WWYD? Re: Pet sitter

[luvsJack]

I think you're confusing the situation at least it comes off that way. When you hire a person to do a job at your residence you are under no obligation to use them in the future. You never have to see them again after the job is complete either. When you are hired at McDonald's laws protect both the employee and the employer. The employer, even as an at-will company, still has certain reasons why they cannot legally fire someone. This is why companies are typically careful for the reasons the let go of someone. Sure at McDonald's you would expect to be talked to by your manager. If a person works for an actual company for pet sitting you could talk to the actual pet sitter regarding your disatisfaction OR you can go to the company themselves. The company can deal with the employee as they see fit and you as the owner do not have to use that pet sitter again. I'm the only one, at least that I think, that has said that I would talk to the parents so don't confuse that with what the OP has stated.

With pet sitting, even under a company, the person who hired you for the job (the owner) isn't under obligation to use a particular person all the time. They don't have to see them for every pet sitting appointment. You don't have to give them a warning if you don't want to-you can just not use them again with or without telling them why.

Think about it..you don't usually go to Home Advisor or Angie's List or Care(.com) hire a worker, then give them a warning if they don't do something right;well you might do that I suppose if you wanted to but you don't have. In those above companies you are hiring someone to do a job, they are not your employee as they are employees of the respective companies but you still hired them to do a job. I don't necessarily view the teen as the OP's employee in the traditional sense (or in the way that I'm reading from your comments) but she was hired to do a job nonetheless even if the job is something the teen does every now and then or all the time.

And honestly, as much as I admit I do judge people from time to time, it doesn't matter that the OP has a stricter schedule and wants for her pets compared to you. I've pet sat for my best friend a couple of years ago for two dogs. She needed me to be more involved with her two dogs including how to take them out to the bathroom. I didn't ask why I just did as she asked. I've pet sat for the person who rents one of my mom's bedrooms. She was very relaxed about it and said "just come sometime in the morning" and "can you play for just a few minutes outside with him". I didn't ask why I just did it. I've taken care of my mother-in-law's 7 cats. The only thing she asks is "can you count that all are there" and "make sure they have food in the bowls and water in the bowls". I also have never been paid to take care of the animals, it was done just as a favor. Each pet owner is going to be different. If I'm accepting the request to take care of them then I'm accepting to do it the way they asked me-it's their pet not mine.

*sorry for the long post*

I said earlier that she is not required to use the girl again. I said I would have explained to her what she did wrong and told her why it was important to do it the way described in my directions.

As for the McDonald's example--you or another pp as referred to the girl as an employee. If that is the case then talking to the girl's parents would be inappropriate. If the girl is thought of as an employee, then that is what would happen in an employer/employee situation. (BTW, actually in a at-will job situation, a person can be fired for no apparent reason, they are not legally bound to give a reason for fire. Happens all the time.) I didn't say she should have given her a warning. I said in my first post on this thread that she is under no obligation to use the girl again. Pay her and be done.

No it doesn't matter that she has a stricter schedule than anyone else, but it may have been to her benefit to explain the reasons behind it to the girl. People tend to do things better if they understand why they are doing them. But if you are going to hire a neighborhood teen that has other responsibilities, it may also benefit to decide how strict the schedule has to be.

And I think that trying to catch her in a lie was wrong. She should have just said what the girl did wrong.

 

[ColoradoDisneyFreaks]

I said earlier that she is not required to use the girl again. I said I would have explained to her what she did wrong and told her why it was important to do it the way described in my directions.

As for the McDonald's example--you or another pp as referred to the girl as an employee. If that is the case then talking to the girl's parents would be inappropriate. If the girl is thought of as an employee, then that is what would happen in an employer/employee situation. (BTW, actually in a at-will job situation, a person can be fired for no apparent reason, they are not legally bound to give a reason for fire. Happens all the time.) I didn't say she should have given her a warning. I said in my first post on this thread that she is under no obligation to use the girl again. Pay her and be done.

No it doesn't matter that she has a stricter schedule than anyone else, but it may have been to her benefit to explain the reasons behind it to the girl. People tend to do things better if they understand why they are doing them. But if you are going to hire a neighborhood teen that has other responsibilities, it may also benefit to decide how strict the schedule has to be.

And I think that trying to catch her in a lie was wrong. She should have just said what the girl did wrong.

