"Domestic Workers Rights in the United States"

[Anonymous]

Lunch and break time is provided so that employees (domestic or non-domestic) can eat its not a requirement that they be able to go out and buy something. In many blue collar jobs, employees are not allowed to eat or snack while working. There is no requirement that the employer provide the meals for them.

There honestly isn't any reason why a nanny can't bring her lunch. No one has put forward any reason why nannies are somehow unique and cannot make themselves a lunch and put it in a bag.

This. +1000.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Domestic worker employers either provide access to meals OR provide a break time to go out and buy food, just like every job in America.

What job in America doesn't have the same option for employers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Every human being has every right to be offended by anything they want. At the same time however, no employer of domestic workers has a right to deny confined domestic workers the ability to eat food if the worker has failed to bring into her workplace (your house), her own food.

No one can dispute that fact.

Question for the MBs - your nanny arrives in the morning and says "oh shoot - I forgot to bring my lunch today!" How many of you would say "stinks for you - remember not to touch our food and no leaving the house even if you're starving." Anyone? Anyone?

[Anonymous]

Forcing a confined domestic worker in your house to go without food for 10 or 12 hours a day is WRONG and illegal. If she has the opportunity to bring in her own sufficient food, terrific. The nanny employer can save a couple of dollars a day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Forcing a confined domestic worker in your house to go without food for 10 or 12 hours a day is WRONG and illegal. If she has the opportunity to bring in her own sufficient food, terrific. The nanny employer can save a couple of dollars a day.

I'm pretty sure it's been agreed upon that this is wrong, and NOT AT ALL the case in any of the situations posters are mentioning. Why do you feel the need to keep beating a dead horse...I can't honestly believe this has ever happened (let alone to a nanny informed enough to be trolling...I mean posting...here).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Forcing a confined domestic worker in your house to go without food for 10 or 12 hours a day is WRONG and illegal. If she has the opportunity to bring in her own sufficient food, terrific. The nanny employer can save a couple of dollars a day.

I'm pretty sure it's been agreed upon that this is wrong, and NOT AT ALL the case in any of the situations posters are mentioning. Why do you feel the need to keep beating a dead horse...I can't honestly believe this has ever happened (let alone to a nanny informed enough to be trolling...I mean posting...here).

If we all agree, why are people still arguing if your domestic worker should be required to bring her own food if she needs to eat during her 10-12 hour work day?

[Anonymous]

How much wood would a woodchuck chuck, if a woodchuck could chuck wood?...

Pretty much seems like this is what this thread is about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Forcing a confined domestic worker in your house to go without food for 10 or 12 hours a day is WRONG and illegal. If she has the opportunity to bring in her own sufficient food, terrific. The nanny employer can save a couple of dollars a day.

I'm pretty sure it's been agreed upon that this is wrong, and NOT AT ALL the case in any of the situations posters are mentioning. Why do you feel the need to keep beating a dead horse...I can't honestly believe this has ever happened (let alone to a nanny informed enough to be trolling...I mean posting...here).

If we all agree, why are people still arguing if your domestic worker should be required to bring her own food if she needs to eat during her 10-12 hour work day?

"Forcing a confined domestic worker in your house to go without food for 10 or 12 hours a day" implies that the nanny has no access to food at all. If an employer stipulates that she bring her own food, and then she fails to do so, how is the employer responsible? Yes, they should be courteous and offer what is available in this case (and most if not all do) but I'm failing to see where you are making the leap to forced starvation (for 10 to 12 hours). Providing meals/snacks is a perk, a very common and much welcome one to be sure, but still a perk none the less. Not being offered this perk is not akin to being starved for the entire day. Grow up, pack a lunch, and stop being so dramatic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How much wood would a woodchuck chuck, if a woodchuck could chuck wood?...

Pretty much seems like this is what this thread is about.

Poor thing just doesn't want to grow up. I know a preschool class where she'd be a perfect fit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Forcing a confined domestic worker in your house to go without food for 10 or 12 hours a day is WRONG and illegal. If she has the opportunity to bring in her own sufficient food, terrific. The nanny employer can save a couple of dollars a day.

