future business with the enterprise
that wrecked your car?

2. You check your mink coat at the restaurant's door only to have
it returned slathered in chicken-fat. Rancid chicken-fat. Do you
simply vo
w
not to patronize that restaurant in the future?

3. Change the facts in the instant case just a tad; what if the dog
had bitten your daughter instead of the shoes? Would you expect the
dog's owners to cover all the medical expenses involved?

I think your daughter has a learning opportunity here, a moment to
stan
d
in righteous indignation, to look evil in the eye and beat it back
into the dark hole from which it tried to emerge. Suggest to your
daughter t
hat
she take the following steps:

1. Send a certified letter to the family outlining the facts: a) I
was hired to baby sit, b) Your dog destroyed my property, c) I was
not warn
ed
of the destructive nature of the dog, and therefore, 4) I expect to
be reimbursed for the damage. The briefer the letter, the better.
Copy to
the
family making the original referral.

2. Hearing nothing in ten days, trot down to the local small claims
cou
rt
and file a claim. The clerk will walk you through the process. Send
cop
ies
of all the paperwork to the original referring family.

This is a slam-dunk legal case. The process above will cost the
parents far more than the $75. They'll have to pay that, of course,
plus all th
e
costs associated with the filing of the claim, plus time off from
work
if
they want to contest to suit. If they fail to pay the judgment, the
cos
t
goes up dramatically when the constable visits their office with a
"lev
y
and execute" writ and seizes their computers to sell at auction.

A day may come when the courage of men fails - when we forsake our
frie
nds
and break all bonds of fellowship. But it is not this day.

An hour of woe and shattered shields when the age of men comes
crashing down. But it is not this day.

This day we fight.

By all that you hold dear on this good earth, I bid you stand ...

The same thing can be accomplished by telling the people she won't
babysi
t
for them any more, and why.


Wrong. The same thing cannot be accomplished because by taking them
to small claims court, there is the distinct possibility that she
could win and collect her $75. Also win or lose, it will cost the
doctors the time to appear in court and if the court finds in the
girl's favor, the doctors may learn from it. The girl will also
learn from the experience. Is it worth doing? That is up to the
girl to decide. It's also very possible that once served with the
suit, they may just pay up, not wanting to go to court and appear to
be taking advantage of a baby sitter.

I'd say assuming the facts are as stated, she has at least a 50-50
chance of winning.





*By thanking the friend for the referral, and
why, and a caution to the person referring her. *By telling other
sitte
rs
that these people are cheapskates who will probably charge her for
the wa
ter
she drinks while in their house. *That won't get the $75 back, but I
guarantee it will cost the cheap doctors more than that in the end.

And all done without a shot fired or a bunch of drama. *That's what
an
adult
would do, and the lady is really trying to teach the daughter the
lessons
of
how to be an adult, and not a child by running around screaming and
makin
g
threats and involving other people in the fray.

Steve- Hide quoted text -



Who suggested anyone run around screaming and making threats? Also,
according the post, the daughter is of college age, not a child.


Just gotta take this one to People's Court :-)

Bill wrote:
I just bought a new pair of shoes at Walmart for $12.

When there is a dog around, I put my shoes up on a table where the dog can't
get them.

I refuse to remove my shoes to go into someone's home. I will wait outside
if I am picking someone up there or whatever. I would never ask anyone
visiting my home to remove their shoes. (And I would of course never install
white carpet.)


Hi,
You wear shoes in the house? Then what is the difference between your
floor and sidewalk? We wear slippers in the house and spares are
available for visitors. No one walks into my house wearing shoes!

"Bert Byfield" wrote in message
. 97.131...
This is a sensible group on Usenet, so I thought I'd ask here.
My daughter is paying her way through college by babysitting.
She has 4 different families she baby-sits for regularly. She
took on an assignment for a new family through a referral. She
normally

You are incorrect. This is a place to discuss home repair, not
chat about whatever.

Idiot! If you don't know what OT stands for, then don't read the
thread.

Moron! Putting OT in the subject line does NOT excuse wasting space in
a topic group, any more than putting SPAM in the subject line makes
spamming a topic group!

So _you_ want to ration Usenet bandwidth. LOL!

"Stormin Mormon" wrote

The ones gang members wear?
Seriously, I prefer to pay $25 or less for my sneakers, but
then, I'm not interested in impressing anyone. Or looking
kewl.

I generally find cheaper ones too, but when I was still in the Navy and
needed to jog regular, there is a difference in a good set of running shoes
and cheap stuff. Also, we walk *alot* (up to 6 miles a day back in Japan)
and the 'cheap ones' are actually more expensive as they wear out too fast
under conditions like that. ROI factor low under heavy use.