I disagree, I think the OP wasn't trying to catch her in a lie, she was giving her an opportunity to tell the truth and come clean. Had the teen done that, it may have been a completely different relationship. The OP stressed the times, and asked the teen ahead of time if those times were OK or if they needed to be adjusted for the teen, since she didn't say anything, exactly how much "additional information" is the OP obligated to provide? This girl was hired to do a job with a specified start and end date, so yes, it was an employer/employee situation, just not for a full time job. The OP took the time to give the teen a chance to come clean with her behavior, and then when the girl started to lie again, she countered with the information that she had proof she was lying and then gave more feedback on what the teen did wrong. This is pretty much textbook employer counseling, she didn't give the girl a path for improvement, because the employment was already over so there is no path to improvement available here.

Hopefully the girl will take this information and use it as lessons learned, if she doesn't, then she doesn't, but the OP was nice enough to give her that feedback and chance.

 

[MinnieMouse84]

For me, it's less about the girl and more about the well-being of the dogs. As a devoted cat mommy, I understand and respect OP's devotion to her dogs.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

As for the McDonald's example--you or another pp as referred to the girl as an employee. If that is the case then talking to the girl's parents would be inappropriate. If the girl is thought of as an employee, then that is what would happen in an employer/employee situation. (BTW, actually in a at-will job situation, a person can be fired for no apparent reason, they are not legally bound to give a reason for fire. Happens all the time.) I didn't say she should have given her a warning. I said in my first post on this thread that she is under no obligation to use the girl again. Pay her and be done.

Yes I know what at-will means...it's basically what all companies are around me. At-will means they don't have to tell you why they are letting you go but they still have to abide by laws. You cannot let someone go who is on FMLA for example simply because they are on FMLA. You cannot fire due to reasons that are protected by discrimination so yes at-will but still checks and balances are at play. You actually did bring up warning regarding bosses at McDonald's so I was responding to that.

I also said I would have paid her the full amount so yes that part we are in agreement.

Also I didn't actually say the teen was an employee of the OP. Someone else interpreted my earlier comments as "You describe a scenario where the OP should be considered her employer so to speak, which is fine if she's trying to build a business in the neighborhood. If she agreed to let the dogs out with her time being compensated for in return, as a favor and a way to make a quick buck as 16 year old, then I just feel like that's a different story for how things should have been handled from jump street. She's not signing W9's and submitting references." And that is where that person and I differed on thought process.

I said-"It's hard to withhold full payment if the pet sitter isn't an employee of a pet sitting company" and "you don't have to be an actual employee who is signing W9s and submitting references to understand a requirement (i.e. show up at X times) for taking a job." and "If a person works for an actual company for pet sitting you could talk to the actual pet sitter regarding your disatisfaction OR you can go to the company themselves. The company can deal with the employee as they see fit and you as the owner do not have to use that pet sitter again." I never actually said the teen is an employee of the OP. I said the OP hired her for a job which is why I brought up websites like Home Advisor, Angie's List and Care(.com- where you can actually hire pet sitters) because essentially you are hiring a person for a job but they are not actually your employee. I guess that part didn't come across clear enough. It may be a sorta psuedo-employee-ish relationship during the time the person is hired to do the job if you want to call it that I suppose.

No it doesn't matter that she has a stricter schedule than anyone else, but it may have been to her benefit to explain the reasons behind it to the girl. People tend to do things better if they understand why they are doing them. But if you are going to hire a neighborhood teen that has other responsibilities, it may also benefit to decide how strict the schedule has to be.

As for the schedule..sorry but you don't have to explain to someone why you want something a certain way. Also regarding the teen's responsibilities I totally get that..except for the fact that the OP was in contact with the teen multiple times before the actual start date. The teen knew what was expected of her and if she felt she couldn't commit to the schedule she had ample time to say so..you'd think I'd forgotten what it was like to be 16? No I completely understand but I also understand responsibility. The fact that the OP didn't go into full detail as to the ins and outs of her schedule and requests should in no way dictate how the teen should treat the situation.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

For me, it's less about the girl and more about the well-being of the dogs. As a devoted cat mommy, I understand and respect OP's devotion to her dogs.

That I agree with. That's why it doesn't matter to me why the OP wanted her dogs to be taken care of a certain way.

 

[Nancyg56]

It's truly bizarre to me that you take exception to the things that I wanted done and that the pet sitter knew about and agreed to. It would be like me telling you that you are wrong for "making" a pet sitter play with your dogs for 30 minutes. I didn't tell my pet sitter to do that. Why can't your dogs go the day without having someone play with them when my dogs can? Do you see how ridiculous that is? I have specific times, you don't. Your dogs need played with, mine don't. We went over the times and she was perfectly fine with them. In my email to her I even say, "Please let me know in advance if any of these times don't work and I am sure we can come up with something that will work for both of us." That is word for word from the email I sent her.

