New York Times article on employers behaving atrociously to nannies, cleaners during COVID

[Anonymous]

Hopefully DCUM employers are behaving more humanely to the nannies who have cared for their kids. Or at least have paid their nannies legally so they qualify for unemployment. The New York Times article below has some truly gross examples of wealthy people sending their nannies off without a dime of compensation.

www.nytimes.com/2020/03/25/us/coronavirus-housekeepers-nannies-domestic-undocumented-immigrants.amp.html

When Mayra Brito was hired in Austin, Texas, as a nanny and children’s Spanish teacher for two families — one middle-class, with four children, the other a wealthy couple who both work in technology — her employers had meticulously called each one of her references. They asked to meet in person and one family took her on an informal driving test. It felt like applying for a job at a company. But there were none of those formalities last week, she said, when both families told her to stay home indefinitely without pay because of the threat of Covid-19.

Ms. Brito had worked for one of the families for two years, the other for six months. In letting her go without confirming if or when she might have a job again, one set of parents said they were concerned about the health of their youngest child, a 9-month-old baby. The other said they wanted to keep the children’s aging grandparents who live with them safe.

“I understand their reasons,” Ms. Brito said, “But what I don’t understand is why they didn’t say, ‘We’re going to pay you at least half while you’re at home because we’re not letting you work.’”

She has since fielded requests from one of the families to do video calls because their children miss her. The parents did not offer to compensate her for the calls.

[Anonymous]

Most people in the USA are at will employees. Instead of blaming individuals, you can blame the USA's particularity among wealthy nations, which is to have an almost non-existent safety net. Other countries have much better protections from workers. If more Americans had better protections, they would in turn offer a little something to their own housekeepers/landscapers/etc, because it would become a cultural habit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Most people in the USA are at will employees. Instead of blaming individuals, you can blame the USA's particularity among wealthy nations, which is to have an almost non-existent safety net. Other countries have much better protections from workers. If more Americans had better protections, they would in turn offer a little something to their own housekeepers/landscapers/etc, because it would become a cultural habit.

Of course we can blame individuals. People routinely boast on DCUM -- or at least have the nerve to even post it -- how little they care about others, how they get no joy from sharing their wealth, to help those in need, etc. They are disgusting. How did this terrible behavior become the norm? How did it become socially acceptable? Disgusting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Most people in the USA are at will employees. Instead of blaming individuals, you can blame the USA's particularity among wealthy nations, which is to have an almost non-existent safety net. Other countries have much better protections from workers. If more Americans had better protections, they would in turn offer a little something to their own housekeepers/landscapers/etc, because it would become a cultural habit.

Of course we can blame individuals. People routinely boast on DCUM -- or at least have the nerve to even post it -- how little they care about others, how they get no joy from sharing their wealth, to help those in need, etc. They are disgusting. How did this terrible behavior become the norm? How did it become socially acceptable? Disgusting.

You seem to be overreacting. The only posts I've come across are the ones urging others to keep paying their nannies, cleaners, etc...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Most people in the USA are at will employees. Instead of blaming individuals, you can blame the USA's particularity among wealthy nations, which is to have an almost non-existent safety net. Other countries have much better protections from workers. If more Americans had better protections, they would in turn offer a little something to their own housekeepers/landscapers/etc, because it would become a cultural habit.

Are you saying that the wealthy tech workers likely have no safety nets? Or that because we have an individualistic culture the wealthy are oblivious to the needs of others? Something else? In my experience many people who have the least share the most.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Most people in the USA are at will employees. Instead of blaming individuals, you can blame the USA's particularity among wealthy nations, which is to have an almost non-existent safety net. Other countries have much better protections from workers. If more Americans had better protections, they would in turn offer a little something to their own housekeepers/landscapers/etc, because it would become a cultural habit.

Are you saying that the wealthy tech workers likely have no safety nets? Or that because we have an individualistic culture the wealthy are oblivious to the needs of others? Something else? In my experience many people who have the least share the most.

Both. Many people, regardless of their income, have no safety net, and no American born here grew up in a culture supportive of unemployment. The USA is very sink and swim. In some ways it allows the economy to develop, in other ways it's cruel and socially backward. My point is that it's a societal problem, and that it's useless to blame specific individuals.

[Anonymous]

It’s the New York Times... of course it is going to write up ONE SINGLE case like this. How about some fair reporting? Oh that wouldn’t fit the liberal narrative and would take too much time, too!

[Anonymous]

There’s no excuse for not paying UI on your nanny. I think its nice to pay your nanny not to work but I don’t really blame anyone that is not willing to do that for months on end. But you should give at least some severance and don’t contest their UI filing.

[Anonymous]

Lots of people are losing their jobs because of this. The families were doing a share and may not have been able to afford to continue. These kinds of jobs don't have contracts but most jobs are at will employees and they can fire you at any time.

[Anonymous]

When the dust settles, NYC prosecutors will go after people like this.

[Anonymous]

No pay, no video calls. I wonder if these nannies have grounds for civil suits. Guessing they do.

[Anonymous]

It's pretty gross to expect the nanny to do a video conference without being paid after laying her off. For the time being, we are paying our nanny not to come to work, but we can't keep that up beyond a month. It's just not financially feasible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s the New York Times... of course it is going to write up ONE SINGLE case like this. How about some fair reporting? Oh that wouldn’t fit the liberal narrative and would take too much time, too!

Obviously you didn’t read the story. They would take too much brainpower. There were multiple cases cited.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s the New York Times... of course it is going to write up ONE SINGLE case like this. How about some fair reporting? Oh that wouldn’t fit the liberal narrative and would take too much time, too!

That’s unfortunate that you are too busy ranting about the “liberal narrative” to click on the link the oP shared and realize that there are multiple cases cited in that article.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s the New York Times... of course it is going to write up ONE SINGLE case like this. How about some fair reporting? Oh that wouldn’t fit the liberal narrative and would take too much time, too!

Obviously you didn’t read the story. They would take too much brainpower. There were multiple cases cited.

I read the story. The PP is correct. Not a fair piece at all.