I know it's a law, but why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nannies need to get the Teamsters to organize their union. You will get OT, plus better wages, benefits. The nanny agencies are in cahoots with the parents.

I want this in my industry too but unions are dead.

Also I'm a salaried employee so I never get overtime. The more I work, the less I make.

1. What's your salary? And how many hours a week do you work on average? Do tell.

I'll tell you with complete certainty that you don't need a union because you have you know... women's rights. Hard fought, but only for rich women. Yet you fight against extending similar rights for your own employees. Funny how that works, unless you're the one without basic worker rights.

2. Zillions of workers have unions. Teachers, cops, and tradesmen, to name a few.

I work 50-100 hours a week depending.

Don't be so literal. Private sector unions are basically toothless now.

Why do you "need" a union more than me? On this board don't we hear over and over no nanny in this area makes less than double minimum wage?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, I'm going to tackle this point by point. For what it's worth, I'm a nanny who only applies for live-in positions, and I advocate for myself. When I interview with a family who advertises a decent rate but the package turns out to be below minimum wage, I report them to Wage and Labor.

1. Many live-in nannies are paid salary, because the lines between working and off duty can blur so easily. According to the regulations, as long as the number of hours is a reasonable approximate, the nanny and family can do that. So, I negotiate for either a. a salary that stays constant every week of the year, with overtime if the family goes over a maximum number of hours ($x for anything up to 50 hours, $y/hour for hours above that) or b. separate salaries for school weeks and non-school weeks (if a child is out of school for 2+ days, it's paid at the non-school rate).

2. Employers must pay for ALL hours unless the nanny is able to sleep 5 consecutive hours during a 24 hour shift. In that case, the parent is required to pay for all hours in the first 24 hour shift, but the later shifts in which she sleeps at least 5 consecutive hours do not have to have the nanny's sleep period paid, up to 8 hours. Personally, I consider this reasonable. If I'm working 24 hour shifts, either the child is young enough that the child wakes and I don't get 5 consecutive hours of sleep, so I'm paid for all hours, or the child is old enough to sttn, so I'm paid hourly for the first overnight per week, plus any night that the child wakes up. Because the reduction only applies for someone working 24 shifts consecutively, it cuts down on employers taking advantage, and I'm well paid.

3. Live-in nannies are not eligible for overtime except in certain states. Sorry, but I understand this. A live-in nanny who was guaranteed overtime might argue that she should keep track of every minute that she helped kids when she stepped into the main area, and that's ridiculous. This is precisely why I negotiate for salary.

4. Room and board can only be deducted from the nanny's salary if they are provided for the nanny's convenience. A 24 hour nanny is there all the time working, so for her it's not a convenience. A parent who leaves for work before 5 am is unlikely to find a live-out nanny who is willing to do it, stay long-term and be reliable, so a live-in nanny is a necessity. A surgeon who is on call nights and weekends needs the nanny to also be on call, and most live-out nannies can't and won't drop everything, nor will they agree to remain in a 5 minute radius of the house. If the family advertises for a normal schedule, and offers live-in as an option but doesn't require it, then the employer can deduct room and board with the nanny's knowledge and consent.

Minimum wage is low in most areas, but most nannies make more. My last position paid $650/week to start, no housekeeping, just care for toddler twins (40 hours per week, live-in). I've also had part-time, other full-time and one 24/7 position. I don't burn out if I can determine how things can be done more efficiently, and I love working with families who need full-time plus up to 24/7. Of course, the most important word is NEED.

It's great that you know your rights, are confident and able to advocate for yourself, and haven't had employers trying to take advantage of you. However surely you understand that you do not represent the majority of nannies, especially live-in?

I'm actually doing research on the laws governing domestic employment and the level of adherence to those laws, and the sad fact is that most nannies aren't even receiving the little bit of protection afforded to them by the law. A national survey found that 67% of live-in employees aren't receiving minimum wage. That's 2 out of 3. 50% of them are working schedules that do not regularly allow for 5 hours of uninterrupted sleep.

There is a lot that needs to be done to better protect the rights of domestic employees, and it doesn't help when the well-off educated ones who have it pretty good discount the reality of so many others.