Don now uses special orthopedic ones due to a combination of a long ago
broken ankle that never healed quite right, and arthritis. I got him a new
set 7 months ago for 200$. He walks about 4 miles a day now (plus regular
walking about the house etc) and I expect these will last about 2 years. A
25$ pair would simply not work for his needs and would last probably 2
months before the heels wore out.

Steve B wrote:
wrote in message
m...
Stormin Mormon wrote:
I think the sitter's parents should reimburse half the cost of the
sneakers. After all, it's not the sitter's fault. Would be kind of the
parents, but not totally necessary of course. Help sofen the blow, you
could say.

I disagree....I've always allowed my kids to make mistakes and correct the
situation themselves, when appropriate, but this situation hints at some
really bad traits in the employer that I wouldn't want the daughter to
experience. Little "mistakes" are great learning experiences and an
exercise in avoiding big mistakes. First lesson: $75 for a pair of shoes
is a lot of money, esp. for a teen. Second lesson: working for one's own
support does not bring unlimited resources. Third lesson: be aware of
surroundings at all times. Fourth lesson: some people are crass and
selfish, no matter their status in the community. Carry on with dignity
and don't give in to their crass and selfish behavior (i.e., don't go back
for more, just for the money).

That said, it really, really bugs me when parents try to control every
situation for their children - all of a sudden, they are 18 or 21, out of
the house and don't know what to do when mommy and daddy aren't there to
"fix" things. BTDT.

So, your whole post is a regret of your own training of your children and
does not contain any usable advice for the OP?

If Mommy were a parent like you, the girl wouldn't be out working for four
different people babysitting, and she would have "poor darling"'ed her and
took her straight away to buy another pair of shoes, which Mommy would have
paid for. Just like you did with your kids.

No, she didn't do that, but asked advice here first, and is leaving her
daughter to handle the situation, albeit with a little guidance.

Good on her.

Bad on you.

Is that last kid still living in your basement?

Steve


You derived the opposite of what I attempted to say. I think the OP and
her daughter did just fine.....the daughter seems very mature and
reasonable. A couple of replies suggested the daughter go back, and
that is where I would draw the line in this situation. The "BTDT" was
my experience of seeing other parents unable to let go, unable to allow
children to make a plan or to proceed in their own choices (with
APPROPRIATE guidance, of course)...just let kids do the thinking, always
be aware and give guidance when needed. As for my own children, all
three are capable, mature, kind, assertive, responsible and
creative....couldn't ask for better. They are also terrific parents.

Forgive me for expanding on the original topic...

wrote

Wrong. The same thing cannot be accomplished because by taking them
to small claims court, there is the distinct possibility that she
could win and collect her $75. Also win or lose, it will cost the
doctors the time to appear in court and if the court finds in the
girl's favor, the doctors may learn from it. The girl will also
learn from the experience. Is it worth doing? That is up to the
girl to decide. It's also very possible that once served with the
suit, they may just pay up, not wanting to go to court and appear to
be taking advantage of a baby sitter.

COMMENT: Small court judgements make great toilet paper. You want to give
this girl the idea that she has a chance of getting money out of a doctor?
She may have a chance of winning, but getting the money is entirely another
matter.

TRADER:
Who suggested anyone run around screaming and making threats? Also,
according the post, the daughter is of college age, not a child.

COMMENT: Sorry, but I snipped it from above in kindness to the readers.
Apparently you missed it. My children are 40, 32 and 26. But, they will
always be my "children".

Steve

wrote

Forgive me for expanding on the original topic...

Thread drift takes us into the darkest corners ......................

On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 20:06:09 -0500, aemeijers
wrote:

Karen wrote:
Greetings

This is a sensible group on Usenet, so I thought I'd ask here.

My daughter is paying her way through college by babysitting. She has 4
different families she baby-sits for regularly. She took on an assignment
for a new family through a referral. She normally doesn't take any new
assignments on, because the families she sits for, treat her very well.

The family has 2 children, and the parents are both doctors. They also have
a pet dog. Within 1 hour, my daughter noticed the dog had one of her less
than a week old sneakers in it's mouth, ripped to shreds.

She paid for these with her money, they ran her $75. The parents refuse to
pay for her sneakers, saying she should be responsible for her sneakers.
She left her shoes at the door, because they have a very nice new home.

I say the people should have warned her about the dog being a chewer, and
should take responsibility for their pet.

Needless to say, she learned a lesson the hard way.

What do you say?


Write it off as an expensive (at her income level) life lesson, and
manage to always have a previous commitment if they want to hire her
again.