As for walking my dogs together, first off, my dogs get along just fine, thank you. As I told her, my older dog has some problems due to aging. If the younger one sees something and even starts to let out a bark, the older one will start barking because he can't really see what is going on. We don't have any problem whatsoever controlling them while walking, but I do not want a person who isn't familiar with them walking them together. I made that VERY clear to her. She knew what I wanted and she should have done it or not accepted the job.

I get having an issue with the way I worded things to her. I truly do. As a few have pointed out, starting with "Tell me the truth...." probably wasn't the right way to start the conversation. I can see that. But taking issue for the rules I set forth blows my mind. If I hired her to come over and sing Kumbaya to my dogs everyday a noon, while freakishly bizarre, if she actually agrees to do that then she damn well better show up at noon and start singing away!

I agree. I think that the girl agreed to your terms but did not adhere to them.

For me, it's less about the girl and more about the well-being of the dogs. As a devoted cat mommy, I understand and respect OP's devotion to her dogs.

Exactly, until I lost my Baxter, I paid someone to come visit him every time I was away, even though my husband was not traveling with me. Bax was used to people being around and I wanted him to have company in and out during the day. The first kid was a slouch, but I paid him. That one time. After that, I hired the kids sister, who did more than I asked an d was well compensated or my neighbors son who came in took good care of my boy. He was also well compensated.

 

[DisReno]

So, completely different perspective...She is a teenager, she doesn't care, and this won't affect her in any way. I did something similar when I was babysitting. Didn't follow the rules, had my boyfriend over, the parents came over and the boyfriend was there. They paid me and I never heard from them again, but they didn't give me a lecture. I am a Mom and a teacher, and I just look back and laugh a little and think I was a "teenager"

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

So, completely different perspective...She is a teenager, she doesn't care, and this won't affect her in any way. I did something similar when I was babysitting. Didn't follow the rules, had my boyfriend over, the parents came over and the boyfriend was there. They paid me and I never heard from them again, but they didn't give me a lecture. I am a Mom and a teacher, and I just look back and laugh a little and think I was a "teenager"

Honestly that is part of the reason I said I would personally talk to the parents instead. Personally speaking here so this isn't a reflection of anyone else on this thread but I cannot actually do anything for lack of responsibility other than not pay the as agreed upon amount (Though I did mention I would still have paid the full amount). Talking with her parents gives them the chance to talk to the teen or not to the teen. It's quite possible the parents don't see it as a big deal and do nothing about it or it's quite possible that they do and would have dealt with it as they see fit (such as speaking to her as to why it is so important to follow directions, or ground her, or taken away one of her privilages,etc..not saying they should do all sorts of punishment here just putting out examples here). I wouldn't have used the teen again though.

 

[BigAlsGal]

Now if it were me I would have dropped the hint that I have home surveillance. That would have almost guaranteed the animals were taken care of to the exact specifications.

 

[MinnieMouse84]

It's appalling that some of don't seem to care at all that the dogs were NEGLECTED.

 

[LisaR]

So, completely different perspective...She is a teenager, she doesn't care, and this won't affect her in any way. I did something similar when I was babysitting. Didn't follow the rules, had my boyfriend over, the parents came over and the boyfriend was there. They paid me and I never heard from them again, but they didn't give me a lecture. I am a Mom and a teacher, and I just look back and laugh a little and think I was a "teenager"

I understand from a teens perspective that any conversation over ten seconds can be considered a lecture, but as an adult I don't feel one minutes worth of conversation would constitute a lecture! Read what I wrote in the very first post and see if it takes you more than a minute to read the "lecture" I gave her. And as I've stated before, I am wordier when I type and I talk fast. No doubt I did some pretty stupid things as a teen. I also grew up in a time when people told you if you screwed up and I lived to tell about it. Pretty sure she will too.

Honestly that is part of the reason I said I would personally talk to the parents instead. Personally speaking here so this isn't a reflection of anyone else on this thread but I cannot actually do anything for lack of responsibility other than not pay the as agreed upon amount (Though I did mention I would still have paid the full amount). Talking with her parents gives them the chance to talk to the teen or not to the teen. It's quite possible the parents don't see it as a big deal and do nothing about it or it's quite possible that they do and would have dealt with it as they see fit (such as speaking to her as to why it is so important to follow directions, or ground her, or taken away one of her privilages,etc..not saying they should do all sorts of punishment here just putting out examples here). I wouldn't have used the teen again though.

