seeking advice - we've been employing someone who is not legal RSS feed

Anonymous
I see that you are caught between a rock and a hard stone here.

What this really boils down to is one word: Trust.

If she can trust you with not telling anyone, then you must be able to trust her in the same way.

Let her know that you will keep her on, pay her under the table, but she must promise you she will not file for any government unemployment, etc. in the future.

If you keep things on the DL, then both sides should be fine.

I think all of this is in the best interest of her child, because if you fire her tomorrow, the child will suffer the most.

That is who I am thinking of now, her young innocent child.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:I see that you are caught between a rock and a hard stone here.

What this really boils down to is one word: Trust.

If she can trust you with not telling anyone, then you must be able to trust her in the same way.

Let her know that you will keep her on, pay her under the table, but she must promise you she will not file for any government unemployment, etc. in the future.

If you keep things on the DL, then both sides should be fine.

I think all of this is in the best interest of her child, because if you fire her tomorrow, the child will suffer the most.

That is who I am thinking of now, her young innocent child.


The illegal nanny has only been with the child for three months so I doubt it will hurt the child especially since the nanny can visit the child since there are no hard feelings involved and/or occasionally babysit (where it is not the employers responsibility to declare up to 1500 a year).

What you are doing is highly illegal, OP, and you know it.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:I see that you are caught between a rock and a hard stone here.

What this really boils down to is one word: Trust.

If she can trust you with not telling anyone, then you must be able to trust her in the same way.

Let her know that you will keep her on, pay her under the table, but she must promise you she will not file for any government unemployment, etc. in the future.

If you keep things on the DL, then both sides should be fine.

I think all of this is in the best interest of her child, because if you fire her tomorrow, the child will suffer the most.

That is who I am thinking of now, her young innocent child.

That's dumb. No nanny is worth a screwed-up career when your background check turns up an illegal domestic. Go ahead, tell the clearance agency "but i trusted her so much!"

No child will suffer anything after a 3-month nanny goes. Five years from now he or she won't even remember her name.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I see that you are caught between a rock and a hard stone here.

What this really boils down to is one word: Trust.

If she can trust you with not telling anyone, then you must be able to trust her in the same way.

Let her know that you will keep her on, pay her under the table, but she must promise you she will not file for any government unemployment, etc. in the future.

If you keep things on the DL, then both sides should be fine.

I think all of this is in the best interest of her child, because if you fire her tomorrow, the child will suffer the most.

That is who I am thinking of now, her young innocent child.

That's dumb. No nanny is worth a screwed-up career when your background check turns up an illegal domestic. Go ahead, tell the clearance agency "but i trusted her so much!"

No child will suffer anything after a 3-month nanny goes. Five years from now he or she won't even remember her name.


I think this poster meant the nanny's child, not the charge.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I see that you are caught between a rock and a hard stone here.

What this really boils down to is one word: Trust.

If she can trust you with not telling anyone, then you must be able to trust her in the same way.

Let her know that you will keep her on, pay her under the table, but she must promise you she will not file for any government unemployment, etc. in the future.

If you keep things on the DL, then both sides should be fine.

I think all of this is in the best interest of her child, because if you fire her tomorrow, the child will suffer the most.

That is who I am thinking of now, her young innocent child.

That's dumb. No nanny is worth a screwed-up career when your background check turns up an illegal domestic. Go ahead, tell the clearance agency "but i trusted her so much!"

No child will suffer anything after a 3-month nanny goes. Five years from now he or she won't even remember her name.


I think this poster meant the nanny's child, not the charge.


I agree...Not that this makes it right, because I am all for paying on-the-books, etc.

Yet if firing her will negatively impact a young child, I cannot find it in my heart to advise you to fire her on the spot. I just cannot do that in good faith.
Anonymous
Hah. I can. She has no right to be here. It's not something you should be in the middle of.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:I see that you are caught between a rock and a hard stone here.

What this really boils down to is one word: Trust.

If she can trust you with not telling anyone, then you must be able to trust her in the same way.

Let her know that you will keep her on, pay her under the table, but she must promise you she will not file for any government unemployment, etc. in the future.

If you keep things on the DL, then both sides should be fine.

I think all of this is in the best interest of her child, because if you fire her tomorrow, the child will suffer the most.

That is who I am thinking of now, her young innocent child.


This is terrible advice. Considering they are both willing to lie, the idea of trusting either of them is ridiculous.
Anonymous
The situation clearly makes you nervous. Find a legal replacement, give her a week or two of severance since you feel compassion for her and her child, get your keys back and let her go. There's no point in prolonging this situation.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I see that you are caught between a rock and a hard stone here.

What this really boils down to is one word: Trust.

If she can trust you with not telling anyone, then you must be able to trust her in the same way.

Let her know that you will keep her on, pay her under the table, but she must promise you she will not file for any government unemployment, etc. in the future.

If you keep things on the DL, then both sides should be fine.

I think all of this is in the best interest of her child, because if you fire her tomorrow, the child will suffer the most.

That is who I am thinking of now, her young innocent child.

That's dumb. No nanny is worth a screwed-up career when your background check turns up an illegal domestic. Go ahead, tell the clearance agency "but i trusted her so much!"

No child will suffer anything after a 3-month nanny goes. Five years from now he or she won't even remember her name.


Curious how a background check would pull up the fact that he nanny was illegal? Also I lived in Manhattan for years and most nannies there insist on being paid in cash. Many do not have work authorization either. I have never hear did anyone running into trouble over this unless they were running for office or a high level political appointee.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I see that you are caught between a rock and a hard stone here.

