paying during vacation - who's right, me or my husband?

[Anonymous]

You have to guarantee her hours whether you use her or not - so yes, when you go on vacation on her regular days you have to pay her. Giving her a vacation and PTO is standard as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do not do no do not pay off the books. This is illegal, wrong and can go sideways so many ways. If you can't afford a nanny on the books you need other arrangements.

+1 This practice needs to stop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You have to guarantee her hours whether you use her or not - so yes, when you go on vacation on her regular days you have to pay her. Giving her a vacation and PTO is standard as well.

This. Your husband is being unfair. How would he feel about losing a week’s income because his boss decided to go to Disneyland?

[Anonymous]

If your husband sticks to his guns you will only attract bottom of the barrel candidates, who will jump ship at the first opportunity. Treat your nanny like the professional she is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP: Thanks everyone! This all makes total sense to me. I think the confusion about salaried vs. hourly came from what felt like this being a more informal arrangement, stemming from her preference to be off the books. But these comments have me reconsidering that as well - honestly it seemed like such a common request during our nanny search we assumed that was the norm. But if she isn't willing to go above board maybe we shouldn't move forward after all.

It’s a common request because they avoid paying taxes so it’s more cash in their pocket.

I’d likely lose my job if I did this and got caught.

It’s a risk some people take. Not worth it to many.

[Anonymous]

Gotta love that it took anonymous DCUM posters for OP to “reconsider” doing something illegal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Gotta love that it took anonymous DCUM posters for OP to “reconsider” doing something illegal.

Better late than never. I know too many UMC parents that are perfectly fine with paying their household employees under the table.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Gotta love that it took anonymous DCUM posters for OP to “reconsider” doing something illegal.

It's normal outside DC.

[Anonymous]

Maybe your Nanny is receiving subsidized housing or Medicaid and is afraid that if she reports her Nanny wages - then she will be homeless or w/o healthcare which are valid reasons to be afraid.

In order to make sure she can afford a home along w/healthcare you should pay her vacation time for sure.
Also a health insurance stipend so she can get off Medicaid and see a good doctor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe your Nanny is receiving subsidized housing or Medicaid and is afraid that if she reports her Nanny wages - then she will be homeless or w/o healthcare which are valid reasons to be afraid.

In order to make sure she can afford a home along w/healthcare you should pay her vacation time for sure.
Also a health insurance stipend so she can get off Medicaid and see a good doctor.

Those aren't "valid" reasons for breaking the law. They are valid reasons to make sure you're offering an attractive enough wage to attract a law abiding nanny.

[Anonymous]

Guaranteed hours is standard op . Paying off the books is not ok.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe your Nanny is receiving subsidized housing or Medicaid and is afraid that if she reports her Nanny wages - then she will be homeless or w/o healthcare which are valid reasons to be afraid.

In order to make sure she can afford a home along w/healthcare you should pay her vacation time for sure.
Also a health insurance stipend so she can get off Medicaid and see a good doctor.

Those aren't "valid" reasons for breaking the law. They are valid reasons to make sure you're offering an attractive enough wage to attract a law abiding nanny.

They're valid to the person who has to choose between eating and living indoors. Or choose between seeing a doctor when they're sick and paying rent. Or choose new shoes when the old ones are worn out and paying the electric bill. Or a hundred other things rich people are fortunate enough not to have to worry about. You don't get to decide what's valid until you start protesting against lack of affordable healthcare and out of control rents and inflation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe your Nanny is receiving subsidized housing or Medicaid and is afraid that if she reports her Nanny wages - then she will be homeless or w/o healthcare which are valid reasons to be afraid.

In order to make sure she can afford a home along w/healthcare you should pay her vacation time for sure.
Also a health insurance stipend so she can get off Medicaid and see a good doctor.

Those aren't "valid" reasons for breaking the law. They are valid reasons to make sure you're offering an attractive enough wage to attract a law abiding nanny.

They're valid to the person who has to choose between eating and living indoors. Or choose between seeing a doctor when they're sick and paying rent. Or choose new shoes when the old ones are worn out and paying the electric bill. Or a hundred other things rich people are fortunate enough not to have to worry about. You don't get to decide what's valid until you start protesting against lack of affordable healthcare and out of control rents and inflation.

All good points. So is the solution to simply pay your child’s caregiver a living wage for this area? But what if she’s an immigrant who will send most of her earnings home (often to support her own biological children), no matter how much you pay her?

Or perhaps hire only an American citizen professional nanny who enjoys a “decent” standard of living with sufficient rent/ mortgage funds and health insurance?

Remember that no one gets to honor all priorities all at once. For wealthier parents, it might be the best possible foundational care regardless of the cost. However, for most parents who make the time to spend on dcum, it’s more likely the “most affordable”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe your Nanny is receiving subsidized housing or Medicaid and is afraid that if she reports her Nanny wages - then she will be homeless or w/o healthcare which are valid reasons to be afraid.

In order to make sure she can afford a home along w/healthcare you should pay her vacation time for sure.
Also a health insurance stipend so she can get off Medicaid and see a good doctor.

Those aren't "valid" reasons for breaking the law. They are valid reasons to make sure you're offering an attractive enough wage to attract a law abiding nanny.

They're valid to the person who has to choose between eating and living indoors. Or choose between seeing a doctor when they're sick and paying rent. Or choose new shoes when the old ones are worn out and paying the electric bill. Or a hundred other things rich people are fortunate enough not to have to worry about. You don't get to decide what's valid until you start protesting against lack of affordable healthcare and out of control rents and inflation.

In that case, why shouldn't the nanny steal from grocery stores. They need to eat. Or borrow someone's car without permission, because they need to get somewhere and don't have a car. Paying taxes above a certain income level is the law. You don't get to decide that the working poor (who often get a lot back in the form of income tax credits) get to evade taxes. Employers who do this are screwing said nanny over because they won't be eligible for unemployment, earn social security credits, or disability pay if they get hurt while working. Not to mention they get to avoid paying employer taxes, which are substantial, which is why some people who pay under the table (aka not paying the taxes required by law) twist themselves into a pretzel trying to make excuses for why they are breaking the law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe your Nanny is receiving subsidized housing or Medicaid and is afraid that if she reports her Nanny wages - then she will be homeless or w/o healthcare which are valid reasons to be afraid.

In order to make sure she can afford a home along w/healthcare you should pay her vacation time for sure.
Also a health insurance stipend so she can get off Medicaid and see a good doctor.

Those aren't "valid" reasons for breaking the law. They are valid reasons to make sure you're offering an attractive enough wage to attract a law abiding nanny.

They're valid to the person who has to choose between eating and living indoors. Or choose between seeing a doctor when they're sick and paying rent. Or choose new shoes when the old ones are worn out and paying the electric bill. Or a hundred other things rich people are fortunate enough not to have to worry about. You don't get to decide what's valid until you start protesting against lack of affordable healthcare and out of control rents and inflation.

In that case, why shouldn't the nanny steal from grocery stores. They need to eat. Or borrow someone's car without permission, because they need to get somewhere and don't have a car. Paying taxes above a certain income level is the law. You don't get to decide that the working poor (who often get a lot back in the form of income tax credits) get to evade taxes. Employers who do this are screwing said nanny over because they won't be eligible for unemployment, earn social security credits, or disability pay if they get hurt while working. Not to mention they get to avoid paying employer taxes, which are substantial, which is why some people who pay under the table (aka not paying the taxes required by law) twist themselves into a pretzel trying to make excuses for why they are breaking the law.

+1 Pay your nanny a living wage and comply with the required taxes, or put your kid in daycare if you can't do that.