What to pay a live-in

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i used to sue people like you PP who don't pay minimum wage to live ins and I won a lot of cases....

Aw...you mean you went to law school when it became clear you are no good with the calculator?

And I guess they didn't tell you that room and board is part of the compensation for the live-in nanny? Please send us a link to your won case, I'd love to read that!

You know, there's several of us here who you're arguing with, and who are disgusting with your behavior.

*discusted

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have a live-in nanny who works six days a week, 8 am to 6.30 pm. In practice, her Saturdays are much shorter than this. We started her at $400/week when we had a 1-year old, and raised to $500/week when his sister was born two years later.

It should be illegal to have slave labor and you should be arrested. Where is she from?

[Anonymous]

Thank God for au pairs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i used to sue people like you PP who don't pay minimum wage to live ins and I won a lot of cases....

Aw...you mean you went to law school when it became clear you are no good with the calculator?

And I guess they didn't tell you that room and board is part of the compensation for the live-in nanny? Please send us a link to your won case, I'd love to read that!

You know, there's several of us here who you're arguing with, and who are disgusting with your behavior.

*discusted

The word you're looking for is "disgusted." Letter "G". I see it's not just the calculator that's giving you troubles.

No link then?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i used to sue people like you PP who don't pay minimum wage to live ins and I won a lot of cases....

Aw...you mean you went to law school when it became clear you are no good with the calculator?

And I guess they didn't tell you that room and board is part of the compensation for the live-in nanny? Please send us a link to your won case, I'd love to read that!

You know, there's several of us here who you're arguing with, and who are disgusting with your behavior.

*discusted

The word you're looking for is "disgusted." Letter "G". I see it's not just the calculator that's giving you troubles.

No link then?

Indeed typos are a bitch, but perhaps not the only thing on this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MB here. Our experience in hiring live-ins is that most of the top candidates see living-in during the week as a benefit for us (not them) convenience-wise and require the same compensation as a live-out.

It is a benefit for you. A live in should be paid more, not less, for lack Of privacy and, essentially, on 24/7 call.

To avoid paying rent or mortgage is a very big benefit for the nanny. It's the largest expense item on most people's budget spreadsheet.

I do live-in positions exclusively. I've had several parents who thought that they should charge me upwards of $2k per month for one bedroom and one meal per day, or dock the equivalent amount from my pay. Sorry, but I can find housing cheaper than that, and if I pay for my own food, I know that I want to eat what I have. The two together would not cost me anywhere near $2k. Yes, I agree that not having overhead is a benefit to me, but in return I am extremely flexible with my scheduled hours, on call hours, emergency availability. I am never late, I never am held up in traffic. It doesn't matter to me whether my employer is home or not, because I'm used to having very little privacy. There are pros and cons to both sides of the live-in versus live-out choice, but no, getting rid of overhead isn't the great benefit that most people think it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We have a live-in nanny who works six days a week, 8 am to 6.30 pm. In practice, her Saturdays are much shorter than this. We started her at $400/week when we had a 1-year old, and raised to $500/week when his sister was born two years later.

So in other words, you think your nanny has no other options, so you don't feel it's necessary to pay for her time. Lovely.
I ran the numbers:
5.5 days at 10.5 hours: 57.75 hours
$400/57.75=$6.93/hour
$500/57.75=$8.66/hour

You can't even be bothered to pay minimum wage. Please be aware that your nanny can go back and sue you for the difference between what you paid and minimum wage. I certainly hope you aren't in MD, if you are and she does, you'll owe overtime too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MB here. Our experience in hiring live-ins is that most of the top candidates see living-in during the week as a benefit for us (not them) convenience-wise and require the same compensation as a live-out.

It is a benefit for you. A live in should be paid more, not less, for lack Of privacy and, essentially, on 24/7 call.

To avoid paying rent or mortgage is a very big benefit for the nanny. It's the largest expense item on most people's budget spreadsheet.

I do live-in positions exclusively. I've had several parents who thought that they should charge me upwards of $2k per month for one bedroom and one meal per day, or dock the equivalent amount from my pay. Sorry, but I can find housing cheaper than that, and if I pay for my own food, I know that I want to eat what I have. The two together would not cost me anywhere near $2k. Yes, I agree that not having overhead is a benefit to me, but in return I am extremely flexible with my scheduled hours, on call hours, emergency availability. I am never late, I never am held up in traffic. It doesn't matter to me whether my employer is home or not, because I'm used to having very little privacy. There are pros and cons to both sides of the live-in versus live-out choice, but no, getting rid of overhead isn't the great benefit that most people think it is.

I agree that charging $2K is excessive, and you clearly decided that your own housing and food can cost less than that. That's your own risk/reward calculus. Other nannies will run their own, with their own numbers, and will decide whether it's worth it or not, and accept or decline positions accordingly. The families will also run their own risk/reward calculus, and just like some nannies don't think room and board are a great benefit to them, some families also won't need extreme flexibility or 24/7 on-call availability, and so will not place a great premium on these. No one is forcing anyone to accept positions they feel aren't in their best interest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have a live-in nanny who works six days a week, 8 am to 6.30 pm. In practice, her Saturdays are much shorter than this. We started her at $400/week when we had a 1-year old, and raised to $500/week when his sister was born two years later.

