Illegal questions for nannies...

[Anonymous]

OP this is not a good week to make up laws or reveal or lack of understanding of the US legal system. The federal gov't is shut down and all the DOJ lawyers have nothing to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have been asked to disclose what medications, if any, I am currently taking and what they are prescribed for. Also, if I have ever been on Welfare, Food Stamps or Social Security?

RED flag boundary issues. They want to know what color your panties are to, but for that they'll wait until you sign a contract... maybe.

Can they ask you your views on slave labor?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This makes me angry. Why are we excluded from these laws, if we can all agree they are good laws. Why should we not be protected?

I'm not a nanny but I agree with you. Some laws seem incredibly out of date. Yesterday, I was reading an article about an unpaid intern who tried to bring up her boss on sexual harassment charges (he groped her and tried to kiss her and made it clear she wouldn't be hired/move up in the company if she did not give in to him) but because she was an unpaid intern, the sexual harassment laws of the workplace did not apply to her. Disgusting. Anyone who is employed in any way (unpaid interns, nannies, domestic workers) should be covered under the same law as anyone else in the work place.

[Anonymous]

I'm an MB, and I've read other MBs on here and on ISYN who say they have a right to know if their nanny is on medication for any reason because they are putting their children's lives in their hands. I'm an RN and you could say the same thing about me, but I have been/would never be asked if I was on any medication. I think it is sad that nannies aren't protected by the same laws as everyone else.

[Anonymous]

There are other jobs where someone needs to disclose if they are on medication. Pilots, machine operators, military, positions requiring clearance etc. Just because it isn't required for an RN doesn't mean it isn't required for other positions. (Frankly, the medical community is one of the worst groups at self regulation and guarding against mistakes.)

A nanny has no supervision while she works and is responsible for a non-verbal child.

[Anonymous]

NP here, although not a nanny or MB. Frankly, I would prefer it if a pilot, nanny, military personnel etc. was properly treated for a condition rather than going untreated for fear they would lose their jobs. That seems more dangerous than a nanny with depression who takes medication to regulate the chemicals in her brain.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This makes me angry. Why are we excluded from these laws, if we can all agree they are good laws. Why should we not be protected?

I'm not a nanny but I agree with you. Some laws seem incredibly out of date. Yesterday, I was reading an article about an unpaid intern who tried to bring up her boss on sexual harassment charges (he groped her and tried to kiss her and made it clear she wouldn't be hired/move up in the company if she did not give in to him) but because she was an unpaid intern, the sexual harassment laws of the workplace did not apply to her. Disgusting. Anyone who is employed in any way (unpaid interns, nannies, domestic workers) should be covered under the same law as anyone else in the work place.

That's awful. The laws should apply to everyone. Why would we pick and choose who we protect. I understand the concern of those who say that a nanny is responsible for a helpless child with little supervision, but does that mean that I have no rights? Questions about my religion, sexuality, medical history and the like are inappropriate, as they would be in any other employment situation. My rights are as important as the rights of any other, yes including the rights of you and your child.

[Anonymous]

You are still misunderstanding the legal system. It is about process.

1. Any employer can ask any questions. Where protected class laws exist for employers of X number of employers, it is still legal to ask. What is not legal is to make a choice based solely on that information. From a process standpoint, you would have a very uphill time trying to prove that a individual employer of one person didn't hire you because of your answer to X. Large employers only get caught when there is a longstanding pattern of discriminatory hiring practices.

2. Even for larger employers the protections are not absolute. A church can chose to only hire a Sunday or Saturday school teacher that is the same religion. An individual employer can choose someone of their own religion as they may want their child instructed in that religion. Its the same for medications. If you are in a position where medications can have an adverse affect on your performance or threaten the life and safety and others, the employer can choose not to hire you on that basis. They can't do that for a receptionist job but for others they can.

3. Protected classes are hard fought political battles. Obesity is not a protected class for example.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You are still misunderstanding the legal system. It is about process.

1. Any employer can ask any questions. Where protected class laws exist for employers of X number of employers, it is still legal to ask. What is not legal is to make a choice based solely on that information. From a process standpoint, you would have a very uphill time trying to prove that a individual employer of one person didn't hire you because of your answer to X. Large employers only get caught when there is a longstanding pattern of discriminatory hiring practices.

2. Even for larger employers the protections are not absolute. A church can chose to only hire a Sunday or Saturday school teacher that is the same religion. An individual employer can choose someone of their own religion as they may want their child instructed in that religion. Its the same for medications. If you are in a position where medications can have an adverse affect on your performance or threaten the life and safety and others, the employer can choose not to hire you on that basis. They can't do that for a receptionist job but for others they can.

