The job posting said 25 hours per week. Three days, Monday through Wednesday, 8am to 2:30pm. School pickup, afternoon care, light meal prep. Your nanny interviewed for that role. You hired her for that role. She planned her life around working three days a week. Now it’s three months later and you’re texting her Thursday mornings asking if she can come in. You’re requesting she stay until 4pm instead of 2:30pm “just this once.” You’re adding weekend babysitting requests. You’re asking her to handle grocery shopping and kids’ laundry in addition to childcare. You’re somehow shocked when she seems frustrated or when she gives notice after six months.
This is scope creep, and it destroys household staffing placements constantly. Families hire staff for specific hours and responsibilities, then gradually expand expectations without adjusting compensation or even acknowledging they’re asking for something different than what was agreed. Your nanny didn’t sign up for full-time work. She’s not being difficult by pushing back on constant additional requests. She’s trying to maintain boundaries around the role she was actually hired for, which you keep trying to expand beyond what you both agreed to. Let me break down how this happens, why it’s a problem, and what families need to do differently.
How the creep starts
Nobody sets out to exploit their part-time staff. The expansion happens gradually in ways that feel reasonable in the moment but compound into real problems. It starts small. One week you have an unexpected work obligation and you ask if your nanny can stay an extra hour. She says yes because she’s helpful and flexible. You’re grateful. Then it happens again a few weeks later. Another work thing came up, can she stay late? She agrees again because saying no feels awkward and she wants to be accommodating.
Pretty soon you’re regularly asking for extra hours because she’s proven she’ll usually say yes. You’ve mentally expanded her availability from “three days, specific hours” to “three days, flexible hours based on what I need.” Then you start adding Thursday requests. Just occasional at first – can you possibly work this Thursday, something came up? She agrees sometimes because she needs the income and doesn’t want to seem difficult. You interpret her agreement as confirmation that she’s actually available for more than three days. Before long, you’re expecting her to work four days most weeks, with varying end times based on your schedule. You’re adding tasks beyond childcare – shopping, laundry, errands, meal prep for the family. The role that was supposed to be 25 hours of childcare three days weekly has become 35-40 hours of childcare plus household tasks four or five days weekly. Your nanny’s frustrated and resentful because this isn’t what she signed up for. You’re confused about why she seems unhappy when you think you’re just asking for reasonable help from someone you employ.
The compensation mismatch
Here’s the math problem: You hired and are paying for 25 hours weekly at part-time rates. You’re now getting 35-40 hours weekly plus expanded responsibilities. You’re receiving full-time value while paying part-time compensation. Let’s say you’re paying your nanny $25/hour for the original 25-hour role. That’s $625 weekly, $2,500 monthly, $32,500 annually. If she’s actually working 35 hours weekly now, at the same hourly rate that should be $875 weekly, $3,500 monthly, $45,500 annually. You’re getting $13,000 worth of additional work annually without paying for it.
Plus in New York, hours over 40 weekly should be paid at time-and-a-half overtime rates. If your part-time nanny is regularly working 40+ hours because you keep adding requests, you’re legally required to pay overtime. Most families with scope creep aren’t doing that. Your nanny didn’t agree to work full-time for part-time compensation. You’re asking her to subsidize your family’s needs by giving you free or underpaid labor beyond what you both agreed to. That’s not reasonable and it creates justifiable resentment.
The “just this once” lie
Families love phrases like “just this once” or “just for today” when requesting hours or tasks beyond agreed scope. The problem is it’s never actually just once. Occasional genuinely one-time requests are fine. True emergencies where you really need help and it’s rare. Any reasonable part-time staff member understands that sometimes exceptions happen. But “just this once” that happens weekly isn’t exceptional – it’s a pattern. You’re not asking for occasional flexibility. You’re regularly requiring hours beyond what you hired for while pretending each instance is a special exception rather than your actual expectation.
Your nanny knows “can you stay late just this once” means “I’m going to ask you to stay late regularly but I don’t want to admit that or adjust your pay.” She can see the pattern even if you’re pretending it’s random exceptions. Pretending regular expanded requests are occasional exceptions is dishonest. Either adjust the role officially to include the additional hours and compensate appropriately, or actually limit requests to genuine rare exceptions.