So in other words, you think your nanny has no other options, so you don't feel it's necessary to pay for her time. Lovely.
I ran the numbers:
5.5 days at 10.5 hours: 57.75 hours
$400/57.75=$6.93/hour
$500/57.75=$8.66/hour

You can't even be bothered to pay minimum wage. Please be aware that your nanny can go back and sue you for the difference between what you paid and minimum wage. I certainly hope you aren't in MD, if you are and she does, you'll owe overtime too.

If my nanny has better options, she's welcome to exercise them. She was hired at the open market so I am assuming she accepted the position she liked best. Seeing as she's been with us for 4+ years, the arrangement must work for her. I promise you no one held a gun to her head.

Please be aware - before you start handing out unqualified legal advice - that room and board is part of live-in compensation, so your little exercise with the calculator was all for nothing. But at least you didn't come up with the $5.70/hr, like an innumerate poster before you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i used to sue people like you PP who don't pay minimum wage to live ins and I won a lot of cases....

Aw...you mean you went to law school when it became clear you are no good with the calculator?

And I guess they didn't tell you that room and board is part of the compensation for the live-in nanny? Please send us a link to your won case, I'd love to read that!

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/nanny-forum/posts/list/15/310454.page#3137493

Page 2, 21.11. The wording for the law is clear. Nannies must be paid minimum wage. Nannies may only have room and board deducted if it is to the nanny's benefit to live-in (ie. the nanny asked or the employer offered but did not require). If the employer's work involves travel, on call or other reasons to need a live-in nanny, room and board may NOT be deducted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i used to sue people like you PP who don't pay minimum wage to live ins and I won a lot of cases....

Aw...you mean you went to law school when it became clear you are no good with the calculator?

And I guess they didn't tell you that room and board is part of the compensation for the live-in nanny? Please send us a link to your won case, I'd love to read that!

You know, there's several of us here who you're arguing with, and who are disgusting with your behavior.

*discusted

The word you're looking for is "disgusted." Letter "G". I see it's not just the calculator that's giving you troubles.

No link then?

There are several of us, and I posted the law.

[Anonymous]

Not PP but if the live-in nanny making 500 a week (working 6 days a week) is an immigrant, I am sure this is good money considering room and board is included.

I came to this country as a student, during the summer I did full-time nanny job. I was paid $350 per week. I really needed that $1400 per month to pay tuition and save up. Since it was my first job in the US, I obviously didn't have much experience with childcare the "US way," I only had personal verifiable references so basically it was a good start.

The second job I was paid $ 620 a week + transportation for a 55 + hours. The job was very difficult but I needed the money to pay medical bills for my late sister, my rent etc.

My point is we do not know the whole story about the live-in nanny and her NF so let us not be quick to call people slaves etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not PP but if the live-in nanny making 500 a week (working 6 days a week) is an immigrant, I am sure this is good money considering room and board is included.

I came to this country as a student, during the summer I did full-time nanny job. I was paid $350 per week. I really needed that $1400 per month to pay tuition and save up. Since it was my first job in the US, I obviously didn't have much experience with childcare the "US way," I only had personal verifiable references so basically it was a good start.

The second job I was paid $ 620 a week + transportation for a 55 + hours. The job was very difficult but I needed the money to pay medical bills for my late sister, my rent etc.

My point is we do not know the whole story about the live-in nanny and her NF so let us not be quick to call people slaves etc.

I'm not judging the nanny for taking the position. My point is that an employer who pays less than minimum wage may be sued later for all wages owed. And that it includes employers who mistaken believe that room and board can be deducted for all live-in nannies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i used to sue people like you PP who don't pay minimum wage to live ins and I won a lot of cases....

Aw...you mean you went to law school when it became clear you are no good with the calculator?

And I guess they didn't tell you that room and board is part of the compensation for the live-in nanny? Please send us a link to your won case, I'd love to read that!

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/nanny-forum/posts/list/15/310454.page#3137493

Page 2, 21.11. The wording for the law is clear. Nannies must be paid minimum wage. Nannies may only have room and board deducted if it is to the nanny's benefit to live-in (ie. the nanny asked or the employer offered but did not require). If the employer's work involves travel, on call or other reasons to need a live-in nanny, room and board may NOT be deducted.

That thing in parenthesis - you made that up. That's not actually FROM the language of the law. Not having a housing or grocery bill is a benefit to the nanny - how could it be otherwise?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not PP but if the live-in nanny making 500 a week (working 6 days a week) is an immigrant, I am sure this is good money considering room and board is included.

I came to this country as a student, during the summer I did full-time nanny job. I was paid $350 per week. I really needed that $1400 per month to pay tuition and save up. Since it was my first job in the US, I obviously didn't have much experience with childcare the "US way," I only had personal verifiable references so basically it was a good start.

The second job I was paid $ 620 a week + transportation for a 55 + hours. The job was very difficult but I needed the money to pay medical bills for my late sister, my rent etc.

My point is we do not know the whole story about the live-in nanny and her NF so let us not be quick to call people slaves etc.

I'm not judging the nanny for taking the position. My point is that an employer who pays less than minimum wage may be sued later for all wages owed. And that it includes employers who mistaken believe that room and board can be deducted for all live-in nannies.

Exactly. She likely doesn't care about the law.