I know it's a law, but why?

[Anonymous]

Why do live-in nannies not get overtime pay for working over 40 hours? I know some states they do, but only after 44hrs. When you are a live-in your pay is usually less any way because they factor room and board into salary. Why does the government penalize live-in's even more?

[Anonymous]

Many of our employers and nanny agencies have professional lobbyists advocating for these loopholes in the law. No one is advocating for nanny rights or protection. No one that I am aware of. Someone please correct me, with all details, if I am wrong.

This is one of the many problems with the ina, International NANNY Association. Their attorneys and lobbyists are advocating for laws that financially benefit nanny agencies and their clients, not for the nannies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Many of our employers and nanny agencies have professional lobbyists advocating for these loopholes in the law. No one is advocating for nanny rights or protection. No one that I am aware of. Someone please correct me, with all details, if I am wrong.

This is one of the many problems with the ina, International NANNY Association. Their attorneys and lobbyists are advocating for laws that financially benefit nanny agencies and their clients, not for the nannies.

+1 this idea wouldn't fly in any other industry. You already pay for your room through a reduced wage, it doesn't make any sense to also decrease your rights to OT. It sounds like a recipe for employers overworking their live-ins.

[Anonymous]

You must still be paid straight time for all hours worked, e.g., bannirs are HOURLY employees, never salaried. Nannies need to learn to be assertive and to stop being doormats to unscrupulous employers.

[Anonymous]

Nannies need to stop throwing membership money at organizations that do not support basic nanny rights, like OT for live-ins.

[Anonymous]

I truly wish there was some nanny organization or union that would be an advocate for nannies. Like a union, that insures fair nanny rights, pay, and treatment away from other domestics. On the flip side, to be part of this org, the nanny has to take a class, pass a test, be certified in CPR & first-aid, pass a federal back ground check , and work on the books.

Even the government likes to use and abuse these precious caretakers of our children.

[Anonymous]

One would hope that the International Nanny Association would step up to the plate.

[Anonymous]

?

[Anonymous]

I never thought about this.

I think ANY nanny, regardless if she was a live~in or live~out should get overtime over 40+Hrs. It should be a law.

If I were employing a nanny, I would want her to be properly compensated for working so many hours.

The LAST thing I would want is a burned out nanny watching my children.

[Anonymous]

What is everyone's problem with INA???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What is everyone's problem with INA???

Several concerns with the ina have been raised on this, and the other thread. We want these issues addressed. There are a number of current and former ina members who prefer not to be blacklisted by the ina agency leadership, by requesting answers to their questions and concerns. These issues have been festering for years and years, and need to finally be addressed. Ignoring the problems will only make them get even bigger.

[Anonymous]

I was curious to see some answers to this since so many moms on this board are lawyers. I think its safe to say that the nanny agencies have zero influence over federal employment legislation. Agencies are not numerous and they are very small businesses. Many are barely sophisticated enough to manage their own financial and legal issues let alone launch a lobby effort at the federal level.

I don't know the rationale beyond the exemption but suspect that it has more to do with the fact that the compensation includes room and board not just straight hourly pay. There are other positions that are exempt from certain requirements such as service workers being exempt from minimum wage. This comes from the business model of gratuities from the customer being tied to performance as part of the compensation.

[Anonymous]

I never thought about this.

I think ANY nanny, regardless if she was a live~in or live~out should get overtime over 40+Hrs. It should be a law.

If I were employing a nanny, I would want her to be properly compensated for working so many hours.

The LAST thing I would want is a burned out nanny watching my children.

This makes no sense. You do not become less burned out just because you are paid more. Someone burns out because they are working long hours regardless of what they are being paid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I never thought about this.

I think ANY nanny, regardless if she was a live~in or live~out should get overtime over 40+Hrs. It should be a law.

If I were employing a nanny, I would want her to be properly compensated for working so many hours.

The LAST thing I would want is a burned out nanny watching my children.

This makes no sense. You do not become less burned out just because you are paid more. Someone burns out because they are working long hours regardless of what they are being paid.

Not entirely true. Being paid more fights burnout in three ways (off the top of my head):
1) A well-paid nanny feels appreciated, and appreciation can make a heavy workload feel more like a labor of love forthe family and less like indentured servitude
2) A nanny who is paid poorly will likely have the stress of a heavy workload exacerbated by the stress of financial concerns. She may be tired AND worried about being able to afford basics like health insurance.
3) A well-paid nanny who has little time off can at least afford to do whatever she likes to recharge in the few off hours she has. If you are barely scraping by on bills, then all your weekends and holidays may be spent at home in your room--not very relaxing, especially for a live in who really needs to get away from the house to feel she is off-duty. With better pay that same nanny can spend the weekend traveling, going to movies or cultural events, dining out with friends, etc. that leaves her much more ready to jump back in on Monday.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I never thought about this.

I think ANY nanny, regardless if she was a live~in or live~out should get overtime over 40+Hrs. It should be a law.

If I were employing a nanny, I would want her to be properly compensated for working so many hours.

The LAST thing I would want is a burned out nanny watching my children.

This makes no sense. You do not become less burned out just because you are paid more. Someone burns out because they are working long hours regardless of what they are being paid.

Not entirely true. Being paid more fights burnout in three ways (off the top of my head):
1) A well-paid nanny feels appreciated, and appreciation can make a heavy workload feel more like a labor of love forthe family and less like indentured servitude
2) A nanny who is paid poorly will likely have the stress of a heavy workload exacerbated by the stress of financial concerns. She may be tired AND worried about being able to afford basics like health insurance.
3) A well-paid nanny who has little time off can at least afford to do whatever she likes to recharge in the few off hours she has. If you are barely scraping by on bills, then all your weekends and holidays may be spent at home in your room--not very relaxing, especially for a live in who really needs to get away from the house to feel she is off-duty. With better pay that same nanny can spend the weekend traveling, going to movies or cultural events, dining out with friends, etc. that leaves her much more ready to jump back in on Monday.

Its also not necessarily that being paid more prevents the burnout, rather if a family knows asking nanny to work an obscene amount of hours will cost them a pretty penny, they will think harder about asking the nanny to do it, and may even choose to hire a relief sitter. I believe this is part of the idea behind OT. It is a deterrent against overworking employees by making it expensive to do so. It's sad that the government has decided tht its perfectly fine to deduct room and board from a live-ins wages, and then also work her as much as you want at the same rate. The whole live-in idea really doesn't sit right with me. It's flirting with the line between employment and indentured servitude.