Illegal questions for nannies...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You do understand that the courts have a lot more pressing matters to deal with than your allegedly secret recordings of allegedly illegal questions that have no actual consequences, right?

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You do understand that the courts have a lot more pressing matters to deal with than your allegedly secret recordings of allegedly illegal questions that have no actual consequences, right?

+1

You should be ashamed of discouraging people from asserting their rights. You can ask whatever questions you like when hiring, you are NOT allowed to make hiring decisions off of them. If a nanny can prove that you did, then you deserve everything you get. And, yes, many employment laws do not extend to small employers and domestic workers, but times are changing sweetie, and they are changing because someone spoke up. Stop encouraging people to remain silent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You do understand that the courts have a lot more pressing matters to deal with than your allegedly secret recordings of allegedly illegal questions that have no actual consequences, right?

+1

You should be ashamed of discouraging people from asserting their rights. You can ask whatever questions you like when hiring, you are NOT allowed to make hiring decisions off of them. If a nanny can prove that you did, then you deserve everything you get. And, yes, many employment laws do not extend to small employers and domestic workers, but times are changing sweetie, and they are changing because someone spoke up. Stop encouraging people to remain silent.

No is discouraging nannies from asserting rights. Rather, they're making clear what those rights are or are not. There are reasons the laws don't apply to employers of just one or a few employees. You may not like it, but it is the law. Given that these are specific, reasoned exemptions to laws, I doubt time will change them, sweetie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You do understand that the courts have a lot more pressing matters to deal with than your allegedly secret recordings of allegedly illegal questions that have no actual consequences, right?

+1

You should be ashamed of discouraging people from asserting their rights. You can ask whatever questions you like when hiring, you are NOT allowed to make hiring decisions off of them. If a nanny can prove that you did, then you deserve everything you get. And, yes, many employment laws do not extend to small employers and domestic workers, but times are changing sweetie, and they are changing because someone spoke up. Stop encouraging people to remain silent.

No is discouraging nannies from asserting rights. Rather, they're making clear what those rights are or are not. There are reasons the laws don't apply to employers of just one or a few employees. You may not like it, but it is the law. Given that these are specific, reasoned exemptions to laws, I doubt time will change them, sweetie.

What good reason is there for allowing discrimination? Please enlighten me sweetie. Time and action WILL and IS changing them. Domestic worker bill of rights are popping up in states all over this country, extending OT, unemployment insurance, reasonable break times, and living quarters to a faction of workers largely ignored by the general populace, many of which tolerate various levels of legally sanctioned abuse. Modern day indentured servitude is ending, like it or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You do understand that the courts have a lot more pressing matters to deal with than your allegedly secret recordings of allegedly illegal questions that have no actual consequences, right?

+1

You should be ashamed of discouraging people from asserting their rights. You can ask whatever questions you like when hiring, you are NOT allowed to make hiring decisions off of them. If a nanny can prove that you did, then you deserve everything you get. And, yes, many employment laws do not extend to small employers and domestic workers, but times are changing sweetie, and they are changing because someone spoke up. Stop encouraging people to remain silent.

No is discouraging nannies from asserting rights. Rather, they're making clear what those rights are or are not. There are reasons the laws don't apply to employers of just one or a few employees. You may not like it, but it is the law. Given that these are specific, reasoned exemptions to laws, I doubt time will change them, sweetie.

What good reason is there for allowing discrimination? Please enlighten me sweetie. Time and action WILL and IS changing them. Domestic worker bill of rights are popping up in states all over this country, extending OT, unemployment insurance, reasonable break times, and living quarters to a faction of workers largely ignored by the general populace, many of which tolerate various levels of legally sanctioned abuse. Modern day indentured servitude is ending, like it or not.

Ooooh, the DRAMA!