5 hours of continuous sleep isn't mandated, paying for all hours is if the nanny doesn't have 5 consecutive hours of sleep.

It's impossible to regulate the industry due to the insular nature. I wish it were different, but it isn't. My personal opinion is that it would be better to push for enforcement of the laws currently in place than to push for new laws that parents won't follow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, I'm going to tackle this point by point. For what it's worth, I'm a nanny who only applies for live-in positions, and I advocate for myself. When I interview with a family who advertises a decent rate but the package turns out to be below minimum wage, I report them to Wage and Labor.

1. Many live-in nannies are paid salary, because the lines between working and off duty can blur so easily. According to the regulations, as long as the number of hours is a reasonable approximate, the nanny and family can do that. So, I negotiate for either a. a salary that stays constant every week of the year, with overtime if the family goes over a maximum number of hours ($x for anything up to 50 hours, $y/hour for hours above that) or b. separate salaries for school weeks and non-school weeks (if a child is out of school for 2+ days, it's paid at the non-school rate).

2. Employers must pay for ALL hours unless the nanny is able to sleep 5 consecutive hours during a 24 hour shift. In that case, the parent is required to pay for all hours in the first 24 hour shift, but the later shifts in which she sleeps at least 5 consecutive hours do not have to have the nanny's sleep period paid, up to 8 hours. Personally, I consider this reasonable. If I'm working 24 hour shifts, either the child is young enough that the child wakes and I don't get 5 consecutive hours of sleep, so I'm paid for all hours, or the child is old enough to sttn, so I'm paid hourly for the first overnight per week, plus any night that the child wakes up. Because the reduction only applies for someone working 24 shifts consecutively, it cuts down on employers taking advantage, and I'm well paid.

3. Live-in nannies are not eligible for overtime except in certain states. Sorry, but I understand this. A live-in nanny who was guaranteed overtime might argue that she should keep track of every minute that she helped kids when she stepped into the main area, and that's ridiculous. This is precisely why I negotiate for salary.

4. Room and board can only be deducted from the nanny's salary if they are provided for the nanny's convenience. A 24 hour nanny is there all the time working, so for her it's not a convenience. A parent who leaves for work before 5 am is unlikely to find a live-out nanny who is willing to do it, stay long-term and be reliable, so a live-in nanny is a necessity. A surgeon who is on call nights and weekends needs the nanny to also be on call, and most live-out nannies can't and won't drop everything, nor will they agree to remain in a 5 minute radius of the house. If the family advertises for a normal schedule, and offers live-in as an option but doesn't require it, then the employer can deduct room and board with the nanny's knowledge and consent.

Minimum wage is low in most areas, but most nannies make more. My last position paid $650/week to start, no housekeeping, just care for toddler twins (40 hours per week, live-in). I've also had part-time, other full-time and one 24/7 position. I don't burn out if I can determine how things can be done more efficiently, and I love working with families who need full-time plus up to 24/7. Of course, the most important word is NEED.

It's great that you know your rights, are confident and able to advocate for yourself, and haven't had employers trying to take advantage of you. However surely you understand that you do not represent the majority of nannies, especially live-in?

I'm actually doing research on the laws governing domestic employment and the level of adherence to those laws, and the sad fact is that most nannies aren't even receiving the little bit of protection afforded to them by the law. A national survey found that 67% of live-in employees aren't receiving minimum wage. That's 2 out of 3. 50% of them are working schedules that do not regularly allow for 5 hours of uninterrupted sleep.

There is a lot that needs to be done to better protect the rights of domestic employees, and it doesn't help when the well-off educated ones who have it pretty good discount the reality of so many others.

5 hours of continuous sleep isn't mandated, paying for all hours is if the nanny doesn't have 5 consecutive hours of sleep.

It's impossible to regulate the industry due to the insular nature. I wish it were different, but it isn't. My personal opinion is that it would be better to push for enforcement of the laws currently in place than to push for new laws that parents won't follow.

Which current laws to protect nannies do you want enforced?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, I'm going to tackle this point by point. For what it's worth, I'm a nanny who only applies for live-in positions, and I advocate for myself. When I interview with a family who advertises a decent rate but the package turns out to be below minimum wage, I report them to Wage and Labor.