There is no need to pretend like that. And it's not good for those
who hired her. They should learn that there are a) consequences to
their failure to inform her about the dog chewing, b) consequences to
their chinciness in not paying.

Good baby sitters are hard to get, and they may well call her again.
I would say, "Since you knew the dog wa a chewer, unlike the vast
majority of adult dogs, you should have warned me, and when you
didn't, you should have taken responsibilty for the damages. If
you'll pay for the shoes, (or pay half**), I'll help you out.

When they agree, they should also agree to pay for the shoes before
she starts sitting the next time. If it's not hard, drop by in
advance. Otherwise, tell them in advance, "I have a contract now for
my clients to sign". This doesn't mean she insists all the clients
sign the contract, but if that seems excessively evasive, make it "for
you to sign". They can still pay for the sneakers when she gets
there, and she can cross out an initial where she crosses out that
debt. Include in the rest of the contract a typical baby sitting
contract. I'll bet you can find one on the net, or an adult can got
to a commercial baby sitting service and get a copy of the contract
they use. Say your husband wants to look it over first, but dont'
imply he's a lawyer. You don't want to give the baby sitting company
agita.

It should mention salary, what happens if they don't come home on
time, and that she's not liable for what the dog does

Then sit for them that time or two more times. After that she's free
to quit.

I sort of like splitting the cost of the shoes. They should have
warned her and nothing would have happened, but a lot of people do
things they shouldn't and


Being a doctor means nothing regarding being responsible or honest or
anything. They don't check for niceness when you apply to med
school, they don't grade on niceness, and patients are making a
mistake if they choose their doctors on niceness*** although
admittedly, it's hard to judge them on competence. Even my brother,
who is a doctor, said he didn't know who in the same hospital was
good, only who had been sued.



***Like the people who throw their money away at Cancer Centers of
America, where all they sell is hope and niceness, and only claim to
have cured one person, though even that one they're vague about.


**I sort of like the paying half, not because she doesn't deserve all
of it, but because there are people who do the wrong thing but
sincerely think they did the right thing. Of course there are those
who have absurd opinions about what is right, or who just don't care
whom they cheat. But we don't know enough about these people yet.
Sometimes on tv court shows, when I don't think it's clear who's right
or who's telling the truth, I think the judge should just split it,
but that doesn't seem be what is done in America or most of the world.


(They probably won't, if they had words over the shoes already.)
Don't say a word to the people who referred her- she doesn't want a
reputation as a difficult-to-please sitter.

Plus it's not polite to gossip about these people. If they keep
losing babysitters, their friends may figure it out.

And if she sits at any other
houses with puppies, put the shoes in the coat closet and close the
door. Can't blame the dog- that is how dogs investigate interesting new
smells. (Hmm- this is interesting. Wonder if it is food?

Are they really still thinking it might be food?

On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 22:17:30 -0600, Bert Byfield
wrote:

This is a sensible group on Usenet, so I thought I'd ask here.
My daughter is paying her way through college by babysitting.
She has 4 different families she baby-sits for regularly. She
took on an assignment for a new family through a referral. She
normally

You are incorrect. This is a place to discuss home repair, not
chat about whatever.

Idiot! If you don't know what OT stands for, then don't read the
thread.

Moron! Putting OT in the subject line does NOT excuse wasting space in
a topic group, any more than putting SPAM in the subject line makes
spamming a topic group!

I like it when they put SPAM in the subject line of spam. Then I
don't read it.

The only place this is taking space from is groups.google. So I'd
better cut this short.

On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 19:29:19 -0600, Bert Byfield
wrote:

Greetings
This is a sensible group on Usenet, so I thought I'd ask here.
My daughter is paying her way through college by babysitting. She
has 4 different families she baby-sits for regularly. She took on
an assignment for a new family through a referral. She normally

You are incorrect. This is a place to discuss home repair, not chat
about whatever.

What is she incorrect about? That this is not a sensible group? Even
if that's true, she posts at her own risk that she will get unsensible
answers.

On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 09:19:36 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

Since it's not the parents responsibility to inform the
sitter of the dog's chewing? I suspect that selfish doctors
also have high power lawyers, and that could be even more
expensive to the sitter.

I sense the dog is as badly neglected as the kids. Doing in
the dog is only treating a symptom.

I think he was only kidding about this. Of course someone who
brought chocolate and antifreeze would be in big trouble, civil and
criminal, if the dog ate it, and the poster must know that.

"Tony Hwang" wrote
Bill wrote:

I refuse to remove my shoes to go into someone's home. I will wait
outside
if I am picking someone up there or whatever. I would never ask anyone
visiting my home to remove their shoes. (And I would of course never
install
white carpet.)

