Is It Legal to Pay 1/2 Rate Overnight Instead of OT?

[Anonymous]

If a fireman is at the firehouse, sleeping. And he does not get woken up for a fire, he shouldn't get paid????

[Anonymous]

Are they hourly or salaried workers? That would make a difference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What are you and your husband doing for five months that you'll be gone all night? When do you expect the nanny to sleep if you expect her to work day and night?

At night, when the kids do.

That's not what OP said

[nannydebsays]

Anonymous wrote:Trying to use these discussion boards to figure the most fair and LEGAL way to pay nanny. Hiring a 24hr nanny 5 days a week for the next 2 months. I have a 2 & 5 year old. I understand because she is NOT a live-in (she is technically working 24hrs a day/ goes home on her days off) I have to pay her for every hour worked. What I'm confused about is that some on this board say they pay 1/2 the nannies hourly rate or a straight night wage ($50-100). Is reducing the rate technically legal? If she is working 120hrs a week, shouldn't I pay her regular rate for 40hrs, then OT rate for 80hrs? My children sleep well during the night, and nanny probably will have time to sleep- but at the same she will be on duty and working. My husband and I will be out of the house. And children may wake up for many reasons.

I am trying to understand the conflicting information I'm reading on these boards. I know nannies are exempt employees and have to paid hourly for all hours worked. And they get time and a half for hours over 40. But I have also read that legally you don't have to pay 8hrs of sleeping hours in a 24hr period.

Then why would a nanny agree to do a job and work tons of extra overtime hours and either not get OT, but actually get half rate or nothing at all for that time worked?

Again my question is, what is the legal way to pay a 24hr nanny?
Of course I would like the least costliest way, but I also want to be fair. I need the services of a nanny 24hrs a day. And I intend to pay for all services rendered.

Option A: 40 Regular Rate, 80 OT Rate
Or
Option B: 40 Regular Rate, 40 OT Rate (if I legally don't have to pay for 8hrs in a 24hr period).

I guess I could also "legally" make the regular rate very low, so I can pay the 80hrs OT rate. This is instead of cutting the overnight hours rate in half.

But another question would be why a nanny would except these positions in the first place??? Work double the hours, and get half the pay. Why is widely accepted that you can buy a nannies time in bulk and save big? It would be odd in any other position to pay different rates at different times of day. An hour worked, is an hour worked.

If a nanny is working an occasional overnight or long weekend, she is more likely to cut her rate in half or offer the parents an "overnight" rate of 50% of her normal rate. You are looking for someone to work steady hours for a long period of time, so I would definitely follow the laws and pay according to the guidelines a PP linked to.

That said, the bolded statement above makes me think you need to figure out a fair payment to cover nights when nanny does not have

time to sleep

. If I were a candidate for your job and you said I might not have time to sleep some nights, I would be likely to question you in depth about why you said that, and what sort of night time issues you deal with regularly.

And as far as pay for nights when nanny doesn't get those uninterrupted 8 hours, IMO you should say something like, "If you are woken by our kid(s) in the night, you need to send us a text saying "Awake" once they are settled down, and we will then know that you are owed pay for the full 24 hours for that day." That gives you a record, makes nanny responsible for letting you know what has happened at the time it happens, and keeps everyone on the same page.

So if nanny works a 24 hour day with no interruptions between 10 pm and 6 am, she will be paid for 8 hours straight time and 8 hours OT. If she is woken by the kids between 10pm and 6 am, she gets 8 hours straight time, and 16 hours OT, as long as she texts you when she has been woken up unexpectedly.

As far as pay goes, you'll need to determine what you think is fair, and then see if the candidates you get are who you want to hire. If they aren't up to your standards, you'll need to raise the hourly rate. I am sure you have done some math to see how much this is going to cost, and I would avoid offering minimum wage - it sends a bad signal to terrific nannies, IMO.

Good luck!

[Anonymous]

If you think your nanny isn't on duty and working while she and your children are asleep. And you don't intend to pay her for those hours. She should get to go home for those 8hrs, and leave your young children all alone in the house during the night.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you think your nanny isn't on duty and working while she and your children are asleep. And you don't intend to pay her for those hours. She should get to go home for those 8hrs, and leave your young children all alone in the house during the night.

This. It may be "legal", for what reasons, idk, but if your nanny is stupid enough to agree to not being paid while expected to be at work (ie. notin her own bed, not able to do as she please, and still responsible for your kid) then she is an idiot and I'd wonder why you would hire an idiot to care for your child.

[Anonymous]

LOVE what PP said! Why would you hire an idiot?

[Anonymous]

+2 The same could be said for most MB questions about what they can get away with. Sure you can. It might even be legal. But why oh why would you trust the care of your baby to someone stupid enough to fall for it?