Yes, modern day servitude - like that of a professional nanny who is paid at least 2 to 3 times minimum wage, plus some level of health insurance benefits, overtime, on the books, with vacation and sick leave, and possibly additional benefits. For a job where he/she can wear comfortable clothing, be outside in great weather, play with kids (whom theoretically they enjoy - given their choice of work), etc...

Cry me a river. Go try to support a family working at McDonald's before you criticize the compensation and working conditions I offer my "indentured servants".

[Anonymous]

The vast majority of nannies are not professionals, nor are they afforded minimal job benefits. Moreover, since most of them are still being paid illegally by unscrupulous parents, we don't even have accurate figures as to the true extent of the problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You do understand that the courts have a lot more pressing matters to deal with than your allegedly secret recordings of allegedly illegal questions that have no actual consequences, right?

+1

You should be ashamed of discouraging people from asserting their rights. You can ask whatever questions you like when hiring, you are NOT allowed to make hiring decisions off of them. If a nanny can prove that you did, then you deserve everything you get. And, yes, many employment laws do not extend to small employers and domestic workers, but times are changing sweetie, and they are changing because someone spoke up. Stop encouraging people to remain silent.

No is discouraging nannies from asserting rights. Rather, they're making clear what those rights are or are not. There are reasons the laws don't apply to employers of just one or a few employees. You may not like it, but it is the law. Given that these are specific, reasoned exemptions to laws, I doubt time will change them, sweetie.

What good reason is there for allowing discrimination? Please enlighten me sweetie. Time and action WILL and IS changing them. Domestic worker bill of rights are popping up in states all over this country, extending OT, unemployment insurance, reasonable break times, and living quarters to a faction of workers largely ignored by the general populace, many of which tolerate various levels of legally sanctioned abuse. Modern day indentured servitude is ending, like it or not.

Ooooh, the DRAMA!

Yes, modern day servitude - like that of a professional nanny who is paid at least 2 to 3 times minimum wage, plus some level of health insurance benefits, overtime, on the books, with vacation and sick leave, and possibly additional benefits. For a job where he/she can wear comfortable clothing, be outside in great weather, play with kids (whom theoretically they enjoy - given their choice of work), etc...

Cry me a river. Go try to support a family working at McDonald's before you criticize the compensation and working conditions I offer my "indentured servants".

Okay 1) I said nothing about YOU in particular (giant ego much?) and 2) Are you under the crazy impression that all nanny jobs are like the bolded hypothetical? Because if so, you are egregiously mistaken. LOTS of nannies make FAR less than 3 times minimum wage, plenty make less than minimum wage. Very few receive healthcare benefits, even those who are well paid. Many do not receive OT, and are not aware they are entitled to it. Many are not paid on the books, nor do they understand the value of above board employment. Many do not get paid leave, and many are expected to work come hell or high fevers, and even the ones who get leave most of the time their boss gets to designate when half or more of it is (fun right?!). As for the rest of your statement, those are not benefits, simply enjoyable aspects of the job. We also wipe butts, and noses all day, get sneezed coughed and puked on, and deal with crying and temper tantrums from our charges and employers alike. Its not all rainbows and sunshine.

Most of the nannies on this board are educated and confident enough that these abuses don't happen to us, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen, nor does it mean we are okay with it, or that we don't care that the law ALLOWS so much of it. So many nannies DO live in near servitude and it IS a problem.

[Anonymous]

Veering wildly off topic, PP. You are talking wage and hour law as well as benefits. Wage and hour law protections exist. Benefits are a negotiation. Has nothing to do with anti-discrimination laws. You're on a different topic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Veering wildly off topic, PP. You are talking wage and hour law as well as benefits. Wage and hour law protections exist. Benefits are a negotiation. Has nothing to do with anti-discrimination laws. You're on a different topic.

Yes, wage and hours laws exist, but are often wildly ignored behind closed doors where no one can see the victim.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Veering wildly off topic, PP. You are talking wage and hour law as well as benefits. Wage and hour law protections exist. Benefits are a negotiation. Has nothing to do with anti-discrimination laws. You're on a different topic.

