After 40 hours its time and a half, wake up nannies and smell the coffee!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think PP is wrong about it being ok for the base / OT amts to be implicate instead of explicate in the contract.
You can negotiate based on avg rates against a fixed amt of guaranteed hrs each week. But the contract needs to spell out the base rate. And yes one reason this is so important is so that if a family needs an extra 2 hours one week, they need to pay at the contract's specified OT rate, not the avg rate.

You're right, she is unequivocally WRONG and her advice could get someone in trouble. Since there is no actual government recognized thing as an average hourly rate, unless you specify the actual base and OT rates in the contract, the rightful assumption will be that you were paying your nanny at $15/hour and failed to pay the OT. Personally, I always negotiate a normal hourly rate as my base and expect a true OT rate of 1.5 times my otherwise appropriate base rate. 50 hours is going to cost you, and in my opinion, it should. That being said, if you're going to take the "average" rate approach, specify the true rates to cover your ass.

Families should absolutely protect themselves by spelling out the implicit base rate and OT rate. That is the lowest-risk course of action for employers. However, if they fail to do so, they are not automatically in violation of the law. A court or administrative body would look at the entire work agreement and other relevant facts to determine whether there was an implicit base rate for hours 0 through 40 and an implicit OT rate for hours over 40. It does not matter that there is no "government-recognized thing" as an average hourly rate. The meaning of that term can be ascertained from the dictionary, from local custom, and most importantly from other provisions in the agreement, such as a clause stating that hours beyond the guaranteed 50 get paid at the time and a half rate of $20.46 per hour as opposed to either $15 or $22.50.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think PP is wrong about it being ok for the base / OT amts to be implicate instead of explicate in the contract.
You can negotiate based on avg rates against a fixed amt of guaranteed hrs each week. But the contract needs to spell out the base rate. And yes one reason this is so important is so that if a family needs an extra 2 hours one week, they need to pay at the contract's specified OT rate, not the avg rate.

You're right, she is unequivocally WRONG and her advice could get someone in trouble. Since there is no actual government recognized thing as an average hourly rate, unless you specify the actual base and OT rates in the contract, the rightful assumption will be that you were paying your nanny at $15/hour and failed to pay the OT. Personally, I always negotiate a normal hourly rate as my base and expect a true OT rate of 1.5 times my otherwise appropriate base rate. 50 hours is going to cost you, and in my opinion, it should. That being said, if you're going to take the "average" rate approach, specify the true rates to cover your ass.

Families should absolutely protect themselves by spelling out the implicit base rate and OT rate. That is the lowest-risk course of action for employers. However, if they fail to do so, they are not automatically in violation of the law. A court or administrative body would look at the entire work agreement and other relevant facts to determine whether there was an implicit base rate for hours 0 through 40 and an implicit OT rate for hours over 40. It does not matter that there is no "government-recognized thing" as an average hourly rate. The meaning of that term can be ascertained from the dictionary, from local custom, and most importantly from other provisions in the agreement, such as a clause stating that hours beyond the guaranteed 50 get paid at the time and a half rate of $20.46 per hour as opposed to either $15 or $22.50.

That WOULD be spelling out the OT rate genius. If you do nothing more than state the weekly amount, with no mention of the proper OT rate, it WILL be assumed that the weekly amount divided by the number of hours is the rate she was paid at (its only common sense). I know because I've been there and I've done the research, and I know the precedent. The nanny will be given the benefit of the doubt NOT you, so just be explicit and stop trying to be tricky. There's nothing illegal about negotiating a weekly amount, but you HAVE to be clear on the hourly rates.

[Anonymous]

They just don't want their nannies to know they are paying them $12/hour to watch 2 kids and clean house, only because they also work her 50 hours a week. Its ridiculous. Nannies should negotiate a rate appropriate for the job (base rate) and the required OT. Don't fall for this average rate crap, its just a big ass discount to them for working you extra hours. That the opposite of what OT should be. OT should be expensive. You should make SIGNIFICANTLY more for working 50 hours than you would 40 hours.

[Anonymous]

Wake up and smell the coffee indeed - but I am talking to the PP nannies insisting on a base the that is equal to the average rate. Take the $750/wk, 50 hr, $15/hr average example. If you demand $15/hr as a base rate, you will in all likelihood demand yourself right out of a job.

Classic example of penny wise, pound foolish. Fuss about your base rate and find yourself without the job at all. The candidate who has the ability to view the picture as a whole will be the one to get the job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They just don't want their nannies to know they are paying them $12/hour to watch 2 kids and clean house, only because they also work her 50 hours a week. Its ridiculous. Nannies should negotiate a rate appropriate for the job (base rate) and the required OT. Don't fall for this average rate crap, its just a big ass discount to them for working you extra hours. That the opposite of what OT should be. OT should be expensive. You should make SIGNIFICANTLY more for working 50 hours than you would 40 hours.

You do realize that the nature of nanny work typically means a more than 40 hour week, right? Quit whining. Grow up. Or look for a part time job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's actually not that simple, OP.

In DC at least, it is very common for families that guarantee hours to pay a flat weekly sum in exchange for the guaranteed hours. It is just as common in these scenarios to negotiate that weekly sum in terms of average hourly rates. For example, the family might guarantee 50 hours and pay $750, for a average hourly rate of $15. The hours under 40 and the hours over 40 are all paid at the same average hourly rate. However, no one is cheating because there is an implicit base and time-and-a-half overtime rate.