1. Many live-in nannies are paid salary, because the lines between working and off duty can blur so easily. According to the regulations, as long as the number of hours is a reasonable approximate, the nanny and family can do that. So, I negotiate for either a. a salary that stays constant every week of the year, with overtime if the family goes over a maximum number of hours ($x for anything up to 50 hours, $y/hour for hours above that) or b. separate salaries for school weeks and non-school weeks (if a child is out of school for 2+ days, it's paid at the non-school rate).

2. Employers must pay for ALL hours unless the nanny is able to sleep 5 consecutive hours during a 24 hour shift. In that case, the parent is required to pay for all hours in the first 24 hour shift, but the later shifts in which she sleeps at least 5 consecutive hours do not have to have the nanny's sleep period paid, up to 8 hours. Personally, I consider this reasonable. If I'm working 24 hour shifts, either the child is young enough that the child wakes and I don't get 5 consecutive hours of sleep, so I'm paid for all hours, or the child is old enough to sttn, so I'm paid hourly for the first overnight per week, plus any night that the child wakes up. Because the reduction only applies for someone working 24 shifts consecutively, it cuts down on employers taking advantage, and I'm well paid.

3. Live-in nannies are not eligible for overtime except in certain states. Sorry, but I understand this. A live-in nanny who was guaranteed overtime might argue that she should keep track of every minute that she helped kids when she stepped into the main area, and that's ridiculous. This is precisely why I negotiate for salary.

4. Room and board can only be deducted from the nanny's salary if they are provided for the nanny's convenience. A 24 hour nanny is there all the time working, so for her it's not a convenience. A parent who leaves for work before 5 am is unlikely to find a live-out nanny who is willing to do it, stay long-term and be reliable, so a live-in nanny is a necessity. A surgeon who is on call nights and weekends needs the nanny to also be on call, and most live-out nannies can't and won't drop everything, nor will they agree to remain in a 5 minute radius of the house. If the family advertises for a normal schedule, and offers live-in as an option but doesn't require it, then the employer can deduct room and board with the nanny's knowledge and consent.

Minimum wage is low in most areas, but most nannies make more. My last position paid $650/week to start, no housekeeping, just care for toddler twins (40 hours per week, live-in). I've also had part-time, other full-time and one 24/7 position. I don't burn out if I can determine how things can be done more efficiently, and I love working with families who need full-time plus up to 24/7. Of course, the most important word is NEED.

It's great that you know your rights, are confident and able to advocate for yourself, and haven't had employers trying to take advantage of you. However surely you understand that you do not represent the majority of nannies, especially live-in?

I'm actually doing research on the laws governing domestic employment and the level of adherence to those laws, and the sad fact is that most nannies aren't even receiving the little bit of protection afforded to them by the law. A national survey found that 67% of live-in employees aren't receiving minimum wage. That's 2 out of 3. 50% of them are working schedules that do not regularly allow for 5 hours of uninterrupted sleep.

There is a lot that needs to be done to better protect the rights of domestic employees, and it doesn't help when the well-off educated ones who have it pretty good discount the reality of so many others.

5 hours of continuous sleep isn't mandated, paying for all hours is if the nanny doesn't have 5 consecutive hours of sleep.

It's impossible to regulate the industry due to the insular nature. I wish it were different, but it isn't. My personal opinion is that it would be better to push for enforcement of the laws currently in place than to push for new laws that parents won't follow.

No one said 5 hours was mandated. I simply stated that many live in nannies are being worked around the clock, responsible for young children, with very little rest, and not being paid minimum wage for those hours. Is this acceptable to you? Do you think such things would stand if the majority of nannies were not foreign women of color? It's disgusting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, I'm going to tackle this point by point. For what it's worth, I'm a nanny who only applies for live-in positions, and I advocate for myself. When I interview with a family who advertises a decent rate but the package turns out to be below minimum wage, I report them to Wage and Labor.

1. Many live-in nannies are paid salary, because the lines between working and off duty can blur so easily. According to the regulations, as long as the number of hours is a reasonable approximate, the nanny and family can do that. So, I negotiate for either a. a salary that stays constant every week of the year, with overtime if the family goes over a maximum number of hours ($x for anything up to 50 hours, $y/hour for hours above that) or b. separate salaries for school weeks and non-school weeks (if a child is out of school for 2+ days, it's paid at the non-school rate).

