Tweet
the Victorian minimum . . .
DELORES BETHELMIE seemed perfect to work as a nanny for the 1 percent.
A legal immigrant, she was willing to live anywhere in New York — uptown or downtown — and didn’t mind adding housekeeping to her list of child care tasks. She was good at e-mail, certified as a baby nurse, had letters of reference from her former employers and had gone to college for two years in Trinidad before coming to America. At 41, she agreed to work on the books and overtime and was amenable to occasional weekend trips. She could even cook — her culinary specialty was pelau, a spicy West Indian dish made of chicken, beans and coconut milk.
Unfortunately, the longer her interview at the Pavillion Agency lasted, the more problematic issues kept emerging. For one thing, Ms. Bethelmie didn’t own a smartphone: Strike 1. Nor did she have a driver’s license: Strike 2. And she only spoke one language: English, not Mandarin Chinese in addition to English, which is currently the vogue among employers.
That being three strikes, had she just struck out?
“Hmm, I also see here that you don’t swim,” said Jennifer Mallano, a placement specialist at the agency, frowning slightly at the application that accompanied her résumé. “Well, there are some positions I just won’t be able to consider you for. When our families go to the Hamptons, swimming is something they typically require.”
After a steep decline following the financial crisis, the domestic staffing business — that elite niche industry that screens and hires nannies, drivers, butlers, chefs and personal assistants on behalf of wealthy clients — is once again booming, this time in a market that heavily favors the employers. At the Pavillion Agency in Midtown Manhattan, for instance, a dozen applicants were jammed into the lobby on a recent afternoon, scribbling on clipboards, patting down their hair and polishing presentations, waiting to be interviewed for jobs.
It was a far cry from 2009 when annual revenue at Pavillion — not unlike its sister staffing firms — decreased by nearly half. Last year, in fact, was the company’s best year ever since being established in 1962, said Cliff Greenhouse, its president. “And this year is turning out to be just as good,” he added, “maybe even better.”
The definition of “better” depends, of course, on which side of the hiring line you happen to be standing. If the extremely rich are again bringing workers in substantial numbers into their homes, one reason they can do so is because so many poorer people are willing to work there. As Ms. Mallano interviewed Ms. Bethelmie, there were 32 three-by-five notecards tacked to a corkboard behind them in the cubicle. The cards bore the names of others looking for work, and their number — and diversity — was instructive.
“This is actually one of the saddest times I’ve ever experienced in this business,” said Keith Greenhouse, who helps his brother run the agency. “I’ve just never seen this number of people who are practically begging us for work.”
In an era of luxury for the masses, a full-time domestic staff is a status symbol that truly sets one apart, a tangible way of separating the genuinely loaded from the simply well-to-do. With tongue-in-cheek candor, the owners of many staffing companies recalled that members of this upper class, their highest-net-worth clients, suddenly discovered in the fall of 2008 that something called the Economy existed and that — who knew? — it could violently head south.
This discovery, the owners said, produced in their customers a desire to rein in staffing costs (if not the staffs themselves). It also created social discomfort with appearing too privileged at a moment of national hardship. “People became skittish,” said David Crimmins, a manager at the Lindquist Group, another staffing agency in Manhattan. “Even though they had money to spend, they felt they had to pull back slightly because it wasn’t in vogue to have three or four people in your home.”
Job applicants have clearly felt the combined effects of this anxiety and increased fiscal shrewdness. The Pavillion Agency, for one, receives about 300 phone calls from applicants each week and another 300 queries over e-mail. Of these 600 inquiries, Keith Greenhouse said, many, if not most, are rejected out of hand. Of those that remain, he added, perhaps a dozen or so will actually find jobs.
“The superrich are never going to clean their own homes — they’re still going to hire,” said Al Martino, who has run the Al Martino Domestic Staffing Agency in Manhattan since 1972. “But what you find today is that they’re — how should I say it? — very, very particular about who they want to hire.”
Because the available pool of labor is exceptionally deep and because the competition is particularly fierce for the most secure and highest-paying jobs, the superrich, Mr. Martino and others said, are beginning to scrimp on salaries and to require employees to take on multiple duties. Employers are looking to combine household tasks into economizing hybrids: the nanny who can also whip up dinner for the children and their parents, or the driver who can double as a handyman.
The best domestic jobs still pay exceedingly well. European nannies with college educations and the command of several languages (mere bilingualism is passé) can earn as much as $120,000 a year on top of room and board. Private drivers can take home annual salaries of up to $75,000, with bonuses for overtime. Top chefs with experience in three- or four-star restaurants and the ability to handle special dietary needs can make as much as $140,000 a year.
Frequently, however, the trade-offs for obtaining these positions are salaries that are open for negotiation, flexible work hours and enhanced scrutiny of the applicant’s personal and professional lives. Background checks delving into driving, credit and criminal histories are the standard in the industry. But now, more and more agencies are keeping private investigators on retainer, owners say, to conduct more thorough searches of those applying for jobs.
Staffing specialists are also being asked by clients to look into potential employees’ use of social media. “Their Facebook pages or what they may be tweeting,” said Steven Laitmon, the owner of the Calendar Group in Westport, Conn. “Whether it’s a Hollywood C.E.O. or the manager of a hedge fund, this is a very discreet client base. They don’t want candidates who are superactive on social media. They want to make sure their privacy is protected.”
Because of privacy concerns, a number of wealthy families declined to discuss the issues involved in bringing workers into their homes, but every now and then tantalizing stories emerge about employees — and even staffing agencies — crossing the line.
Last winter, for instance, Adrian Smith, the self-described “domestic broker to the stars” who had hired staff members for Robert DeNiro, George Soros and Mariah Carey, was convicted in State Supreme Court in Manhattan of harassment after he threatened Tania Higgins, the wife of a successful hedge fund magnate, when she turned down his suggestion of a maid.
“I will have a really great laugh when I see your house crumble,” Mr. Smith ranted in a voice mail message to Ms. Higgins in September 2010, according to evidence presented in the case. “I will have my revenge.”
In part to avoid misunderstandings with clients, firms like Pavillion undertake highly detailed interviews of their candidates, 30- or 40-minute sessions where the questions asked indicate, by inference, the needs, desires and, some might say, the neuroses of employers.
Can the private chef cook organic, gluten-free, locally sourced, no-salt vegan cuisine? Would the nanny mind blowing out the lady of the house’s hair before she steps out for a night on the town? Has the driver ever had tuberculosis or a bum knee?
Ms. Bethelmie went through this process the first week in October, answering similar questions (yes, she would in fact mind working for a family that traveled frequently to 27 different countries) and being asked for a photo of herself (“Something wholesome,” Ms. Mallano said, “maybe outside in a park?”) By the middle of the month, her references had been checked — they turned out to be excellent — and her résumé was sent to three potential families.
She was hoping for a job with an annual salary of at least $75,000 — in the lower register of the uppermost bracket.
“But the competition’s tough,” Ms. Mallano said. “It isn’t easy. Most of these families see five or 10 or even 15 applicants before they make a decision.”
Needless to say, Ms. Bethelmie was waiting.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/17/bu...gewanted=print