Concern about World Bank/IMF employees under-compensating their nannies

[Anonymous]

Have you seen the records to support the claims of someone who heard something somewhere? Well, I heard that you're underpaying your taxes. Lemme go poke around the neigborhood asking who knows what about your money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here. I respect all of the opinions submitted in response to my original comment. I acknowledge that this is none of my business, and I won't comment again on this topic.

Having said that, I stand by my original comment, which was directed at what I've observed to be wages paid to nannies that are NOT live-ins. (I completely understand that live-ins are in a different category because room and board is paid.)

I looked at the web site posted above that sets forth the rules for these nannies. According to those rules, the employers must pay AT LEAST the applicable minimum wage (which I understand to be approximately $7.25 per hour.) It does NOT prohibit the employer from paying more than that.

The WB/IMF is paying its employees a wage that allows them to live decently in this high-cost-of-living area. If the nanny is not living with the employer (as is often the case in my neighborhood), then the nanny must somehow pay rent and food etc, in this high-cost-of-living area. I would figure that someone who is dedicated to the mission of the WB/IMF would want to pay their nanny a living wage so that she can get by in this high-cost-of-living area.

I saw a PP mention that the low pay for these nannies reflects their type of visa, which limits their options to working for foreign families. To me, that seems like all the more reason to pay the non-live-in nanny a living wage. After all, their only option is to work for one of these foreign families. The nannies still need to pay expenses in the DC area, which is hard to do when paid $7.25 per hour ($300/week for 40 hours).

Thank you for your time.

OP, the rate is based on the expectation that the host family provides room and board for the G-5. The G-5 is considered the WB/IMF's employee's dependant and most usually reside with their employers. I have a live in G-5 nanny and we pay her for every hour she works as well as when we are on holiday and when she is on holiday and 150% of her rate in overtime (above 40 hours a week). She has 10 days paid sick leave and 10 days paid annual leave. We pay her taxes, medical insurance, all her food. She does not need to spend money on any essentials which means she banks approximately $6-700 a week with overtime. Remember this is net of taxes. G-5 nannies operate in an entirely different market than all other nannies and, as such, cannot be compared to them.

[Anonymous]

OP, you got excellent, informed, accurate information here.

You seem bent on feeling that your neighbors are taking advantage of their nannies, but you are clearly uninformed.

And, of course, it's none of your business.

Let it go.

[Anonymous]

OP, majority or all of them if they live out share a room or apartment with their friends or family. This is the norm for foreign domestics. Additionally, they mostly have a month of vacation paid plus airplane ticket, and health insurance. Your nanny cannot compare her pay with them.

[Anonymous]

OP: You are just mad because the WB?IMF families have a sweet deal. MYOB.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here. I respect all of the opinions submitted in response to my original comment. I acknowledge that this is none of my business, and I won't comment again on this topic.

Having said that, I stand by my original comment, which was directed at what I've observed to be wages paid to nannies that are NOT live-ins. (I completely understand that live-ins are in a different category because room and board is paid.)

I looked at the web site posted above that sets forth the rules for these nannies. According to those rules, the employers must pay AT LEAST the applicable minimum wage (which I understand to be approximately $7.25 per hour.) It does NOT prohibit the employer from paying more than that.

The WB/IMF is paying its employees a wage that allows them to live decently in this high-cost-of-living area. If the nanny is not living with the employer (as is often the case in my neighborhood), then the nanny must somehow pay rent and food etc, in this high-cost-of-living area. I would figure that someone who is dedicated to the mission of the WB/IMF would want to pay their nanny a living wage so that she can get by in this high-cost-of-living area.

I saw a PP mention that the low pay for these nannies reflects their type of visa, which limits their options to working for foreign families. To me, that seems like all the more reason to pay the non-live-in nanny a living wage. After all, their only option is to work for one of these foreign families. The nannies still need to pay expenses in the DC area, which is hard to do when paid $7.25 per hour ($300/week for 40 hours).

Thank you for your time.

Well maybe the nanny should move to the LOW cost living area if she can't afford living in the HIGH cost living area. I'm sure many people would love to live in a nice neighborhood in a nice house, driving nice cars but life isn't fair. Maybe they should go to college to further their education so they can enter a field that will pay them enough to live in a HIGH cost living area.