2. Employers must pay for ALL hours unless the nanny is able to sleep 5 consecutive hours during a 24 hour shift. In that case, the parent is required to pay for all hours in the first 24 hour shift, but the later shifts in which she sleeps at least 5 consecutive hours do not have to have the nanny's sleep period paid, up to 8 hours. Personally, I consider this reasonable. If I'm working 24 hour shifts, either the child is young enough that the child wakes and I don't get 5 consecutive hours of sleep, so I'm paid for all hours, or the child is old enough to sttn, so I'm paid hourly for the first overnight per week, plus any night that the child wakes up. Because the reduction only applies for someone working 24 shifts consecutively, it cuts down on employers taking advantage, and I'm well paid.

3. Live-in nannies are not eligible for overtime except in certain states. Sorry, but I understand this. A live-in nanny who was guaranteed overtime might argue that she should keep track of every minute that she helped kids when she stepped into the main area, and that's ridiculous. This is precisely why I negotiate for salary.

4. Room and board can only be deducted from the nanny's salary if they are provided for the nanny's convenience. A 24 hour nanny is there all the time working, so for her it's not a convenience. A parent who leaves for work before 5 am is unlikely to find a live-out nanny who is willing to do it, stay long-term and be reliable, so a live-in nanny is a necessity. A surgeon who is on call nights and weekends needs the nanny to also be on call, and most live-out nannies can't and won't drop everything, nor will they agree to remain in a 5 minute radius of the house. If the family advertises for a normal schedule, and offers live-in as an option but doesn't require it, then the employer can deduct room and board with the nanny's knowledge and consent.

Minimum wage is low in most areas, but most nannies make more. My last position paid $650/week to start, no housekeeping, just care for toddler twins (40 hours per week, live-in). I've also had part-time, other full-time and one 24/7 position. I don't burn out if I can determine how things can be done more efficiently, and I love working with families who need full-time plus up to 24/7. Of course, the most important word is NEED.

It's great that you know your rights, are confident and able to advocate for yourself, and haven't had employers trying to take advantage of you. However surely you understand that you do not represent the majority of nannies, especially live-in?

I'm actually doing research on the laws governing domestic employment and the level of adherence to those laws, and the sad fact is that most nannies aren't even receiving the little bit of protection afforded to them by the law. A national survey found that 67% of live-in employees aren't receiving minimum wage. That's 2 out of 3. 50% of them are working schedules that do not regularly allow for 5 hours of uninterrupted sleep.

There is a lot that needs to be done to better protect the rights of domestic employees, and it doesn't help when the well-off educated ones who have it pretty good discount the reality of so many others.

5 hours of continuous sleep isn't mandated, paying for all hours is if the nanny doesn't have 5 consecutive hours of sleep.

It's impossible to regulate the industry due to the insular nature. I wish it were different, but it isn't. My personal opinion is that it would be better to push for enforcement of the laws currently in place than to push for new laws that parents won't follow.

Which current laws to protect nannies do you want enforced?

The FLSA would be a good start. All domestic workers should be getting at least minimum wage for all hours worked, and minimum rest time in a 7 day period. ALL workers should be receiving OT after 40 hours. There's absolutely no reason for live-in to be exempted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, I'm going to tackle this point by point. For what it's worth, I'm a nanny who only applies for live-in positions, and I advocate for myself. When I interview with a family who advertises a decent rate but the package turns out to be below minimum wage, I report them to Wage and Labor.

1. Many live-in nannies are paid salary, because the lines between working and off duty can blur so easily. According to the regulations, as long as the number of hours is a reasonable approximate, the nanny and family can do that. So, I negotiate for either a. a salary that stays constant every week of the year, with overtime if the family goes over a maximum number of hours ($x for anything up to 50 hours, $y/hour for hours above that) or b. separate salaries for school weeks and non-school weeks (if a child is out of school for 2+ days, it's paid at the non-school rate).