3. Protected classes are hard fought political battles. Obesity is not a protected class for example.

I'm not misunderstanding anything. Nor was I saying anything about the legal process. I questioned the morality of the issue. Its angering that this is allowed. That people will justify their right to base my employment on such personal and private matters as though it has anything to do with them. Its none of your business if/when I plan to have kids. None of your business if I've been treated for depression. None of your business what religion I practice or don't. Base your decision on how qualified I am to do the job. (Being TREATED for a mental illness is MUCH preferred to remaining UNTREATED for fear of descrimination)

[Anonymous]

You are misunderstanding the issue. Law is not about morality. Its about process.

For individual employers, they get to be the judge of whether religion or medication matters based on the job that they are offering. If you are on any medication that carries any warning against operating a motor vehicle they can decide that they don't want you driving their child. If they want a nanny who will know and teach their religion they can hire someone from their religion to do this. Its not up to you to decide that this shouldn't be part of the job they are offering anymore than it is up to you to decide that driving shouldn't be part of the job or that you aren't that impaired despite the warnings on the label.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You are misunderstanding the issue. Law is not about morality. Its about process.

For individual employers, they get to be the judge of whether religion or medication matters based on the job that they are offering. If you are on any medication that carries any warning against operating a motor vehicle they can decide that they don't want you driving their child. If they want a nanny who will know and teach their religion they can hire someone from their religion to do this. Its not up to you to decide that this shouldn't be part of the job they are offering anymore than it is up to you to decide that driving shouldn't be part of the job or that you aren't that impaired despite the warnings on the label.

You are very condescending. Once again, I am not questioning the legality of the practice. I am angered at the immorality of it, and I believe that the laws should be changed. We have laws in this country against discrimination, and nannies should be afforded the same protections. The same people who argue their right to discriminate against nannies they hire, are the same ones that would raise hell were such discrimination to take place against them in their place of employment.

[Anonymous]

I don't think it's immoral. Also nannies aren't singled out - their exclusion is simply a result of the law drawing a line at an employee number right? This is extremely common and normally is not a result of lobbying by nanny families but other small businesses.
That said, I think it's totally related to the job for SOME families to know your religion or how you plan to handle your child care situation or whatever would normally be not so relevant for other jobs because nannies aren't so easily interchangeable. If a company hires someone bad, no sweat, they can fire them and just hire a new person. But there is a cost to a kid every time a family does that and nanny is working entirely unsupervised with non or limited verbal kids in the mean time. that makes it entirely reasonable to expect that extra precautions are needed.

[Anonymous]

Yes, various PPs, it is troubling that household employees have so little protection compared to other workers in other industries, but ranting about it here changes very little and it helps even LESS when you rant about something you are so ill-informed about.

PP, do you really not see the difference in a Mormon family wanting to hire a Mormon nanny versus a company like, say, Papa John's refusing to hire a Muslim? When your job involves teaching children religious practices, which some but not all nanny positions do, of course it makes sense that you want to hire someone who knows and shares your beliefs. When your job involves delivering pizzas, your personal faith is completely irrelevant.

I do think that asking personal medical questions is out of line, and that a letter from a doctor stating the nanny is in good health and able to perform her duties without worry should suffice, but that's not the way the law stands. If you want to change it, you should first begin by educating yourself. [Hint: DCUM is not the best place to do that]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't think it's immoral. Also nannies aren't singled out - their exclusion is simply a result of the law drawing a line at an employee number right? This is extremely common and normally is not a result of lobbying by nanny families but other small businesses.
That said, I think it's totally related to the job for SOME families to know your religion or how you plan to handle your child care situation or whatever would normally be not so relevant for other jobs because nannies aren't so easily interchangeable. If a company hires someone bad, no sweat, they can fire them and just hire a new person. But there is a cost to a kid every time a family does that and nanny is working entirely unsupervised with non or limited verbal kids in the mean time. that makes it entirely reasonable to expect that extra precautions are needed.

Why don't more parents acknowledge "the cost to the kid" everytime there's a new nanny?

Funny how we suddenly realize the damage we do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, various PPs, it is troubling that household employees have so little protection compared to other workers in other industries, but ranting about it here changes very little and it helps even LESS when you rant about something you are so ill-informed about.

PP, do you really not see the difference in a Mormon family wanting to hire a Mormon nanny versus a company like, say, Papa John's refusing to hire a Muslim? When your job involves teaching children religious practices, which some but not all nanny positions do, of course it makes sense that you want to hire someone who knows and shares your beliefs. When your job involves delivering pizzas, your personal faith is completely irrelevant.

I do think that asking personal medical questions is out of line, and that a letter from a doctor stating the nanny is in good health and able to perform her duties without worry should suffice, but that's not the way the law stands. If you want to change it, you should first begin by educating yourself. [Hint: DCUM is not the best place to do that]

Every nanny can produce her doctor's note
stating her fitness to perform as a nanny,
and decline to entertain any further questions
with regard to her ability to perform
her job related duties.