Minimum wage rising and nannies wages

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry. Employed by 2 or more employers.

If someone works ft at Starbucks and ft at McDonalds, the 2 employers don't get to pay less because their employee works for them both, right?

You are right. Each employer must pay the employee minimum wage, at least.

That's not correct. Minimum wage us about how much the employee is being paid per hour, not who pays her. The analogy doesn't apply because presumably no one is working for Starbucks and mcdonalds during the same hours.

What evidence do you have?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In a nanny share, if the families pay legally, they EACH have to pay at least minimum wage, since each family is an employer, and there is no general exemption from minimum wage laws based on one person being em

Agreed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry. Employed by 2 or more employers.

If someone works ft at Starbucks and ft at McDonalds, the 2 employers don't get to pay less because their employee works for them both, right?

You are right. Each employer must pay the employee minimum wage, at least.

That's not correct. Minimum wage us about how much the employee is being paid per hour, not who pays her. The analogy doesn't apply because presumably no one is working for Starbucks and mcdonalds during the same hours.

What evidence do you have?

I think the burden is on you to find evidence otherwise. There is zero precedent for an hourly worker being able to work two separate jobs at the exact same time. It just doesn't make any sense. A nanny in a share has one job with multiple employers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry. Employed by 2 or more employers.

If someone works ft at Starbucks and ft at McDonalds, the 2 employers don't get to pay less because their employee works for them both, right?

You are right. Each employer must pay the employee minimum wage, at least.

That's not correct. Minimum wage us about how much the employee is being paid per hour, not who pays her. The analogy doesn't apply because presumably no one is working for Starbucks and mcdonalds during the same hours.

What evidence do you have?

I think the burden is on you to find evidence otherwise. There is zero precedent for an hourly worker being able to work two separate jobs at the exact same time. It just doesn't make any sense. A nanny in a share has one job with multiple employers.

No, the burden is on you when your underpaid nanny reports you to the Labor Department.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry. Employed by 2 or more employers.

If someone works ft at Starbucks and ft at McDonalds, the 2 employers don't get to pay less because their employee works for them both, right?

You are right. Each employer must pay the employee minimum wage, at least.

That's not correct. Minimum wage us about how much the employee is being paid per hour, not who pays her. The analogy doesn't apply because presumably no one is working for Starbucks and mcdonalds during the same hours.

What evidence do you have?

I think the burden is on you to find evidence otherwise. There is zero precedent for an hourly worker being able to work two separate jobs at the exact same time. It just doesn't make any sense. A nanny in a share has one job with multiple employers.

Seeing as how you pay her separately, and both families are considered employers, I would think that both families would have to meet the legal requirements of employing someone; ie. both must pay employer taxes, both must have a worker's comp policy, etc. Why would minimum wage be any different? You're right, it is a unique situation, and there likely isn't a precedent but generally a nanny in a share is treated as having 2 jobs by the government, and I don't see why this would be different.

[Anonymous]

I'm not 100% certain of this and since I'm on an iPad I can't copy the links but a quick google search seemed to say that it actually depends on whether you have 1 contract or 2. If both families use the same contract then minimum wage only applies to the total the nanny gets from both families. If each family has their own contract with the nanny though then they each have to pay minimum wage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm not 100% certain of this and since I'm on an iPad I can't copy the links but a quick google search seemed to say that it actually depends on whether you have 1 contract or 2. If both families use the same contract then minimum wage only applies to the total the nanny gets from both families. If each family has their own contract with the nanny though then they each have to pay minimum wage.

On what website are you seeing this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not 100% certain of this and since I'm on an iPad I can't copy the links but a quick google search seemed to say that it actually depends on whether you have 1 contract or 2. If both families use the same contract then minimum wage only applies to the total the nanny gets from both families. If each family has their own contract with the nanny though then they each have to pay minimum wage.

On what website are you seeing this?