2. Employers must pay for ALL hours unless the nanny is able to sleep 5 consecutive hours during a 24 hour shift. In that case, the parent is required to pay for all hours in the first 24 hour shift, but the later shifts in which she sleeps at least 5 consecutive hours do not have to have the nanny's sleep period paid, up to 8 hours. Personally, I consider this reasonable. If I'm working 24 hour shifts, either the child is young enough that the child wakes and I don't get 5 consecutive hours of sleep, so I'm paid for all hours, or the child is old enough to sttn, so I'm paid hourly for the first overnight per week, plus any night that the child wakes up. Because the reduction only applies for someone working 24 shifts consecutively, it cuts down on employers taking advantage, and I'm well paid.

3. Live-in nannies are not eligible for overtime except in certain states. Sorry, but I understand this. A live-in nanny who was guaranteed overtime might argue that she should keep track of every minute that she helped kids when she stepped into the main area, and that's ridiculous. This is precisely why I negotiate for salary.

4. Room and board can only be deducted from the nanny's salary if they are provided for the nanny's convenience. A 24 hour nanny is there all the time working, so for her it's not a convenience. A parent who leaves for work before 5 am is unlikely to find a live-out nanny who is willing to do it, stay long-term and be reliable, so a live-in nanny is a necessity. A surgeon who is on call nights and weekends needs the nanny to also be on call, and most live-out nannies can't and won't drop everything, nor will they agree to remain in a 5 minute radius of the house. If the family advertises for a normal schedule, and offers live-in as an option but doesn't require it, then the employer can deduct room and board with the nanny's knowledge and consent.

Minimum wage is low in most areas, but most nannies make more. My last position paid $650/week to start, no housekeeping, just care for toddler twins (40 hours per week, live-in). I've also had part-time, other full-time and one 24/7 position. I don't burn out if I can determine how things can be done more efficiently, and I love working with families who need full-time plus up to 24/7. Of course, the most important word is NEED.

It's great that you know your rights, are confident and able to advocate for yourself, and haven't had employers trying to take advantage of you. However surely you understand that you do not represent the majority of nannies, especially live-in?

I'm actually doing research on the laws governing domestic employment and the level of adherence to those laws, and the sad fact is that most nannies aren't even receiving the little bit of protection afforded to them by the law. A national survey found that 67% of live-in employees aren't receiving minimum wage. That's 2 out of 3. 50% of them are working schedules that do not regularly allow for 5 hours of uninterrupted sleep.

There is a lot that needs to be done to better protect the rights of domestic employees, and it doesn't help when the well-off educated ones who have it pretty good discount the reality of so many others.

5 hours of continuous sleep isn't mandated, paying for all hours is if the nanny doesn't have 5 consecutive hours of sleep.

It's impossible to regulate the industry due to the insular nature. I wish it were different, but it isn't. My personal opinion is that it would be better to push for enforcement of the laws currently in place than to push for new laws that parents won't follow.

Which current laws to protect nannies do you want enforced?

The FLSA would be a good start. All domestic workers should be getting at least minimum wage for all hours worked, and minimum rest time in a 7 day period. ALL workers should be receiving OT after 40 hours. There's absolutely no reason for live-in to be exempted.

Those are not CURRENT laws, troll. Are you confused on purpose?

[Anonymous]

Form a union and your interests will be protected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Form a union and your interests will be protected.

...says the bitter troll poster.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, I'm going to tackle this point by point. For what it's worth, I'm a nanny who only applies for live-in positions, and I advocate for myself. When I interview with a family who advertises a decent rate but the package turns out to be below minimum wage, I report them to Wage and Labor.

1. Many live-in nannies are paid salary, because the lines between working and off duty can blur so easily. According to the regulations, as long as the number of hours is a reasonable approximate, the nanny and family can do that. So, I negotiate for either a. a salary that stays constant every week of the year, with overtime if the family goes over a maximum number of hours ($x for anything up to 50 hours, $y/hour for hours above that) or b. separate salaries for school weeks and non-school weeks (if a child is out of school for 2+ days, it's paid at the non-school rate).

