Why are nannies treated like both hourly and salaried employees?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I work at a place that has a lot of hourly workers, and they are in no way interchangeable. Nannying is an important skilled job, but there are many important skilled jobs that are hourly.

At my workplace, if we close when you’re scheduled to work, you get paid. If we are open and you don’t show up, you don’t get paid. Snow days are a bit of a gray area because it’s the family that’s deciding if they’re “open” or not. That relies on you to be sensible and humane. But when you offered safe transportation, assuming it really was safe, the nanny should have either, or not been paid

Yeah, I don't get why this person is so invested in hourly jobs generally involving interchangeable employees. There are plenty of hourly jobs that require employees to not just have specific skills, but also knowledge of workplace logistics, procedures, and even personalities, such that someone who technically has the skills but lacks the specific experience in that workplace can't just smoothly step in. It's really not helping her case.

It's actually making her look stupid -- she's a nanny, but she knows all about professions as disparate as checkout clerks, electricians, construction workers, and ER doctors? She can confidently opine that they are totally interchangeable?

[Anonymous]

I always feel like we are kind of getting screwed in this situation too.

We typically need 45-48 hours of care per week.

When we go on vacation or there’s a snow day or even if our nanny takes the week off, we still pay her, but I don’t feel I should have to pay the 5-8 hours of overtime (and if I do, I don’t feel it should be at time and a half). I feel it should be her rate based on a 40 hour week.

Same with when there’s a holiday. Like I’m happy to pay for major holidays, but let’s say Monday is the 4th of July and then she works tues-Friday that week, but it only comes out to 32 hours because it’s a lighter week than normal and she was off on Monday. Why do I have to pay her the same as if she worked a 48 hour week? Why do I still have to pay for 5-8 hours of overtime? I feel I should only have to pay for a 40 hour week.

Our nanny seems to feel like she is entitled to the exact same pay, 52 weeks of the year, regardless of what’s actually happening snd if I try to cut it back based on the above, she gets upset and confused.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I always feel like we are kind of getting screwed in this situation too.

We typically need 45-48 hours of care per week.

When we go on vacation or there’s a snow day or even if our nanny takes the week off, we still pay her, but I don’t feel I should have to pay the 5-8 hours of overtime (and if I do, I don’t feel it should be at time and a half). I feel it should be her rate based on a 40 hour week.

Same with when there’s a holiday. Like I’m happy to pay for major holidays, but let’s say Monday is the 4th of July and then she works tues-Friday that week, but it only comes out to 32 hours because it’s a lighter week than normal and she was off on Monday. Why do I have to pay her the same as if she worked a 48 hour week? Why do I still have to pay for 5-8 hours of overtime? I feel I should only have to pay for a 40 hour week.

Our nanny seems to feel like she is entitled to the exact same pay, 52 weeks of the year, regardless of what’s actually happening snd if I try to cut it back based on the above, she gets upset and confused.

Legally you don’t have to (but it sounds like you know that).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I always feel like we are kind of getting screwed in this situation too.

We typically need 45-48 hours of care per week.

When we go on vacation or there’s a snow day or even if our nanny takes the week off, we still pay her, but I don’t feel I should have to pay the 5-8 hours of overtime (and if I do, I don’t feel it should be at time and a half). I feel it should be her rate based on a 40 hour week.

Same with when there’s a holiday. Like I’m happy to pay for major holidays, but let’s say Monday is the 4th of July and then she works tues-Friday that week, but it only comes out to 32 hours because it’s a lighter week than normal and she was off on Monday. Why do I have to pay her the same as if she worked a 48 hour week? Why do I still have to pay for 5-8 hours of overtime? I feel I should only have to pay for a 40 hour week.

Our nanny seems to feel like she is entitled to the exact same pay, 52 weeks of the year, regardless of what’s actually happening snd if I try to cut it back based on the above, she gets upset and confused.

Ha! I’m going through this exact thing with my nanny right now. She keeps referring to her “weekly rate”, which of course, it’s not a weekly rate, it’s hourly. She wants to be paid for 50 hours per week regardless of how much she works. The contract even says we’re only committed to 40 hours at her hourly rate, but she still expects the “weekly rate”. I think she just doesn’t actually understand that she’s an hourly employee.