[Anonymous]

Maybe just hire 3 Nannies to work 3 shifts to ovoid OT.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you think your nanny isn't on duty and working while she and your children are asleep. And you don't intend to pay her for those hours. She should get to go home for those 8hrs, and leave your young children all alone in the house during the night.

This. It may be "legal", for what reasons, idk, but if your nanny is stupid enough to agree to not being paid while expected to be at work (ie. notin her own bed, not able to do as she please, and still responsible for your kid) then she is an idiot and I'd wonder why you would hire an idiot to care for your child.

I don't think most employers or nannies really would look at it as "I am not being paid for the sleeping hours." Both sides look at the entire amount being paid for the week and decide whether it's worth it to them (in the employer's case - can I pay this and is it worth not keeping my child with me for that week?; in the nanny's case - is this amount worth giving up a week straight of my time?).

As an example, if a nanny's rate was $15/hour - the parents could offer a minimum of $2,220 for a 7-day week of full-time childcare. That's because each "day" counts as 16 hours, so 112 hours of work for the week, with 72 hours of that being overtime. Obviously, assuming the kids are actually sleeping for at least 8 hours a night.

If parents weren't able to deduct sleeping hours, then the minimum legally allowed for a rate of $15/hour would be $3,480 for the week.

I imagine most nanny's wouldn't turn down an occasional offer of over $2,000 for a week of care even if they technically aren't being paid for the nights.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you think your nanny isn't on duty and working while she and your children are asleep. And you don't intend to pay her for those hours. She should get to go home for those 8hrs, and leave your young children all alone in the house during the night.

This. It may be "legal", for what reasons, idk, but if your nanny is stupid enough to agree to not being paid while expected to be at work (ie. notin her own bed, not able to do as she please, and still responsible for your kid) then she is an idiot and I'd wonder why you would hire an idiot to care for your child.

I don't think most employers or nannies really would look at it as "I am not being paid for the sleeping hours." Both sides look at the entire amount being paid for the week and decide whether it's worth it to them (in the employer's case - can I pay this and is it worth not keeping my child with me for that week?; in the nanny's case - is this amount worth giving up a week straight of my time?).

As an example, if a nanny's rate was $15/hour - the parents could offer a minimum of $2,220 for a 7-day week of full-time childcare. That's because each "day" counts as 16 hours, so 112 hours of work for the week, with 72 hours of that being overtime. Obviously, assuming the kids are actually sleeping for at least 8 hours a night.

If parents weren't able to deduct sleeping hours, then the minimum legally allowed for a rate of $15/hour would be $3,480 for the week.

I imagine most nanny's wouldn't turn down an occasional offer of over $2,000 for a week of care even if they technically aren't being paid for the nights.

If nanny normally works 50-60 hours per week, throwing a couple of hours of overtime at her for giving up her life for a week (boyfriend, husband, kids, friends, social activities, sleep in her own freaking bed, real food besides whatever nonsense kids eat and frozen pizzas you left, etc) is NOT attractive. I know it seems like a lot when you're paying it out of pocket, but its not when you're the one sacrificing your time. Even salaried workers get OT when traveling for work. (At least my engineer husband does, for every hour he is away and on the clock). If its not worth it to you, then you should probably just bring your snowflake with you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you think your nanny isn't on duty and working while she and your children are asleep. And you don't intend to pay her for those hours. She should get to go home for those 8hrs, and leave your young children all alone in the house during the night.

This. It may be "legal", for what reasons, idk, but if your nanny is stupid enough to agree to not being paid while expected to be at work (ie. notin her own bed, not able to do as she please, and still responsible for your kid) then she is an idiot and I'd wonder why you would hire an idiot to care for your child.

I don't think most employers or nannies really would look at it as "I am not being paid for the sleeping hours." Both sides look at the entire amount being paid for the week and decide whether it's worth it to them (in the employer's case - can I pay this and is it worth not keeping my child with me for that week?; in the nanny's case - is this amount worth giving up a week straight of my time?).

As an example, if a nanny's rate was $15/hour - the parents could offer a minimum of $2,220 for a 7-day week of full-time childcare. That's because each "day" counts as 16 hours, so 112 hours of work for the week, with 72 hours of that being overtime. Obviously, assuming the kids are actually sleeping for at least 8 hours a night.

If parents weren't able to deduct sleeping hours, then the minimum legally allowed for a rate of $15/hour would be $3,480 for the week.

I imagine most nanny's wouldn't turn down an occasional offer of over $2,000 for a week of care even if they technically aren't being paid for the nights.