The availability assumption
When families hire part-time staff, they often mentally treat them as partially available rather than recognizing that part-time staff have full lives outside your employment. Your nanny who works for you three days a week isn’t just sitting around unemployed the other four days waiting to see if you need her. She has other commitments – maybe another part-time position, maybe classes, maybe childcare for her own kids, maybe anything. Her non-work days aren’t your backup availability.
You can’t hire someone for Monday-Wednesday and then regularly expect Thursday-Friday availability unless you’re paying for that flexibility. Either hire for five days initially if you need five-day coverage, or accept that three-day employees aren’t available the other days. New York nannies especially often work multiple part-time positions to cobble together full-time income. Your three-day nanny might work two days for another family. When you ask her to add Thursday, you’re not just asking for one more day – you’re asking her to cancel on her other employer, which affects her reliability with them and her overall income stability. Assuming availability beyond contracted hours is treating staff like they exist just for your convenience rather than as whole people with full lives.
The task expansion
Families also creep beyond agreed responsibilities, not just hours. You hired a nanny for childcare. Then you start asking her to do kids’ laundry while kids are playing. Then family laundry. Then light housekeeping. Then grocery shopping. Then meal prep for the whole family. Then organizing playrooms. Then coordinating with contractors. Each addition seems small. “While you’re doing kids’ laundry anyway, can you throw in our stuff too?” seems reasonable in isolation. But ten small additions compound into substantial extra work beyond the childcare role she was hired for.
If you want a family assistant handling both childcare and household tasks, hire and pay for a family assistant. Don’t hire a nanny and gradually expand responsibilities into family assistant territory while paying nanny rates. Be honest about what role you actually need. If you need someone handling kids plus household management, create that role from the beginning and compensate appropriately. Don’t disguise expanded roles as childcare positions to save money.
Why staff say yes
You might wonder why part-time staff agree to additional hours and tasks if they’re actually unhappy about it. Several reasons: They need the income. Extra hours mean extra pay, even if it’s disrupting their schedule and violating original boundaries. Financial need often overrides preference. They feel pressured to be accommodating. Saying no to requests from employers is uncomfortable. Staff worry about seeming difficult or uncommitted, so they agree even when they don’t want to.
They don’t want to lose their jobs. Repeatedly refusing additional requests might mean getting replaced by someone more “flexible.” Fear of termination keeps people agreeing to things they’d rather decline. They like you and want to help. Good staff genuinely care about the families they work for. They agree to extra requests out of real desire to help, even when it’s not in their best interest. They hope it’s actually temporary. Early on, they believe your “just this once” framing. They think if they help through this busy period, things will return to normal. By the time they realize it’s a pattern, they’re stuck.
None of those reasons mean staff are actually okay with constant expansion of hours and tasks. They mean staff feel unable to refuse even though they’re increasingly resentful about roles becoming different than what was agreed.
The breaking point
Scope creep situations eventually break. Sometimes staff quit suddenly after months of agreeing to everything. Families are shocked because there was “no warning,” when actually there were months of warning in the form of escalating requests that staff kept accommodating. Sometimes staff start saying no more often, and families interpret that as staff becoming difficult or uncommitted rather than recognizing it’s pushback against scope creep. Sometimes staff keep agreeing but their performance quality drops because they’re exhausted, resentful, and spread too thin. Families get frustrated about declining quality without recognizing their own role in creating that situation. However it breaks, the placement usually ends badly. Staff leave feeling exploited. Families feel staff were unreliable or difficult. Nobody gets what they actually needed because the foundation was scope creep that prevented honest clear employment relationships.
What families should do instead
If you hired part-time staff and you realize you actually need more hours or broader responsibilities, have an honest conversation about officially adjusting the role. “I hired you for 25 hours but I’m realizing I regularly need more like 35 hours. Can we restructure your role to 35 hours weekly at adjusted compensation? Here’s what I’m thinking…” That’s direct and respectful. You’re acknowledging reality and proposing appropriate adjustments rather than just creeping expectations without addressing it.