[Anonymous]

This is why i preferred daycare. I tend to befriend anyone working for me, almost out of guilt but also gratitude for their labor, like house cleaners and handymen, so I end up paying more. Id feel even more inclined to do that with a nanny, worrying that if I weren't super generous and easygoing, they might take it out on my kids. How can you open your home to someone you’d treat like this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is why i preferred daycare. I tend to befriend anyone working for me, almost out of guilt but also gratitude for their labor, like house cleaners and handymen, so I end up paying more. Id feel even more inclined to do that with a nanny, worrying that if I weren't super generous and easygoing, they might take it out on my kids. How can you open your home to someone you’d treat like this?

Same but with my income daycare. Best of both works. I had 9 hours a day of coverage without paying overtime, plus I could befriend her and treat her well. I pay the same rate 52 weeks a year. Glad not to pay overtime and she’s more reliable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I work at a place that has a lot of hourly workers, and they are in no way interchangeable. Nannying is an important skilled job, but there are many important skilled jobs that are hourly.

At my workplace, if we close when you’re scheduled to work, you get paid. If we are open and you don’t show up, you don’t get paid. Snow days are a bit of a gray area because it’s the family that’s deciding if they’re “open” or not. That relies on you to be sensible and humane. But when you offered safe transportation, assuming it really was safe, the nanny should have either, or not been paid

Yeah, I don't get why this person is so invested in hourly jobs generally involving interchangeable employees. There are plenty of hourly jobs that require employees to not just have specific skills, but also knowledge of workplace logistics, procedures, and even personalities, such that someone who technically has the skills but lacks the specific experience in that workplace can't just smoothly step in. It's really not helping her case.

It's really interesting because many jobs (especially federal) can have employees who are salaried and some that are hourly, and they are doing pretty much the same work. I contracted for the federal government as a physician for a year before I signed on as a permanent employee, and the only differences are that now I have benefits, and I am supposed to attend more meetings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They are not just any employees, these are the women who are watching your most precious treasures. Treat them with kindness and humanity. The distain some of you have for these ladies is very disconcerting. If you don't want to pay them, fine, but they will go somewhere where they are treated better.

+1000 (as a mom who has hired nannies)

[Anonymous]

The hourly employees at my company get accrued sick time/PTO and vacation time. Same as our nanny.

I don’t get the problem, OP. Even if you don’t have to legally, the market dictates you should or risk losing good employees.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nannies are hourly employees. The IRS has been very clear on this point, and any attempt to salary or 1099 them is illegal (which doesn't stop people from doing it).

You are not required to provide a nanny with paid vacation days, but that may make you a less attractive employer if others are doing that. Depending on the state, you may be required to provide a nanny with paid sick leave (in California it's required).

This is not quite true. You can give a nanny a salary. But if you were to break the salary down into an hourly rate, the nanny must be making at least minimum wage. When determining that you are paying at least minimum wage, you also have to calculate the rate over 40 hours at 1.5 times the hourly rate. We used to pay our nanny a $50K salary for a 50 hour work week. This meant that she was guaranteed to be paid for 50 hours of a work every week (whether she worked that much or not). If she actually worked more than 50 hours, we would pay for each additional hour. There were many weeks she was paid for 50 hours but only worked 30-35. She also received 2 weeks paid vacation, 1 week of paid sick leave, and was paid anytime we were off or on vacation. In total, she easily had 6 weeks of paid leave every year. She definitely made more from the salary than she would have if I just paid her by actual hours worked.

From a tax perspective you are describing an hourly worker. The relevant question is exempt vs. non-exempt. Domestic workers are non-exempt. Whether you guarantee them a specific number of hours is irrelevant. You still need to track the number of hours worked in a single week, and pay overtime if they go over 40. They also have to be paid on a W-2 and not a 1099, because their work can never be categorized as being discretionary enough to be considered an independent contractor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I work at a place that has a lot of hourly workers, and they are in no way interchangeable. Nannying is an important skilled job, but there are many important skilled jobs that are hourly.

At my workplace, if we close when you’re scheduled to work, you get paid. If we are open and you don’t show up, you don’t get paid. Snow days are a bit of a gray area because it’s the family that’s deciding if they’re “open” or not. That relies on you to be sensible and humane. But when you offered safe transportation, assuming it really was safe, the nanny should have either, or not been paid

Yeah, I don't get why this person is so invested in hourly jobs generally involving interchangeable employees. There are plenty of hourly jobs that require employees to not just have specific skills, but also knowledge of workplace logistics, procedures, and even personalities, such that someone who technically has the skills but lacks the specific experience in that workplace can't just smoothly step in. It's really not helping her case.