You're right that's not what we were talking about, but I was trying to respond to the hypothetical PP put forward as a reason nannies shouldn't complain. I had previously stated that the laws exempting domestic workers from protections afforded to every other worker are in fact changing, and she should stop trying to discourage those trying to stand up for their rights. And yes she did try to discourage people.

"You do understand that the courts have a lot more pressing matters to deal with..." The courts are there to serve the people. If someone has an issue to bring forward, they can do that, and some random on the Internet doesn't get to decide which matters are important enough. Laws don't change if they aren't challenged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Veering wildly off topic, PP. You are talking wage and hour law as well as benefits. Wage and hour law protections exist. Benefits are a negotiation. Has nothing to do with anti-discrimination laws. You're on a different topic.

You're right that's not what we were talking about, but I was trying to respond to the hypothetical PP put forward as a reason nannies shouldn't complain. I had previously stated that the laws exempting domestic workers from protections afforded to every other worker are in fact changing, and she should stop trying to discourage those trying to stand up for their rights. And yes she did try to discourage people.

"You do understand that the courts have a lot more pressing matters to deal with..." The courts are there to serve the people. If someone has an issue to bring forward, they can do that, and some random on the Internet doesn't get to decide which matters are important enough. Laws don't change if they aren't challenged.

Good luck with your personal crusade. I think you'll find it bitter and pointless but more power to you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Veering wildly off topic, PP. You are talking wage and hour law as well as benefits. Wage and hour law protections exist. Benefits are a negotiation. Has nothing to do with anti-discrimination laws. You're on a different topic.

You're right that's not what we were talking about, but I was trying to respond to the hypothetical PP put forward as a reason nannies shouldn't complain. I had previously stated that the laws exempting domestic workers from protections afforded to every other worker are in fact changing, and she should stop trying to discourage those trying to stand up for their rights. And yes she did try to discourage people.

"You do understand that the courts have a lot more pressing matters to deal with..." The courts are there to serve the people. If someone has an issue to bring forward, they can do that, and some random on the Internet doesn't get to decide which matters are important enough. Laws don't change if they aren't challenged.

Good luck with your personal crusade. I think you'll find it bitter and pointless but more power to you.

That's what I'm talking about. Why do you feel the need to discourage someone fighting for rights that you are already afforded? What is it exactly that makes you think we are not entitled to equal protections? Or are you simply scared that we'll get it? Its not a personal crusade btw, its a national movement. We just had a major accomplishment in California, with plenty more states to come.

[Anonymous]

The point is that you won't even get into court to argue violation of rights under a law that doesn't apply. You would not have a claim. You have to change the law first. Try that through advocacy. A court challenge would not work because you'd never get there.

[Anonymous]

This is quite possibly one of the most pointless arguments on here. I am a nanny and regardless if I am offended by a question, I fully support an individual family's right to hire who they wish and to discriminate based on everything and anything. Why would you want to work so intimately with someone who may or may not have a huge problem with your religion/sexuality/mental health? If I was paying someone to spend every day in my home and with my children (with little to no supervision) you better believe I would want to know them pretty intimately. If you don't like a question DONT ANSWER IT or leave an interview. Pretty darn simple.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You do understand that the courts have a lot more pressing matters to deal with than your allegedly secret recordings of allegedly illegal questions that have no actual consequences, right?

+1

You should be ashamed of discouraging people from asserting their rights. You can ask whatever questions you like when hiring, you are NOT allowed to make hiring decisions off of them. If a nanny can prove that you did, then you deserve everything you get. And, yes, many employment laws do not extend to small employers and domestic workers, but times are changing sweetie, and they are changing because someone spoke up. Stop encouraging people to remain silent.

How will the nanny "prove that you did"? All an employer needs to say is that a candidate was chosen that was a better fit for the job. That's how they do it in the real world.