I'm pretty sure it's been agreed upon that this is wrong, and NOT AT ALL the case in any of the situations posters are mentioning. Why do you feel the need to keep beating a dead horse...I can't honestly believe this has ever happened (let alone to a nanny informed enough to be trolling...I mean posting...here).

If we all agree, why are people still arguing if your domestic worker should be required to bring her own food if she needs to eat during her 10-12 hour work day?

"Forcing a confined domestic worker in your house to go without food for 10 or 12 hours a day" implies that the nanny has no access to food at all. If an employer stipulates that she bring her own food, and then she fails to do so, how is the employer responsible? Yes, they should be courteous and offer what is available in this case (and most if not all do) but I'm failing to see where you are making the leap to forced starvation (for 10 to 12 hours). Providing meals/snacks is a perk, a very common and much welcome one to be sure, but still a perk none the less. Not being offered this perk is not akin to being starved for the entire day. Grow up, pack a lunch, and stop being so dramatic.

What you perceive as "drama", many domestic workers may insist is a basic human right.

Why would any employer try to stipulate in a contract that her domestic worker is required to bring her own food if she needs to eat?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Forcing a confined domestic worker in your house to go without food for 10 or 12 hours a day is WRONG and illegal. If she has the opportunity to bring in her own sufficient food, terrific. The nanny employer can save a couple of dollars a day.

I'm pretty sure it's been agreed upon that this is wrong, and NOT AT ALL the case in any of the situations posters are mentioning. Why do you feel the need to keep beating a dead horse...I can't honestly believe this has ever happened (let alone to a nanny informed enough to be trolling...I mean posting...here).

If we all agree, why are people still arguing if your domestic worker should be required to bring her own food if she needs to eat during her 10-12 hour work day?

"Forcing a confined domestic worker in your house to go without food for 10 or 12 hours a day" implies that the nanny has no access to food at all. If an employer stipulates that she bring her own food, and then she fails to do so, how is the employer responsible? Yes, they should be courteous and offer what is available in this case (and most if not all do) but I'm failing to see where you are making the leap to forced starvation (for 10 to 12 hours). Providing meals/snacks is a perk, a very common and much welcome one to be sure, but still a perk none the less. Not being offered this perk is not akin to being starved for the entire day. Grow up, pack a lunch, and stop being so dramatic.

What you perceive as "drama", many domestic workers may insist is a basic human right.

Why would any employer try to stipulate in a contract that her domestic worker is required to bring her own food if she needs to eat?

What??? You have had a job, any job, before right? I can't believe you have. And again with the human rights...providing food for an employee is NOT!!!!!! a human right. Please just stop, its becoming beyond insulting and ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

It's a real shame for anyone to be insulted about allowing your domestic worker to eat your food. Such a selfish person should not have a nanny. Daycare would be a better match.

[Anonymous]

The insult I am referring to is you constantly equating an employer requiring and employee to bring their own food to a human rights violation. I am a nanny, BTW, and have never been insulted when asked to pack my own lunch. You bring new meaning to the word entitled.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The insult I am referring to is you constantly equating an employer requiring and employee to bring their own food to a human rights violation. I am a nanny, BTW, and have never been insulted when asked to pack my own lunch. You bring new meaning to the word entitled.

You are welcome to your personal opinion. Did you read the UN paper where it explains to people like you, how this is a human rights issue?

[Anonymous]

I really can't tell if you are being purposely obtuse or you really don't see the huge error in your logic. I'll try to be simple.
Yes, if your employer locked you in their house and forbid you from either bringing your own food or consuming theirs, that would indeed be a human rights violation.

Working in an environment where food is not provided, but you are more than welcome to bring your own (like a nanny situation) is neither uncommon nor abuse. It if most definitely NOT a human rights violation.

And please, find me one other profession that provides its employees with meals as a stipulation of their employment (most restaurants even make you pay), since you seem to think that nannies are the only ones suffering this grave injustice.