What this really boils down to is one word: Trust.

If she can trust you with not telling anyone, then you must be able to trust her in the same way.

Let her know that you will keep her on, pay her under the table, but she must promise you she will not file for any government unemployment, etc. in the future.

If you keep things on the DL, then both sides should be fine.

I think all of this is in the best interest of her child, because if you fire her tomorrow, the child will suffer the most.

That is who I am thinking of now, her young innocent child.

That's dumb. No nanny is worth a screwed-up career when your background check turns up an illegal domestic. Go ahead, tell the clearance agency "but i trusted her so much!"

No child will suffer anything after a 3-month nanny goes. Five years from now he or she won't even remember her name.


Curious how a background check would pull up the fact that he nanny was illegal? Also I lived in Manhattan for years and most nannies there insist on being paid in cash. Many do not have work authorization either. I have never hear did anyone running into trouble over this unless they were running for office or a high level political appointee.


A lot of families in DC pay on the books to someone that can prove they are legal for this exact situation. They know they might need clearance at some point, even if they don't when they hire the nanny, and they are thinking about their future.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I see that you are caught between a rock and a hard stone here.

What this really boils down to is one word: Trust.

If she can trust you with not telling anyone, then you must be able to trust her in the same way.

Let her know that you will keep her on, pay her under the table, but she must promise you she will not file for any government unemployment, etc. in the future.

If you keep things on the DL, then both sides should be fine.

I think all of this is in the best interest of her child, because if you fire her tomorrow, the child will suffer the most.

That is who I am thinking of now, her young innocent child.

That's dumb. No nanny is worth a screwed-up career when your background check turns up an illegal domestic. Go ahead, tell the clearance agency "but i trusted her so much!"

No child will suffer anything after a 3-month nanny goes. Five years from now he or she won't even remember her name.


Curious how a background check would pull up the fact that he nanny was illegal? Also I lived in Manhattan for years and most nannies there insist on being paid in cash. Many do not have work authorization either. I have never hear did anyone running into trouble over this unless they were running for office or a high level political appointee.


A lot of families in DC pay on the books to someone that can prove they are legal for this exact situation. They know they might need clearance at some point, even if they don't when they hire the nanny, and they are thinking about their future.


Ok but how does the illegal hire even show up on a background check? I mean if you are nominated to be the next Deputy Secretary of Blah Blah I get it but the run of the mill bureaucrat who needs a security clearance to do their job probably doesn't need to be that worried. A risk? Sure but probably not that great.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I see that you are caught between a rock and a hard stone here.

What this really boils down to is one word: Trust.

If she can trust you with not telling anyone, then you must be able to trust her in the same way.

Let her know that you will keep her on, pay her under the table, but she must promise you she will not file for any government unemployment, etc. in the future.

If you keep things on the DL, then both sides should be fine.

I think all of this is in the best interest of her child, because if you fire her tomorrow, the child will suffer the most.

That is who I am thinking of now, her young innocent child.

That's dumb. No nanny is worth a screwed-up career when your background check turns up an illegal domestic. Go ahead, tell the clearance agency "but i trusted her so much!"

No child will suffer anything after a 3-month nanny goes. Five years from now he or she won't even remember her name.


Curious how a background check would pull up the fact that he nanny was illegal? Also I lived in Manhattan for years and most nannies there insist on being paid in cash. Many do not have work authorization either. I have never hear did anyone running into trouble over this unless they were running for office or a high level political appointee.


A lot of families in DC pay on the books to someone that can prove they are legal for this exact situation. They know they might need clearance at some point, even if they don't when they hire the nanny, and they are thinking about their future.


Ok but how does the illegal hire even show up on a background check? I mean if you are nominated to be the next Deputy Secretary of Blah Blah I get it but the run of the mill bureaucrat who needs a security clearance to do their job probably doesn't need to be that worried. A risk? Sure but probably not that great.


It should show up when you look at their social security card, which will say they are not legal to work.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I see that you are caught between a rock and a hard stone here.

What this really boils down to is one word: Trust.

If she can trust you with not telling anyone, then you must be able to trust her in the same way.

Let her know that you will keep her on, pay her under the table, but she must promise you she will not file for any government unemployment, etc. in the future.

If you keep things on the DL, then both sides should be fine.

I think all of this is in the best interest of her child, because if you fire her tomorrow, the child will suffer the most.

That is who I am thinking of now, her young innocent child.

That's dumb. No nanny is worth a screwed-up career when your background check turns up an illegal domestic. Go ahead, tell the clearance agency "but i trusted her so much!"

No child will suffer anything after a 3-month nanny goes. Five years from now he or she won't even remember her name.


Curious how a background check would pull up the fact that he nanny was illegal? Also I lived in Manhattan for years and most nannies there insist on being paid in cash. Many do not have work authorization either. I have never hear did anyone running into trouble over this unless they were running for office or a high level political appointee.


A lot of families in DC pay on the books to someone that can prove they are legal for this exact situation. They know they might need clearance at some point, even if they don't when they hire the nanny, and they are thinking about their future.


Ok but how does the illegal hire even show up on a background check? I mean if you are nominated to be the next Deputy Secretary of Blah Blah I get it but the run of the mill bureaucrat who needs a security clearance to do their job probably doesn't need to be that worried. A risk? Sure but probably not that great.

With a ton of legal nannies around, why even bother taking that risk? The concentration of clearance-dependent jobs in DC is a lot higher than Manhattan.
post reply Forum Index » Employer Issues
Message Quick Reply
Go to: