Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

+1. I’ve met wealthy people who pay their nannies off the books because paying employer taxes is “too complicated” and this way the nanny working off the books gets “to keep more of her salary.” Yeah, well now all of those people who have been employing your nannies illegally, I hope you keep paying them so that they get the same unemployment insurance a legally employee nanny who has been paying into the system would be entitled to.

The nannies have some responsibility for accepting positions that don’t pay on the books. I’ve walked out of countless interviews after hearing “we don’t do taxes,” which means they don’t want to deal with the hassle of following IRS rules. If more nannies did the same, people would not the option of skipping taxes.

It goes both ways. Many nannies want to be paid in cash because they din’t want to have taxes deducted.

When I read the article, I noticed that it was primarily talking about illegal immigrants. The article talked about how they’re desperate and not entitled to the same protections as other workers (unemployment, primarily).

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Found one of the shitty employers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s a horrible way to treat the woman who loved and cared for your children. And it’s truly horrible for the children. Someone they loved is simply gone. Someone who they depended on is gone. It really does a number on a child’s ability to bond with people.

Even if finances dictate letting the nanny go, the child should be able to talk to her and see her on face time. The child has to know it wasn’t anything he/she did to send the nanny away.

Agreed. Horrible, vile people.

+2.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

+1. I’ve met wealthy people who pay their nannies off the books because paying employer taxes is “too complicated” and this way the nanny working off the books gets “to keep more of her salary.” Yeah, well now all of those people who have been employing your nannies illegally, I hope you keep paying them so that they get the same unemployment insurance a legally employee nanny who has been paying into the system would be entitled to.

The nannies have some responsibility for accepting positions that don’t pay on the books. I’ve walked out of countless interviews after hearing “we don’t do taxes,” which means they don’t want to deal with the hassle of following IRS rules. If more nannies did the same, people would not the option of skipping taxes.

This is why we need more protections for domestic workers. People try to cheat them of their wages.

Anonymous wrote:It’s a horrible way to treat the woman who loved and cared for your children. And it’s truly horrible for the children. Someone they loved is simply gone. Someone who they depended on is gone. It really does a number on a child’s ability to bond with people.

Even if finances dictate letting the nanny go, the child should be able to talk to her and see her on face time. The child has to know it wasn’t anything he/she did to send the nanny away.

Agreed. Horrible, vile people.

It’s a horrible way to treat the woman who loved and cared for your children. And it’s truly horrible for the children. Someone they loved is simply gone. Someone who they depended on is gone. It really does a number on a child’s ability to bond with people.

Even if finances dictate letting the nanny go, the child should be able to talk to her and see her on face time. The child has to know it wasn’t anything he/she did to send the nanny away.

Anonymous wrote:

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

For what? It’s not illegal, just immoral.

Really? Paying taxes is a moral choice now?

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

For what? It’s not illegal, just immoral.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

+1. I’ve met wealthy people who pay their nannies off the books because paying employer taxes is “too complicated” and this way the nanny working off the books gets “to keep more of her salary.” Yeah, well now all of those people who have been employing your nannies illegally, I hope you keep paying them so that they get the same unemployment insurance a legally employee nanny who has been paying into the system would be entitled to.

The nannies have some responsibility for accepting positions that don’t pay on the books. I’ve walked out of countless interviews after hearing “we don’t do taxes,” which means they don’t want to deal with the hassle of following IRS rules. If more nannies did the same, people would not the option of skipping taxes.

Wish I could hire this woman when the dust settles!

My husband and I are still getting paid so we’re still paying our nanny. We’re paying our cleaning people 50%. If we weren’t getting paid though, we might need to do differently.

This is happening across the economy. My husband was told with 12 hours notice that he wouldn't be permitted to work for the next 8 weeks and wouldn't be paid, but he's on call and expected to come into work with 2 hours notice if they decide they need him. He's an engineer and a highly paid professional who in any other circumstance would have nearly perfect job security because of the importance of what he works on. But in this case his work is so important that they want to limit the number of people so as to reduce contagion, but are keeping him on call. It sucks. You have not idea what that family was dealing with financially.

Anonymous wrote: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.

+1. I’ve met wealthy people who pay their nannies off the books because paying employer taxes is “too complicated” and this way the nanny working off the books gets “to keep more of her salary.” Yeah, well now all of those people who have been employing your nannies illegally, I hope you keep paying them so that they get the same unemployment insurance a legally employee nanny who has been paying into the system would be entitled to.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I read the story too. There are multiple cases cited. You may think it’s unfair for rich people behaving badly to the people who serve them to get called out on the behavior, but it’s an amply reported story that cites cases in Texas and Colorado.