Nanny Share Rates? Am I lowballing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Even $400 per family per week would be low.


No. It would be about right.


No, it would be low. 50 hours a week means 10 hours of OT. $400/55 hours (to account for the OT) is $7.27/hour. That is, in fact, low.

Per family. That's $15.50/hr (thought I'm not sure where you are getting the 55 hours as OP only needs 50) Yes it's on the low side here, but for the area OP is referencing, it isn't so far off.

Personally, if I wanted to pay for a nanny share with 2 kids, I'd start out with the expectation of $20/hr ($10/hr per family).

Because the final 10 hours of that 50 is over time, which means it's paid at time & a half. So 10 OT hours = 15 regular hours. So the pay is equivalent to 55 regular hours. So Nanny Deb is right - OP is offering $7.27/hr pay, which is 2 cents more than minimum wage. OP's not going to find a nanny to share at that rate. She might find a neighbor SAHM who's willing to babysit - my friends do that in the same neighborhood. Some in-homes licensed by the city charge around $200/week so maybe OP would have luck with that.

But none of the major centers in town or any nannies will be able to provide full time childcare at $200/week.

How does it matter what the OP is paying as long as the total $ for the nanny is well above minimum $15.50? Say OP's friend is wealthier and Op pays $5 and friend pays $15 for total of $20 for nanny share is that considered illegal?

You're right. But none of this is neither here nor there, seeing as OP was talking about offering $400/week total. $400/family would be legal, but again to OPs question, would only get her someone with very little if any experience. $15/hour is simply not market for shares.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Even $400 per family per week would be low.


No. It would be about right.


No, it would be low. 50 hours a week means 10 hours of OT. $400/55 hours (to account for the OT) is $7.27/hour. That is, in fact, low.

Per family. That's $15.50/hr (thought I'm not sure where you are getting the 55 hours as OP only needs 50) Yes it's on the low side here, but for the area OP is referencing, it isn't so far off.

Personally, if I wanted to pay for a nanny share with 2 kids, I'd start out with the expectation of $20/hr ($10/hr per family).

Because the final 10 hours of that 50 is over time, which means it's paid at time & a half. So 10 OT hours = 15 regular hours. So the pay is equivalent to 55 regular hours. So Nanny Deb is right - OP is offering $7.27/hr pay, which is 2 cents more than minimum wage. OP's not going to find a nanny to share at that rate. She might find a neighbor SAHM who's willing to babysit - my friends do that in the same neighborhood. Some in-homes licensed by the city charge around $200/week so maybe OP would have luck with that.

But none of the major centers in town or any nannies will be able to provide full time childcare at $200/week.

How does it matter what the OP is paying as long as the total $ for the nanny is well above minimum $15.50? Say OP's friend is wealthier and Op pays $5 and friend pays $15 for total of $20 for nanny share is that considered illegal?

Minimum wage is per wage, not per employing family. A business that's jointly owned by two parties doesn't owe its employees double the minimum wage. You are correct that the market rate for nanny shares in this area is above $15/hr but you won't be able to find a source that confirms your notion that it's illegal to offer less than $15.50. Glad to be proven wrong though - any sources on that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Even $400 per family per week would be low.


No. It would be about right.


No, it would be low. 50 hours a week means 10 hours of OT. $400/55 hours (to account for the OT) is $7.27/hour. That is, in fact, low.

Per family. That's $15.50/hr (thought I'm not sure where you are getting the 55 hours as OP only needs 50) Yes it's on the low side here, but for the area OP is referencing, it isn't so far off.

Personally, if I wanted to pay for a nanny share with 2 kids, I'd start out with the expectation of $20/hr ($10/hr per family).

Because the final 10 hours of that 50 is over time, which means it's paid at time & a half. So 10 OT hours = 15 regular hours. So the pay is equivalent to 55 regular hours. So Nanny Deb is right - OP is offering $7.27/hr pay, which is 2 cents more than minimum wage. OP's not going to find a nanny to share at that rate. She might find a neighbor SAHM who's willing to babysit - my friends do that in the same neighborhood. Some in-homes licensed by the city charge around $200/week so maybe OP would have luck with that.