Have fun Bill if you ever visit Japan!

You wear shoes in the house? Then what is the difference between your
floor and sidewalk? We wear slippers in the house and spares are available
for visitors. No one walks into my house wearing shoes!

Sensible to me but most folks in this group have never been to Asia. Thats
one thing I miss. I had this really nice built in shoe closet in my Cho in
Sasebo Japan. Inside I had our regular slippers, and 3 sets tied in pretty
ribbon for guests. I dont have space for that here but we still have a small
unit by the door, with guest slippers. Small sign above 'feel free to be
comfy'. Those used to this idea, find it charming to see in the USA. For
me, if i see a shoe holder by the door, I doff my shoes automatically and if
there is a stack of rubber bottomed socks or slippers that look new and just
for guests, don them while visiting. No words required ;-)

On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 23:10:18 -0800, "Steve B"
wrote:


In my life, I have quit employers and told them that they do not meet my
standards as employers. It goes both ways, you know.

Steve

Absolutely. "Bigger problems than this may come up and I no longer
trust you to do the right thing."


Although I'm not an electician, I was hired by a woman years ago to
put in electrical wiring in an apartment she was remodeling to be a
rental. At the first conversation, I told her I wasn't licensed and
couldn't touch the fusebox. She said she had someone else to run the
cable to the basement and to the fusebox.

As I was finishing the job, she started talking to me about my doing
the other half of the project. I had gotten half in advance. I
don't know what would have happened if I had been straightforward, but
I asked for half of the second part in advance to buy materials etc.
(which was the same amount she owed me for the first part), and I took
the money and considered myself paid for the first half and told her
that. I'm sure she was disappointed but she didnt' get angry or
complain. I drive by the building whenever I'm in NYC to make
sure it hasn't burned down. 30 years, so far so good.

(I did do one thing wrong, I think. At one point I used a wire nut in
a junction box to connect pieces of BX, instead of getting a long
wire and threading it through the two pieces of shield.)

This situation isn't the same but it's similar. I would consider
working for this family a couple more times if I could get the 75
dollars too. OTOH, they could lie about how much she had worked for
them. Pay the 75 up front and then not pay for the last day. OT3H,
they would probably know that was dishonest, but they might still do
it, working her like I worked the woman who hired me. "She extorted
the 75 dollars when we really8 needed a babysitter, and now we're just
getting it back" they would tell themselves. To small claims court,
they would have to say, No, she didn't work that day. How would she
prove otherwise?

I'm even more scared about the Doctor's children, wonder how
they will
turn out when they grow up with that kind of example to
follow?



On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 09:23:30 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

If Dr. Laura was reading this group, she would likely thank
you for your concern, and excellent observation.

Are you sure. Does she ever thank anyone for anything?

"Bert Byfield" wrote in message
. 97.131...
This is a sensible group on Usenet, so I thought I'd ask here.
My daughter is paying her way through college by babysitting.
She has 4 different families she baby-sits for regularly. She
took on an assignment for a new family through a referral. She
normally

You are incorrect. This is a place to discuss home repair, not
chat about whatever.

Idiot! If you don't know what OT stands for, then don't read the
thread.

Moron! Putting OT in the subject line does NOT excuse wasting space in
a topic group, any more than putting SPAM in the subject line makes
spamming a topic group!

Yeah, and replying to it really helps with the "wasting space" issue. Moron.
PLONK!

On Jan 23, 1:55*pm, "Steve B" wrote:
wrote

Wrong. * The same thing cannot be accomplished because by taking them
to small claims court, there is the distinct possibility that she
could win and collect her $75. * *Also win or lose, it will cost the
doctors the time to appear in court and if the court finds in the
girl's favor, the doctors may learn from it. * The girl will also
learn from the experience. *Is it worth doing? * That is up to the
girl to decide. *It's also very possible that once served with the
suit, they may just pay up, not wanting to go to court and appear to
be taking advantage of a baby sitter.

COMMENT: *Small court judgements make great toilet paper. *You want to give
this girl the idea that she has a chance of getting money out of a doctor?
She may have a chance of winning, but getting the money is entirely another
matter.

Nonsense. You think when these doctors go to buy another property,
refinance the existing one or have their credit report run they want
to find out there is an unpaid judgement recorded against them?
Aside from that, as HeyBub pointed out, there are court procedures
available to her by which the money can be extracted from their bank
accounts or a lien put on their home. It can be impossible to collect
a judgement from a deadbeat with no job and no assets. In this case,
it would very likely be simply paid on the spot.