There are very few hourly jobs in a workplace that won’t allow one worker to exchange shifts with another worker. Most nannies can’t do that, as they’re the only one, and they are integral to the household functioning during the week.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For the record we pay our nanny very well and do all these things. I just get frustrated when at times (like the huge snow storm where nanny can’t make it in and then refuses to come in again the next day despite being offered safe transportation here) that I’m always supposed to pay her no matter what but also supposed to pay for every minute over our schedule on a given day.

Hourly employees generally have the benefit of overtime pay and being paid for every minute worked. The drawback is they don’t get a lot of paid vacation, generally don’t get paid for time they don’t work, and can be subject to schedule changes.

Salaried employees get the benefit of paid vacation and paid holidays. They get paid whether or not they’re able to show up and do their job. The drawback is they don’t get paid extra for every minute they work over their regular schedule in a given day.

My husbands job is one and mine is the other. It feels like nannies get both. And yes I’m partially just frustrated at the moment that dh wasn’t able to do his job and therefore wasn’t paid bc our nanny wouldn’t come in with provided transportation or stay overnight to prevent this problem (she doesn’t have kids or pets) but we still have to pay her. I in no way think nannies should be poorly paid or paid off the books or nickled and dimed, but I also don’t think they have some special status that elevates things above literally all over workers at regular companies.

I agree they can’t have it both ways. In theory, you should not pay her for today and tomorrow if she refused to come in. In real life, it’s hard to do this when you worry the nanny will most likely get resentful of the docked pay. The parents prepaid a distance learning pod supervisor for the week. She didn’t show up today citing snow. But I doubt the pod parents will dock her the $420 for today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the record we pay our nanny very well and do all these things. I just get frustrated when at times (like the huge snow storm where nanny can’t make it in and then refuses to come in again the next day despite being offered safe transportation here) that I’m always supposed to pay her no matter what but also supposed to pay for every minute over our schedule on a given day.

Hourly employees generally have the benefit of overtime pay and being paid for every minute worked. The drawback is they don’t get a lot of paid vacation, generally don’t get paid for time they don’t work, and can be subject to schedule changes.

Salaried employees get the benefit of paid vacation and paid holidays. They get paid whether or not they’re able to show up and do their job. The drawback is they don’t get paid extra for every minute they work over their regular schedule in a given day.

My husbands job is one and mine is the other. It feels like nannies get both. And yes I’m partially just frustrated at the moment that dh wasn’t able to do his job and therefore wasn’t paid bc our nanny wouldn’t come in with provided transportation or stay overnight to prevent this problem (she doesn’t have kids or pets) but we still have to pay her. I in no way think nannies should be poorly paid or paid off the books or nickled and dimed, but I also don’t think they have some special status that elevates things above literally all over workers at regular companies.

I agree they can’t have it both ways. In theory, you should not pay her for today and tomorrow if she refused to come in. In real life, it’s hard to do this when you worry the nanny will most likely get resentful of the docked pay. The parents prepaid a distance learning pod supervisor for the week. She didn’t show up today citing snow. But I doubt the pod parents will dock her the $420 for today.

The thing is you’re kind of creating an incentive not to work. If they know they’ll be paid for the snow day regardless, then suddenly they feel “scared” to drive. Ever since we started paying for snow days, our nanny suddenly can’t come to work any time that it happens to be snowing. Before we started covering the snow days, she somehow figured out how to get to work for them because she wanted to be paid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I work at a place that has a lot of hourly workers, and they are in no way interchangeable. Nannying is an important skilled job, but there are many important skilled jobs that are hourly.

At my workplace, if we close when you’re scheduled to work, you get paid. If we are open and you don’t show up, you don’t get paid. Snow days are a bit of a gray area because it’s the family that’s deciding if they’re “open” or not. That relies on you to be sensible and humane. But when you offered safe transportation, assuming it really was safe, the nanny should have either, or not been paid

Yeah, I don't get why this person is so invested in hourly jobs generally involving interchangeable employees. There are plenty of hourly jobs that require employees to not just have specific skills, but also knowledge of workplace logistics, procedures, and even personalities, such that someone who technically has the skills but lacks the specific experience in that workplace can't just smoothly step in. It's really not helping her case.

There are very few hourly jobs in a workplace that won’t allow one worker to exchange shifts with another worker. Most nannies can’t do that, as they’re the only one, and they are integral to the household functioning during the week.

But you could say that of any business with only one employee trained in a given position. If you have two cashiers, sure, they can swap shifts. But if you only have one person who knows how to work the register, then no one else can swap with them. It's because its a small business, not inherent in the nature of nannying. If I had two nannies (which some people do) they would be interchangeable.

[Anonymous]

Meghan Markle considers her nannies to be interchangeable.