But none of the major centers in town or any nannies will be able to provide full time childcare at $200/week.

How does it matter what the OP is paying as long as the total $ for the nanny is well above minimum $15.50? Say OP's friend is wealthier and Op pays $5 and friend pays $15 for total of $20 for nanny share is that considered illegal?

Minimum wage is per wage, not per employing family. A business that's jointly owned by two parties doesn't owe its employees double the minimum wage. You are correct that the market rate for nanny shares in this area is above $15/hr but you won't be able to find a source that confirms your notion that it's illegal to offer less than $15.50. Glad to be proven wrong though - any sources on that?

This is 100% incorrect. Each family is viewed as a separate employer in the eyes of the law.
They each-by federal law-must pay the nanny minimum wage.
ease do some research before spreading incorrect information information as truth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Even $400 per family per week would be low.


No. It would be about right.


No, it would be low. 50 hours a week means 10 hours of OT. $400/55 hours (to account for the OT) is $7.27/hour. That is, in fact, low.

Per family. That's $15.50/hr (thought I'm not sure where you are getting the 55 hours as OP only needs 50) Yes it's on the low side here, but for the area OP is referencing, it isn't so far off.

Personally, if I wanted to pay for a nanny share with 2 kids, I'd start out with the expectation of $20/hr ($10/hr per family).

Because the final 10 hours of that 50 is over time, which means it's paid at time & a half. So 10 OT hours = 15 regular hours. So the pay is equivalent to 55 regular hours. So Nanny Deb is right - OP is offering $7.27/hr pay, which is 2 cents more than minimum wage. OP's not going to find a nanny to share at that rate. She might find a neighbor SAHM who's willing to babysit - my friends do that in the same neighborhood. Some in-homes licensed by the city charge around $200/week so maybe OP would have luck with that.

But none of the major centers in town or any nannies will be able to provide full time childcare at $200/week.

How does it matter what the OP is paying as long as the total $ for the nanny is well above minimum $15.50? Say OP's friend is wealthier and Op pays $5 and friend pays $15 for total of $20 for nanny share is that considered illegal?

Minimum wage is per wage, not per employing family. A business that's jointly owned by two parties doesn't owe its employees double the minimum wage. You are correct that the market rate for nanny shares in this area is above $15/hr but you won't be able to find a source that confirms your notion that it's illegal to offer less than $15.50. Glad to be proven wrong though - any sources on that?

This is 100% incorrect. Each family is viewed as a separate employer in the eyes of the law.
They each-by federal law-must pay the nanny minimum wage.
ease do some research before spreading incorrect information information as truth.

I've heard some of the agencies are uninformed of the law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Even $400 per family per week would be low.


No. It would be about right.


No, it would be low. 50 hours a week means 10 hours of OT. $400/55 hours (to account for the OT) is $7.27/hour. That is, in fact, low.


Per family. That's $15.50/hr (thought I'm not sure where you are getting the 55 hours as OP only needs 50) Yes it's on the low side here, but for the area OP is referencing, it isn't so far off.

Personally, if I wanted to pay for a nanny share with 2 kids, I'd start out with the expectation of $20/hr ($10/hr per family).


Because the final 10 hours of that 50 is over time, which means it's paid at time & a half. So 10 OT hours = 15 regular hours. So the pay is equivalent to 55 regular hours. So Nanny Deb is right - OP is offering $7.27/hr pay, which is 2 cents more than minimum wage. OP's not going to find a nanny to share at that rate. She might find a neighbor SAHM who's willing to babysit - my friends do that in the same neighborhood. Some in-homes licensed by the city charge around $200/week so maybe OP would have luck with that.

But none of the major centers in town or any nannies will be able to provide full time childcare at $200/week.

How does it matter what the OP is paying as long as the total $ for the nanny is well above minimum $15.50? Say OP's friend is wealthier and Op pays $5 and friend pays $15 for total of $20 for nanny share is that considered illegal?


Minimum wage is per wage, not per employing family. A business that's jointly owned by two parties doesn't owe its employees double the minimum wage. You are correct that the market rate for nanny shares in this area is above $15/hr but you won't be able to find a source that confirms your notion that it's illegal to offer less than $15.50. Glad to be proven wrong though - any sources on that?