TRADER:
Who suggested anyone run around screaming and making threats? *Also,
according the post, the daughter is of college age, not a child.

COMMENT: Sorry, but I snipped it from above in kindness to the readers.
Apparently you missed it. *My children are 40, 32 and 26. *But, they will
always be my "children".

Steve

Yes, they will. And they will continue to be dependent on you like a
child if you keep treating them like one and keep them from useful
life experiences, like suing someone in small claims.

On Jan 22, 11:17*pm, Bert Byfield wrote:
This is a sensible group on Usenet, so I thought I'd ask here.
My daughter is paying her way through college by babysitting.
She has 4 different families she baby-sits for regularly. She
took on an assignment for a new family through a referral. She
normally
You are incorrect. This is a place to discuss home repair, not
chat about whatever.
Idiot! If you don't know what OT stands for, then don't read the
thread.

Moron! Putting OT in the subject line does NOT excuse wasting space in
a topic group, any more than putting SPAM in the subject line makes
spamming a topic group!

Oh, but it was more then that.
The OP was considerate enough to acknowledge that their behavior was
not right
but felt that this group consisted of knowledgeable people (yourself
included) and they
could not think of a more appropriate group to post for help.
Surely you can see how this differs from spam or off-topic posting.
Please have some consideration and cut them some slack.

wrote in message
...
On Jan 23, 1:55 pm, "Steve B" wrote:
wrote

Wrong. The same thing cannot be accomplished because by taking them
to small claims court, there is the distinct possibility that she
could win and collect her $75. Also win or lose, it will cost the
doctors the time to appear in court and if the court finds in the
girl's favor, the doctors may learn from it. The girl will also
learn from the experience. Is it worth doing? That is up to the
girl to decide. It's also very possible that once served with the
suit, they may just pay up, not wanting to go to court and appear to
be taking advantage of a baby sitter.

COMMENT: Small court judgements make great toilet paper. You want to give
this girl the idea that she has a chance of getting money out of a doctor?
She may have a chance of winning, but getting the money is entirely
another
matter.

Nonsense. You think when these doctors go to buy another property,
refinance the existing one or have their credit report run they want
to find out there is an unpaid judgement recorded against them?
Aside from that, as HeyBub pointed out, there are court procedures
available to her by which the money can be extracted from their bank
accounts or a lien put on their home. It can be impossible to collect
a judgement from a deadbeat with no job and no assets. In this case,
it would very likely be simply paid on the spot.




TRADER:
Who suggested anyone run around screaming and making threats? Also,
according the post, the daughter is of college age, not a child.

COMMENT: Sorry, but I snipped it from above in kindness to the readers.
Apparently you missed it. My children are 40, 32 and 26. But, they will
always be my "children".

Steve

Yes, they will. And they will continue to be dependent on you like a
child if you keep treating them like one and keep them from useful
life experiences, like suing someone in small claims.

Comment: It clearly appears like our opinions differ.

Steve

If Dr. Laura was reading this group, she would likely thank
you for your concern, and excellent observation.

Are you sure. Does she ever thank anyone for anything?

I quit listening to Dr. Laura the day that a concerned mom called in asking
if her ex husband was enticing their 8 year old to spend more time with him
because he had bought the youth an ATV. She told the mom to quit being such
a bitch and be glad that the father and son spent so much time together.

Dr. Laura is so smart she failed to research it, and learn that
manufacturers are required to put a sticker on their ATV's that say NO ONE
UNDER 16 SHOULD OPERATE THIS VEHICLE. Required by federal law. So, how
does the manufacturer skirt the issue? By making ATVs of lower engine
displacement. But still no mention of the very high % of ATV underage ATV
accidents involving serious injury and fatalities.

Dr. Laura is always right. Don't believe me? Just ask her.

Steve

mm wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010 22:17:30 -0600, Bert Byfield
wrote:

This is a sensible group on Usenet, so I thought I'd ask here.
My daughter is paying her way through college by babysitting.
She has 4 different families she baby-sits for regularly. She
took on an assignment for a new family through a referral. She
normally
You are incorrect. This is a place to discuss home repair, not
chat about whatever.
Idiot! If you don't know what OT stands for, then don't read the
thread.
Moron! Putting OT in the subject line does NOT excuse wasting space in
a topic group, any more than putting SPAM in the subject line makes
spamming a topic group!

I like it when they put SPAM in the subject line of spam. Then I
don't read it.

The only place this is taking space from is groups.google. So I'd
better cut this short.


You aren't 'on' Google, you are on Usenet. Google Groups is just a
(crappy) web-based portal to get to Usenet. Learn the difference.