I would never consider talking to her parents. I don't know them. If they showed up to my door, I wouldn't have a clue who they even were. I can't even imagine showing up at their door and asking for her parents. That didn't even enter my mind. The only things I debated on the drive home were saying anything or just handing her the money and not saying a word and whether I should reduce the amount I would pay her. I settled on paying her the agreed upon amount and telling her what she did wrong in one minutes time. I view this as a one time shot. She had a chance and blew it with me. If others want to give someone like that a second chance, that's fine. Not me. My biggest WWYD concern was if I should have said anything at all. I am very comfortable in my decision to speak up. As I said, I should have chosen a different opening besides, "Tell me the truth." I wasn't trying to "catch" her. I was hoping she'd come clean. When she started stumbling, I knew exactly what I was dealing with and saved her from getting another lie out. But I recognize now that I could have just skipped that line altogether. I've learned the biggest lesson. I won't ever hire a total stranger to watch my dogs again. That was a huge mistake on my part. I've had such good luck with all my past kids that I got complacent. Those were all kids I knew or friends of friends. Lesson learned.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

I would never consider talking to her parents. I don't know them. If they showed up to my door, I wouldn't have a clue who they even were. I can't even imagine showing up at their door and asking for her parents. That didn't even enter my mind. The only things I debated on the drive home were saying anything or just handing her the money and not saying a word and whether I should reduce the amount I would pay her. I settled on paying her the agreed upon amount and telling her what she did wrong in one minutes time. I view this as a one time shot. She had a chance and blew it with me. If others want to give someone like that a second chance, that's fine. Not me. My biggest WWYD concern was if I should have said anything at all. I am very comfortable in my decision to speak up. As I said, I should have chosen a different opening besides, "Tell me the truth." I wasn't trying to "catch" her. I was hoping she'd come clean. When she started stumbling, I knew exactly what I was dealing with and saved her from getting another lie out. But I recognize now that I could have just skipped that line altogether. I've learned the biggest lesson. I won't ever hire a total stranger to watch my dogs again. That was a huge mistake on my part. I've had such good luck with all my past kids that I got complacent. Those were all kids I knew or friends of friends. Lesson learned.

No complaints from me here . In an earlier comment I said I wasn't giving the OP (meaning you) grief for talking to the teen. I don't think what you did was wrong I just gave my personal opinion as to what I would do which the only that differs is I would have talked to the parents (I would have still paid the full amount and I wouldn't have used her again). You did what you thought was best given the situation.

 

[MataHari22]

Long post.

Me: I need you to be honest with me about a couple things. When I sent you a text at 8:30am asking how my dogs were doing this morning and you responded with "good," you didn't actually know they were good because you hadn't been over to my house yet, right?

Her: Um....I...well, I think I....

Me: I have security cameras.

Her: Oh. I think I got here at 9.

Me: No, you got here at 9:30. I hired you to be here at 8am.

Her: Oh.

Me: You had no business telling me that my dogs were good if you hadn't even been here yet. And then you came back at 12:15. They really didn't need to go out that soon since you got here so late this morning. But the part that bugs me the most is that you brought someone with you.

Her: Oh, that was my....

Me: I don't care who it was. It doesn't matter if it was your sister, your mom, or your best friend. You let a stranger into my home. I didn't hire that person to walk my dogs, I hired you and only you. You had no right to allow someone else into my home. I specifically told you I wanted the dogs walked separately and you ignored that by having someone I didn't know walk my dogs.

Her: Sorry.

Me: One more question. I didn't see any proof that you came by last night to let them out for a quick pee.

Her: I did. I swear. I went to the football game and came over as soon as it was done.

Me: Strange that my cameras glitched at that exact time. Anyway, I am not remotely happy with the job you did and I will not be using you in the future. Here is your money (handed her the full amount and showed her out).

For the people saying that trying to catch her in a lie was wrong and that OP should have just said what the girl did wrong, are we reading the same thing? The way I read it, the OP didn't try and catch her in a lie, absolutely told her exactly what she did wrong, all the parts in bold.

 

[wilkeliza]

For the people saying that trying to catch her in a lie was wrong and that OP should have just said what the girl did wrong, are we reading the same thing? The way I read it, the OP didn't try and catch her in a lie, absolutely told her exactly what she did wrong, all the parts in bold.