This is 100% incorrect. Each family is viewed as a separate employer in the eyes of the law.
They each-by federal law-must pay the nanny minimum wage.
ease do some research before spreading incorrect information information as truth.

Please provide links to the law you are referring to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Even $400 per family per week would be low.


No. It would be about right.


No, it would be low. 50 hours a week means 10 hours of OT. $400/55 hours (to account for the OT) is $7.27/hour. That is, in fact, low.

Per family. That's $15.50/hr (thought I'm not sure where you are getting the 55 hours as OP only needs 50) Yes it's on the low side here, but for the area OP is referencing, it isn't so far off.

Personally, if I wanted to pay for a nanny share with 2 kids, I'd start out with the expectation of $20/hr ($10/hr per family).

Because the final 10 hours of that 50 is over time, which means it's paid at time & a half. So 10 OT hours = 15 regular hours. So the pay is equivalent to 55 regular hours. So Nanny Deb is right - OP is offering $7.27/hr pay, which is 2 cents more than minimum wage. OP's not going to find a nanny to share at that rate. She might find a neighbor SAHM who's willing to babysit - my friends do that in the same neighborhood. Some in-homes licensed by the city charge around $200/week so maybe OP would have luck with that.

But none of the major centers in town or any nannies will be able to provide full time childcare at $200/week.

How does it matter what the OP is paying as long as the total $ for the nanny is well above minimum $15.50? Say OP's friend is wealthier and Op pays $5 and friend pays $15 for total of $20 for nanny share is that considered illegal?

Minimum wage is per wage, not per employing family. A business that's jointly owned by two parties doesn't owe its employees double the minimum wage. You are correct that the market rate for nanny shares in this area is above $15/hr but you won't be able to find a source that confirms your notion that it's illegal to offer less than $15.50. Glad to be proven wrong though - any sources on that?

This is 100% incorrect. Each family is viewed as a separate employer in the eyes of the law.
They each-by federal law-must pay the nanny minimum wage.
ease do some research before spreading incorrect information information as truth.

Source?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Even $400 per family per week would be low.


No. It would be about right.


No, it would be low. 50 hours a week means 10 hours of OT. $400/55 hours (to account for the OT) is $7.27/hour. That is, in fact, low.

Per family. That's $15.50/hr (thought I'm not sure where you are getting the 55 hours as OP only needs 50) Yes it's on the low side here, but for the area OP is referencing, it isn't so far off.

Personally, if I wanted to pay for a nanny share with 2 kids, I'd start out with the expectation of $20/hr ($10/hr per family).

Because the final 10 hours of that 50 is over time, which means it's paid at time & a half. So 10 OT hours = 15 regular hours. So the pay is equivalent to 55 regular hours. So Nanny Deb is right - OP is offering $7.27/hr pay, which is 2 cents more than minimum wage. OP's not going to find a nanny to share at that rate. She might find a neighbor SAHM who's willing to babysit - my friends do that in the same neighborhood. Some in-homes licensed by the city charge around $200/week so maybe OP would have luck with that.

But none of the major centers in town or any nannies will be able to provide full time childcare at $200/week.

How does it matter what the OP is paying as long as the total $ for the nanny is well above minimum $15.50? Say OP's friend is wealthier and Op pays $5 and friend pays $15 for total of $20 for nanny share is that considered illegal?

Minimum wage is per wage, not per employing family. A business that's jointly owned by two parties doesn't owe its employees double the minimum wage. You are correct that the market rate for nanny shares in this area is above $15/hr but you won't be able to find a source that confirms your notion that it's illegal to offer less than $15.50. Glad to be proven wrong though - any sources on that?

This is 100% incorrect. Each family is viewed as a separate employer in the eyes of the law.
They each-by federal law-must pay the nanny minimum wage.
ease do some research before spreading incorrect information information as truth.

The employers in the nanny share are considered joint employers under the law. They are responsible for paying the nanny a total wage that is above minimum wage.

Here's a direct quote from FLSA which addresses the issue.