There were several tax service websites. If you google "nanny share minimum wage" it comes up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not 100% certain of this and since I'm on an iPad I can't copy the links but a quick google search seemed to say that it actually depends on whether you have 1 contract or 2. If both families use the same contract then minimum wage only applies to the total the nanny gets from both families. If each family has their own contract with the nanny though then they each have to pay minimum wage.

On what website are you seeing this?

There were several tax service websites. If you google "nanny share minimum wage" it comes up.

Which one were you using?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm not 100% certain of this and since I'm on an iPad I can't copy the links but a quick google search seemed to say that it actually depends on whether you have 1 contract or 2. If both families use the same contract then minimum wage only applies to the total the nanny gets from both families. If each family has their own contract with the nanny though then they each have to pay minimum wage.

You don't know what you're talking about and you even admit it in your first sentence. But thanks for sharing all your confusion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry. Employed by 2 or more employers.

If someone works ft at Starbucks and ft at McDonalds, the 2 employers don't get to pay less because their employee works for them both, right?

You are right. Each employer must pay the employee minimum wage, at least.

That's not correct. Minimum wage us about how much the employee is being paid per hour, not who pays her. The analogy doesn't apply because presumably no one is working for Starbucks and mcdonalds during the same hours.

What evidence do you have?

I think the burden is on you to find evidence otherwise. There is zero precedent for an hourly worker being able to work two separate jobs at the exact same time. It just doesn't make any sense. A nanny in a share has one job with multiple employers.

Seeing as how you pay her separately, and both families are considered employers, I would think that both families would have to meet the legal requirements of employing someone; ie. both must pay employer taxes, both must have a worker's comp policy, etc. Why would minimum wage be any different? You're right, it is a unique situation, and there likely isn't a precedent but generally a nanny in a share is treated as having 2 jobs by the government, and I don't see why this would be different.

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

If both employers intend to claim childcare tax credits, then they both need to pay the legal minimum wage. It has nothing to do with contracts. A nanny in a share has TWO employers. Attempting to pretend that isn't the case is foolish on all levels.

So any increase in the minimum wage is going to affect nanny shares more than employers who don't share. If share families pay their nanny less than $9 each because that's all they can afford, they will no longer be able to legally employ that nanny once the minimum wage rises above what they can afford.

That means either nannies in shares lose their legally paying jobs or agree to illegal wages to remain employed. Not exactly the happy news those who love to raise the minimum wage like to hear, is it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If both employers intend to claim childcare tax credits, then they both need to pay the legal minimum wage. It has nothing to do with contracts. A nanny in a share has TWO employers. Attempting to pretend that isn't the case is foolish on all levels.

So any increase in the minimum wage is going to affect nanny shares more than employers who don't share. If share families pay their nanny less than $9 each because that's all they can afford, they will no longer be able to legally employ that nanny once the minimum wage rises above what they can afford.

That means either nannies in shares lose their legally paying jobs or agree to illegal wages to remain employed. Not exactly the happy news those who love to raise the minimum wage like to hear, is it?

You convienently omitted Option #3, which is you can start paying your nanny the legal minimum wage. Nice try, MB, but foolish.

[Anonymous]

If you can't afford minimum wage, you can't afford a nanny. It's that simple.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry. Employed by 2 or more employers.

If someone works ft at Starbucks and ft at McDonalds, the 2 employers don't get to pay less because their employee works for them both, right?

You are right. Each employer must pay the employee minimum wage, at least.

That's not correct. Minimum wage us about how much the employee is being paid per hour, not who pays her. The analogy doesn't apply because presumably no one is working for Starbucks and mcdonalds during the same hours.

What evidence do you have?

Google "joint employment relationship." The parents are pretty clearly joint employers under FLSA and can each use the others payments in credit towards minimum wage. The statute is actually meant to protect employees from loss of OT, as joint employers are also both responsible for OT payments for time worked over 40 hours to either employer.