For example, $750 per week for 50 hours = $15 average hourly rate. However, the true rate for the first 40 hours is $13.64 and the true rate for the last 10 hours is $20.46. It is best for the family to specify this breakdown in the work agreement, but not strictly necessary as long as the contract states the weekly pay, the total hours, and the fact that $15 is an average hourly rate (rather than a base hourly rate).

This perfectly sums up how the nannies we interviewed approached they job (they all quoted an hourly rate but also a weekly rate - the weekly rate was their calculation of base time plus overtime, averaged out to make them competitive in the market for a fulltime position. Our nanny is paid this way (weekly amount). Any additional time she works for us beyond her contracted 50 hrs/week is paid at her OT rate. So the costs for any hours over her contracted time add up VERY quickly but her weekly rate is, on average, a more affordable hourly rate for us to manage.

You can quibble over the language but this poster is right in that this is how all the fulltime nannies I've met have approached their compensation.

[Anonymous]

10:57, be nice to your nanny because she could report you to local labor board because what you are doing is illegal.

[Anonymous]

Work on that reading comprehension, 19:40.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Work on that reading comprehension, 19:40.

+1. There is nothing unlawful about paying a flat weekly sum for 50 hours of work. The base and OT rates can be inferred from that combination, so there is no violation of labor law. What would be unlawful is (a) paying a flat weekly sum that is not tied to any particular number of hours, i.e., a SALARY of $750 per week or (b) stating the same hourly rate of pay for all fifty hours, without stating that $15 is an AVERAGE hourly rate.

[Anonymous]

I agree that OT should be pretty expensive - if it is time above & beyond the normal contracted hours. I view the full OT rate I have to pay my nanny when I need her for the 51st hr of the week as a form of natural incentive to get my butt home on time whenever humanly possible to avoid paying a ridiculously high rate per hour. But if 10 hrs of OT is a regular part of the job a family advertises for, then it will need to average out to a weekly amount the family can afford - nannies are of cours free not to apply for the job if they think it pays too little. I find it amazing that most families are able to get by with only 40 hrs unless a parent works PT - DH and I flex some but still have long commutes that nanny's hours need to cover.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Very common to set total weekly wage for fixed number of hours. Work backward from that to regular wage and OT wage. Specify these in contract and/or payroll service (or excel spreadsheet used to calculate pay, whatever). Extra OT hours paid at OT rate. Nothing illegal about this.

I think there's confusion in this thread about the way people TALK about pay and what they pay actually IS.

You can discuss pay in terms of the average wage - "I'll pay you X per week for Y hours, which averages to Z." However, Z is not the hourly wage. The base rate per hour (when not performing overtime) is the hourly wage; the total amount brought home each week is a function of the hours worked and the hourly wage.

It's really important to make this distinction when one is negotiating pay or discussing the "market rate." It also makes a very real practical difference: what happens if you change the number of hours worked per week from 50 to 40? From 50 to 60? Thinking in terms of "I make X per week at an average rate of such-and-such" is not helpful.

[Anonymous]

We needed 50 hours of child care. When we were interviewing nanny's we always stated that we needed a minimum of 40 hours (Mon. - Thu) at $15/hr and that we had a part-time sitter in who could pick up the extra 10 hrs on Friday. We simply don't have the money to pay time and a half for the extra ten hours. We gave the option though for the full-time nanny to pick up those extra 10 hours at an "average" of $15/hr for the week. Every one of the 7 nanny's we interviewed wanted the extra 10 hours even though we weren't technically paying time and a half. When we wrote up the final contract we made it legal - $750 for a maximum of 50hrs per week.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We needed 50 hours of child care. When we were interviewing nanny's we always stated that we needed a minimum of 40 hours (Mon. - Thu) at $15/hr and that we had a part-time sitter in who could pick up the extra 10 hrs on Friday. We simply don't have the money to pay time and a half for the extra ten hours. We gave the option though for the full-time nanny to pick up those extra 10 hours at an "average" of $15/hr for the week. Every one of the 7 nanny's we interviewed wanted the extra 10 hours even though we weren't technically paying time and a half. When we wrote up the final contract we made it legal - $750 for a maximum of 50hrs per week.

So you abided by the letter of the law but not the spirit? Forgive me if I save my applause for someone else. If those nannies were worth $15/hr it is shameful that you would drop their base rate by several dollars an hour.

Every time I log on here I am so happy I don't work for cheapskates.

[Anonymous]

"We needed 50 hours of child care. When we were interviewing nanny's we always stated that we needed a minimum of 40 hours (Mon. - Thu) at $15/hr and that we had a part-time sitter in who could pick up the extra 10 hrs on Friday. We simply don't have the money to pay time and a half for the extra ten hours. We gave the option though for the full-time nanny to pick up those extra 10 hours at an "average" of $15/hr for the week. Every one of the 7 nanny's we interviewed wanted the extra 10 hours even though we weren't technically paying time and a half. When we wrote up the final contract we made it legal - $750 for a maximum of 50hrs per week. "

Entirely appropriate and as you note, PP, apparently a very attractive offer to all your candidates since everyone said they preferred this arrangement to the 40 hr a week one.

[Anonymous]

Give it a rest, 12:04. You're tiresome with your fake outrage.