A single individual may stand in the relation of an employee to two or more employers at the same time under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, since there is nothing in the act which prevents an individual employed by one employer from also entering into an employment relationship with a different employer. A determination of whether the employment by the employers is to be considered joint employment or separate and distinct employment for purposes of the act depends upon all the facts in the particular case. If all the relevant facts establish that two or more employers are acting entirely independently of each other and are completely disassociated with respect to the employment of a particular employee, who during the same workweek performs work for more than one employer, each employer may disregard all work performed by the employee for the other employer (or employers) in determining his own responsibilities under the Act. 4 On the other hand, if the facts establish that the employee is employed jointly by two or more employers, i.e., that employment by one employer is not completely disassociated from employment by the other employer(s), all of the employee's work for all of the joint employers during the workweek is considered as one employment for purposes of the Act. In this event, all joint employers are responsible, both individually and jointly, for compliance with all of the applicable provisions of the act, including the overtime provisions, with respect to the entire employment for the particular workweek. 5 In discharging the joint obligation each employer may, of course, take credit toward minimum wage and overtime requirements for all payments made to the employee by the other joint employer or employers.

[MJackson804]

I'm horrified at how this poor woman is being treated for asking a simple question. Multiple people judging her and called her a bad parent - really? Do you know her financial situation? Whether she's new to the area, is well-educated or is even good at math? How do you know that CPR certification isn't a given for her as I'm sure it is for the rest of us all? Would you call her (or the father) a bad parent to their face, or only as an anonymous keyboard cowboy?

[Anonymous]

MJackson804 wrote:I'm horrified at how this poor woman is being treated for asking a simple question. Multiple people judging her and called her a bad parent - really? Do you know her financial situation? Whether she's new to the area, is well-educated or is even good at math? How do you know that CPR certification isn't a given for her as I'm sure it is for the rest of us all? Would you call her (or the father) a bad parent to their face, or only as an anonymous keyboard cowboy?

I don't necessarily think she is a bad parent. She is definitely trying to get something for nothing.
She is purposefully trying to underpay someone. Let's face it...people who would accept a nanny share with 2 infants for $400/week most likely don't have CPR certification.

[Anonymous]

MJackson804 wrote:I'm horrified at how this poor woman is being treated for asking a simple question. Multiple people judging her and called her a bad parent - really? Do you know her financial situation? Whether she's new to the area, is well-educated or is even good at math? How do you know that CPR certification isn't a given for her as I'm sure it is for the rest of us all? Would you call her (or the father) a bad parent to their face, or only as an anonymous keyboard cowboy?

Good people don't even try to get away with not paying minimum wage. Is "Can I leave my employee without food and water for a day?" considered a simple question to you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
This is 100% incorrect. Each family is viewed as a separate employer in the eyes of the law.
They each-by federal law-must pay the nanny minimum wage.
ease do some research before spreading incorrect information information as truth.

Actually, this topic came up a few months ago, and Kathy Webb, who leads a nanny tax preparation firm, confirmed definitively that only the cumulative rate matters, not the per-family rate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This is 100% incorrect. Each family is viewed as a separate employer in the eyes of the law.
They each-by federal law-must pay the nanny minimum wage.
ease do some research before spreading incorrect information information as truth.

Actually, this topic came up a few months ago, and Kathy Webb, who leads a nanny tax preparation firm, confirmed definitively that only the cumulative rate matters, not the per-family rate.

Prove it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This is 100% incorrect. Each family is viewed as a separate employer in the eyes of the law.
They each-by federal law-must pay the nanny minimum wage.
ease do some research before spreading incorrect information information as truth.

Actually, this topic came up a few months ago, and Kathy Webb, who leads a nanny tax preparation firm, confirmed definitively that only the cumulative rate matters, not the per-family rate.

Prove it

Yes please prove it. Information put forth by Ms. Webb isn't always correct and when in doubt tends to favor parent/employer.

[Anonymous]

Just look up half a page. I actually quoted the relevant portion of flsa.

[Anonymous]

Btw, joint employment law is for the benefit of the employee. It means that both employers are equally responsible that the nanny gets her entire wage for time worked. (You can specify a differentisl wage for time with one child, but you can't assume it) it also means a nanny is due overtime if she works a total of hours > 40, even if she worked less than 40 hours for the families individually.