While thinking through the whole Nanny saga, my mind drifted to a trend that is prevalent among almost every Nanny employment situation in Nigeria. And not just Nanny situations though but every employment situation that is 'informal' in nature. I use informal carefully here to denote domestic employment or employment of a non-white-collar nature. The truth is that when a person is employed as one thing, he or she ends us being used as multiple things. For example, a family employs a Nanny, which means someone to take care of their baby(ies). But the funny thing is that the job description is vague and multiple, sometimes unbeknownst to the Nanny, until she (or even he) starts 'being expected' to fulfill them. So, while you are a Nanny, you also become the family cook, the one that does the family laundry, the car washer, the errand person, etc. You could be employed as a Driver, and you end up also being a Domestic Servant, etc. The interesting thing is that these domestic employers use different mechanisms to bait these employees into doing things outside of their scope. They sometimes, make them feel like part of the family, with same rights as everyone else. And this, to me, is where the turmoil begins. When you have 'opened' your arms and assured your 'employee' that they can get whatever they want because they are now a 'family member', they begin to expect too much. And who are you to blame them? You conveniently use them to do all your bidding all the time, now you have to do theirs. Otherwise, they could blackmail you. I think it will be best if we define employment relationships and set boundaries that no one (employer or employee) can cross indiscriminately.
Disclaimer: I'm not saying this was the case in Tonto's situation. I'm not saying every employer or employee is guilty of crossing boundaries. This was just an intellectual exercise triggered by the case study under review.