It is the "I need you to be honest with me" part.

 

[MataHari22]

It is the "I need you to be honest with me" part.

I don't understand why that would be trying to catch her in a lie? She is just telling her that she wants her to answer honestly, and even phrases the question showing that she pretty much knew what the answer is. To me trying to catch her in a lie, she would not have phrased it that way, and not asked her to be honest. I guess I just don't see it that way. Maybe it's because I tend to be pretty blunt. Lol

 

[LisaR]

I don't understand why that would be trying to catch her in a lie? She is just telling her that she wants her to answer honestly, and even phrases the question showing that she pretty much knew what the answer is. To me trying to catch her in a lie, she would not have phrased it that way, and not asked her to be honest. I guess I just don't see it that way. Maybe it's because I tend to be pretty blunt. Lol

Thanks! I appreciate it. While I do understand why some people felt like that was a poor choice of words and I can see why I could have chosen a different opening, I wasn't trying to catch her in a lie. A couple people seem to think I sat around like an evil wizard rubbing my hands together while I devised a plan to trap the youngster. I wanted her to tell me the truth. I wanted her response to be, "I'm really sorry. I overslept and I panicked when you texted me and I said they were fine when I really hadn't been over at all." That's what I wanted. It wasn't to catch her in a lie. That's ridiculous. I was 100% sure by that point that she had lied. There wasn't any question about it so I'm not sure why I would try to catch her in another lie. What would the point of that be? The second I realized that she wasn't going to apologize, I STOPPED her from formulating another lie and told her that I saw her come in 1.5 hours AFTER the text. If my goal was to catch her in a lie, I would have let her stand there and flounder while she tried to pull some ridiculous story out of her butt.

 

[Aliceacc]

"I want you to honest" implies that, without the disclaimer, the young lady might otherwise NOT be honest.

And if you were "100% sure by that she had lied" then I'm not sure of the point of the question. What were you hoping to accomplish by asking the question if you were already sure of the answer?

And I still would have told her about the cameras somewhere in all the pre-trip debriefing. It would have prevented the entire issue and kept your pets comfortable.

I agree that the girl did a poor job. But I think you, as the adult, could certainly have handled this better.

I'm guessing - and of course could be totally wrong-- that you hired a new pet sitter because you were unhappy with whomever it is that you've used before. As such, you had a pretty specific list of things you wanted done-- which makes sense. But in your shoes, I would have had every intention of checking to ensure that things were being done the way I wanted. And the easiest way to ensure that would have been to warn the girl that I would be checking.

 

[Nancyg56]

"I want you to honest" implies that, without the disclaimer, the young lady might otherwise NOT be honest.

And if you were "100% sure by that she had lied" then I'm not sure of the point of the question. What were you hoping to accomplish by asking the question if you were already sure of the answer?

And I still would have told her about the cameras somewhere in all the pre-trip debriefing. It would have prevented the entire issue and kept your pets comfortable.

I agree that the girl did a poor job. But I think you, as the adult, could certainly have handled this better.

Its easy for any of us to play Monday Morning QB and offer suggestions about what might be better, but the OP cannot go back and unsay the words, or rearrange her "interview",.

I have to be honest, when I got home from my vacation and saw the slimy water dish and learned that my 'Pet sitter" barely added water for Baxter, it took me a few days to go pay the kid. His Mom asked if I was happy with him...and because I did not want to start an issue, I ignored her question. I know I should have had a conversation but was so angry with him I thought it was better to just sat nothing. WIth teh OP situation, I know I woudl not have done that, and figure she handled it better than I would. Those dogs were neglected. I would not have managed to give the kid a chance to lie, or come clean.

 

[Aliceacc]

Isn't the whole point of this thread to Monday Morning Quarterback? If not, if what's done is done, then what is this thread supposed to accomplish?

 

[Disney Doll]

Based on the responses here I can see why so many teens are the way they are.

Delicate little flowers who can't hear anything negative or their fragile psyche might be damaged. People tend to live up or down to our expectations of them.

The kid was hired for a job. She didn't do the job as specified. It doesn't matter what she or anyone else thinks of the "directives" of the job. Once she agreed to do the job she agreed to follow those directives. If she didn't want to follow the directives, then she shouldn't have accepted the job.

You're nicer than me OP. If I had hired her to come 4 times at say...$10 per visit, she'd have been paid $30 because she missed a visit.