If nanny normally works 50-60 hours per week, throwing a couple of hours of overtime at her for giving up her life for a week (boyfriend, husband, kids, friends, social activities, sleep in her own freaking bed, real food besides whatever nonsense kids eat and frozen pizzas you left, etc) is NOT attractive. I know it seems like a lot when you're paying it out of pocket, but its not when you're the one sacrificing your time. Even salaried workers get OT when traveling for work. (At least my engineer husband does, for every hour he is away and on the clock). If its not worth it to you, then you should probably just bring your snowflake with you.

Why the nastiness? Listen, didn't I just say "Both sides look at the entire amount being paid for the week and decide whether it's worth it to them."? So we're both saying the same thing. If you normally work 50 hours in a week at $15/hour, then you make $825 a week. So you decide - is an extra $1,395 for the week worth giving up your week? If it's not, then you say no. To me, I would be thrilled for that. Even if it mean sleeping in someone else's bed and eating pizza every night.

I don't understand what you're husband getting OT when traveling for work has to do with anything. That's not true of all salaried jobs, by the way. But it's not like I was saying the nanny should do the job for exactly what she gets paid for her normal hours...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you think your nanny isn't on duty and working while she and your children are asleep. And you don't intend to pay her for those hours. She should get to go home for those 8hrs, and leave your young children all alone in the house during the night.

This. It may be "legal", for what reasons, idk, but if your nanny is stupid enough to agree to not being paid while expected to be at work (ie. notin her own bed, not able to do as she please, and still responsible for your kid) then she is an idiot and I'd wonder why you would hire an idiot to care for your child.

I don't think most employers or nannies really would look at it as "I am not being paid for the sleeping hours." Both sides look at the entire amount being paid for the week and decide whether it's worth it to them (in the employer's case - can I pay this and is it worth not keeping my child with me for that week?; in the nanny's case - is this amount worth giving up a week straight of my time?).

As an example, if a nanny's rate was $15/hour - the parents could offer a minimum of $2,220 for a 7-day week of full-time childcare. That's because each "day" counts as 16 hours, so 112 hours of work for the week, with 72 hours of that being overtime. Obviously, assuming the kids are actually sleeping for at least 8 hours a night.

If parents weren't able to deduct sleeping hours, then the minimum legally allowed for a rate of $15/hour would be $3,480 for the week.

I imagine most nanny's wouldn't turn down an occasional offer of over $2,000 for a week of care even if they technically aren't being paid for the nights.

I imagine you could find someone out there to do it for $200. Why pay $2000 when you can pay $200? What a bargain. Lol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you think your nanny isn't on duty and working while she and your children are asleep. And you don't intend to pay her for those hours. She should get to go home for those 8hrs, and leave your young children all alone in the house during the night.

This. It may be "legal", for what reasons, idk, but if your nanny is stupid enough to agree to not being paid while expected to be at work (ie. notin her own bed, not able to do as she please, and still responsible for your kid) then she is an idiot and I'd wonder why you would hire an idiot to care for your child.

I don't think most employers or nannies really would look at it as "I am not being paid for the sleeping hours." Both sides look at the entire amount being paid for the week and decide whether it's worth it to them (in the employer's case - can I pay this and is it worth not keeping my child with me for that week?; in the nanny's case - is this amount worth giving up a week straight of my time?).

As an example, if a nanny's rate was $15/hour - the parents could offer a minimum of $2,220 for a 7-day week of full-time childcare. That's because each "day" counts as 16 hours, so 112 hours of work for the week, with 72 hours of that being overtime. Obviously, assuming the kids are actually sleeping for at least 8 hours a night.

If parents weren't able to deduct sleeping hours, then the minimum legally allowed for a rate of $15/hour would be $3,480 for the week.

I imagine most nanny's wouldn't turn down an occasional offer of over $2,000 for a week of care even if they technically aren't being paid for the nights.

I imagine you could find someone out there to do it for $200. Why pay $2000 when you can pay $200? What a bargain. Lol.

What a bizarre statement. As if $2,220 is anywhere close to $200. Seriously you think an employer would have a ton of trouble finding a competent nanny to watch their kid for a week for $2,220? You think that's a paltry amount? Anyway, we're talking about very few people who could actually afford that sum in addition to whatever they were actually doing that week and who would even want to leave their child for a full week. So I really don't understand the outrage on this - there is very little demand for this kind of service.

[Anonymous]

Excuse PP's, there is a big difference in doing it for just a week to get extra $$$, and perhaps it wouldn't be too hard to attract someone to do it....just for a week.

But...Most 24hr Nannies, don't do it just for a week. They do it EVERY week, sometimes for years. So that is most definitely giving up any sort of normal life. OP only needs someone for 2 months. But being a 24hr is a huge sacrifice for the job, and it should be VERY WELL compensated. It's a rare need/want, so the pool of candidates is very small. Offering to discount hours, or not pay for 8 hrs would not be a draw at all.