Your nanny can then decide if expanded hours work for her schedule and if the adjusted compensation is acceptable. Maybe she agrees. Maybe she can’t accommodate more hours and you need to find additional coverage elsewhere. Either way, you’re being honest about needs instead of disguising full-time needs as part-time employment. If additional hours or tasks aren’t actually consistent enough to warrant role restructuring, then keep your requests genuinely occasional. Maybe once or twice monthly, maximum. Truly exceptional situations only. Pay appropriately for any additional hours worked. Don’t just add 10 hours monthly without adjusting pay because “it averages out.” Every hour worked should be compensated. If you’re regularly needing hours or coverage beyond what you hired for, you probably hired for the wrong role initially. Admit that and fix it rather than trying to force part-time staff to cover full-time needs.
The red flags in your own behavior
If you’re doing any of these things, you’ve probably got scope creep problems: You’re regularly texting your part-time nanny on her days off asking her to come in. If “can you work your day off” happens more than once monthly, that’s a pattern, not occasional exceptions. You’re often asking your part-time staff to stay beyond contracted hours. If “can you stay late” happens weekly or more, you hired for the wrong hours. You’ve added tasks or responsibilities beyond the original job description without discussing it or adjusting compensation.
Your part-time staff member is working closer to full-time hours most weeks but you’re still paying part-time rates without benefits. You feel defensive or annoyed when your part-time staff says no to additional requests. Their “no” is actually appropriate boundary-setting, not them being difficult. You find yourself thinking “I employ them, they should be more flexible.” That’s scope creep thinking. You employ them for specific agreed terms, not for whatever you decide you need at any moment.
For staff dealing with scope creep
If you’re household staff experiencing scope creep from employers, you need to address it directly instead of just continuing to accommodate while building resentment. Have a clear conversation: “I was hired for 25 hours, Monday-Wednesday. I’m increasingly being asked to work Thursdays and stay late. I need us to either formalize an expanded role with adjusted compensation, or return to the original 25-hour scope.” Document all hours worked so you have records if disputes arise about overtime or unpaid work.
Be clear about your actual availability: “I have commitments on my non-work days and I’m not available for regular additional shifts. For genuine emergencies I can sometimes help, but I can’t consistently work beyond my contracted days.” If requests continue after clear conversations, start declining: “No, I’m not available Thursday. If you regularly need Thursday coverage, we should discuss adjusting my role officially.” Know your worth and don’t subsidize families’ needs by working substantially more than you’re paid for. If a family needs full-time help, they should hire and pay for full-time help rather than exploiting part-time staff.
The honest need assessment
Before hiring any household staff, be brutally honest about what you actually need. Not what sounds reasonable or affordable. What you actually need. If you need five days of coverage most weeks, hire for five days. Don’t hire for three days hoping you can squeeze five days of coverage through constant “exceptions.” If you need someone handling both childcare and household management, hire a family assistant and pay accordingly. Don’t hire a nanny then load household tasks onto them.
If your schedule is unpredictable and you need flexibility, build that into the role officially with appropriate compensation for on-call availability. Don’t hire for fixed hours then expect unlimited flexibility without paying for it. Honest need assessment upfront prevents scope creep problems. You create roles that match reality rather than hiring for limited roles then expanding them inappropriately.
The cost of getting it right
Properly structured household employment costs more than scope creep arrangements. Full-time roles cost more than part-time. Family assistant roles cost more than nanny roles. Flexibility and on-call availability cost more than fixed schedules. That’s appropriate. You should pay for what you’re actually getting. The “savings” from scope creep aren’t real – you’re just underpaying staff for work they’re actually doing. That’s not a business strategy, it’s exploitation.
Invest in appropriate household staffing from the beginning. Pay properly for the hours and responsibilities you actually need. Structure roles honestly rather than hiring for limited roles and expanding them inappropriately. You’ll have better retention, happier staff, clearer expectations, and employment relationships that actually work sustainably. Worth the proper investment compared to constant turnover and resentment from scope creep situations. Your part-time nanny deserves the part-time role she was hired for, not secret full-time work at part-time pay. Give people what you agreed to or renegotiate honestly. Anything else is just taking advantage of people who need income and feel pressured to agree to whatever you ask.
