Got fired from my job today!! VENTING!!

[Anonymous]

Not Being fluent in English is a prerequisite for paying under the table, isn't it? If OP is illegal she is screwed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not Being fluent in English is a prerequisite for paying under the table, isn't it? If OP is illegal she is screwed.

The amount of presumption and prejudice in your post is staggering.

[Anonymous]

I think the PP was pointing out that the OP IS a native english speaker but terribly uneducated. Her writing and grammar isn't indicative of someone who is not fluent in English or even makes mistakes because English is a second language.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the PP was pointing out that the OP IS a native english speaker but terribly uneducated. Her writing and grammar isn't indicative of someone who is not fluent in English or even makes mistakes because English is a second language.

No, PP was implying that because OP's grammar was less than stellar she must speak English as a second language...and therefore must be an illegal immigrant. Ignorant and just plain shameful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the PP was pointing out that the OP IS a native english speaker but terribly uneducated. Her writing and grammar isn't indicative of someone who is not fluent in English or even makes mistakes because English is a second language.

No, PP was implying that because OP's grammar was less than stellar she must speak English as a second language...and therefore must be an illegal immigrant. Ignorant and just plain shameful.

I agree. Besides, the OPs post reads fine English-wise. So she chose not to capitalize the appropriate letters here and there. I mean, who really cares when she's just venting on an anonymous forum? Besides, that's how a number of people text/write on forums. No need to be formal about it. But her grammar is just fine for the context it's in.

Anyway, while I could care less that she referred to her charges as brats (or monsters, monkeys, heathens, etc. ), it is pretty immature to get heated over perks one does not have because one did not negotiate said perks for oneself.

Still, most of you people need to lighten up. It's a VENT for crying out loud. She's supposed to be pissed and perhaps slightly unreasonable. -_-

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree with others that the OP does not sound like a stellar nanny and probably deserved to be fired. However, some of the advice being given is false or at least misleading.

Unemployment eligibility is not dependent on being paid above the table. Most states do not provide unemployment if the individual was fired for cause, this is correct. However, there is no downside to the nanny for applying and seeing if she can get it. If she files for unemployment, her employers will be sent a letter and form. If they respond that she was fired for cause, her request will be denied but she can request an appeal. The employer and the nanny will need to come in and both give their account of the termination reasons. The employer usually prevails in these instances BUT most employers do not want to hassle with taking a day off and pursuing this. The only penalty for the employer is that they would need to pay unemployment insurance if they hadn't and their future unemployment insurance rates increase but this increase is really minimal. Many nannies who actually let go for cause end up getting unemployment because their employers do not want to bother with contesting it.

On taxes, the employer holds the liability for both employer and employee portions of SSN and Med. The nanny bears the liability of her back federal and state income taxes. It makes sense for the nanny to first understand what her tax burden would have been had she paid and what penalties she would incur. This way she knows exactly what her risks would be and whether it is in her financial interest to come forward. If the costs to the nanny are modest and something she can afford, I would recommend doing it because she would also then receive those contributions back into her SSN/Med. This isn't money that goes into your pocket but it can be useful later on. Its also beneficial to have a documented work history including tax returns to establish credit and other grown up things.

It is stupid to just run off seeking revenge and shooting your mouth off. It is smart to understand your situation, act in your best financial interest, and be more professional next time around.

The employer always prevails? NO WAY! I've encountered many, MANY people who have collected unemployment. The employer only prevails if s/he fights it and has proof of the reason (write-ups/written warnings, etc). Many, esp childcare employers, don't do this because it's such a personal setting.

[Anonymous]

Actually the employer doesn't need to meet the burden of having physical proof such as written warnings etc. This is a common misconception. If an employer walks in speaking in a professional manner, listing dates and or specific instances where the nanny did not perform, was insubordinate, late or whatever without being emotional they usually do prevail. Employees who get argumentative in these instances always do themselves a disservice because they end up admitting what they did in the course of arguing they were entitled or making an excuse. While the mediators usually will give less educated employees a break, this break quickly goes away when employees don't understand what cause means.

At the same time, there is nothing lost in trying. Many employers don't bother to list cause and more employers don't bother to show up. This is why nannies fired for cause often do get unemployment. The OP should just be prepared to not go postal if her employer decides to show up and then prevails.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes I agree children should learn about choice and learning. But calling them brats, and the OP making them responsible for her horrible experence is not.

It might not seem like the best thing for the OP to have done, but the children might have been brats and might have been responsible for a bad experience. I know many parents that say the same thing about their own kids, they don't expect people to lie to them about their kids. They know when their kids are being bratty and if a nanny leaves due to the children never being good and not learning manners, being disrespectful and just being uncontrollable, then they don't lie to themselves or anyone else about it. They could be the best MB ever, but if the kids are the problem, then the kids are to blame. If the parents aren't trying to get the kids to change, then they are to blame as well, but if they are, then it's the kids. Of course, generally this is just with older kids and not the younger ones.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the PP was pointing out that the OP IS a native english speaker but terribly uneducated. Her writing and grammar isn't indicative of someone who is not fluent in English or even makes mistakes because English is a second language.

No, PP was implying that because OP's grammar was less than stellar she must speak English as a second language...and therefore must be an illegal immigrant. Ignorant and just plain shameful.

No, this is what was said...

"2.) Her poor grammar and writing is not ESOL, it reflects a complete lack of education."

Notice the "is NOT ESOL".

Unless you were talking about this PP "Not Being fluent in English is a prerequisite for paying under the table, isn't it? If OP is illegal she is screwed." I don't think this was it though, because the other responses where pointing back to the first one I quoted with the 2.