2. Employers must pay for ALL hours unless the nanny is able to sleep 5 consecutive hours during a 24 hour shift. In that case, the parent is required to pay for all hours in the first 24 hour shift, but the later shifts in which she sleeps at least 5 consecutive hours do not have to have the nanny's sleep period paid, up to 8 hours. Personally, I consider this reasonable. If I'm working 24 hour shifts, either the child is young enough that the child wakes and I don't get 5 consecutive hours of sleep, so I'm paid for all hours, or the child is old enough to sttn, so I'm paid hourly for the first overnight per week, plus any night that the child wakes up. Because the reduction only applies for someone working 24 shifts consecutively, it cuts down on employers taking advantage, and I'm well paid.

3. Live-in nannies are not eligible for overtime except in certain states. Sorry, but I understand this. A live-in nanny who was guaranteed overtime might argue that she should keep track of every minute that she helped kids when she stepped into the main area, and that's ridiculous. This is precisely why I negotiate for salary.

4. Room and board can only be deducted from the nanny's salary if they are provided for the nanny's convenience. A 24 hour nanny is there all the time working, so for her it's not a convenience. A parent who leaves for work before 5 am is unlikely to find a live-out nanny who is willing to do it, stay long-term and be reliable, so a live-in nanny is a necessity. A surgeon who is on call nights and weekends needs the nanny to also be on call, and most live-out nannies can't and won't drop everything, nor will they agree to remain in a 5 minute radius of the house. If the family advertises for a normal schedule, and offers live-in as an option but doesn't require it, then the employer can deduct room and board with the nanny's knowledge and consent.

Minimum wage is low in most areas, but most nannies make more. My last position paid $650/week to start, no housekeeping, just care for toddler twins (40 hours per week, live-in). I've also had part-time, other full-time and one 24/7 position. I don't burn out if I can determine how things can be done more efficiently, and I love working with families who need full-time plus up to 24/7. Of course, the most important word is NEED.

It's great that you know your rights, are confident and able to advocate for yourself, and haven't had employers trying to take advantage of you. However surely you understand that you do not represent the majority of nannies, especially live-in?

I'm actually doing research on the laws governing domestic employment and the level of adherence to those laws, and the sad fact is that most nannies aren't even receiving the little bit of protection afforded to them by the law. A national survey found that 67% of live-in employees aren't receiving minimum wage. That's 2 out of 3. 50% of them are working schedules that do not regularly allow for 5 hours of uninterrupted sleep.

There is a lot that needs to be done to better protect the rights of domestic employees, and it doesn't help when the well-off educated ones who have it pretty good discount the reality of so many others.

5 hours of continuous sleep isn't mandated, paying for all hours is if the nanny doesn't have 5 consecutive hours of sleep.

It's impossible to regulate the industry due to the insular nature. I wish it were different, but it isn't. My personal opinion is that it would be better to push for enforcement of the laws currently in place than to push for new laws that parents won't follow.

Which current laws to protect nannies do you want enforced?

The FLSA would be a good start. All domestic workers should be getting at least minimum wage for all hours worked, and minimum rest time in a 7 day period. ALL workers should be receiving OT after 40 hours. There's absolutely no reason for live-in to be exempted.

Those are not CURRENT laws, troll. Are you confused on purpose?

The fair labor standards act IS a current law. Name calling won't change that. The only part that isn't law is OT for live-in after 40 hours. State laws vary on that and it is not federally mandated. I'm saying it should be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, I'm going to tackle this point by point. For what it's worth, I'm a nanny who only applies for live-in positions, and I advocate for myself. When I interview with a family who advertises a decent rate but the package turns out to be below minimum wage, I report them to Wage and Labor.

1. Many live-in nannies are paid salary, because the lines between working and off duty can blur so easily. According to the regulations, as long as the number of hours is a reasonable approximate, the nanny and family can do that. So, I negotiate for either a. a salary that stays constant every week of the year, with overtime if the family goes over a maximum number of hours ($x for anything up to 50 hours, $y/hour for hours above that) or b. separate salaries for school weeks and non-school weeks (if a child is out of school for 2+ days, it's paid at the non-school rate).

2. Employers must pay for ALL hours unless the nanny is able to sleep 5 consecutive hours during a 24 hour shift. In that case, the parent is required to pay for all hours in the first 24 hour shift, but the later shifts in which she sleeps at least 5 consecutive hours do not have to have the nanny's sleep period paid, up to 8 hours. Personally, I consider this reasonable. If I'm working 24 hour shifts, either the child is young enough that the child wakes and I don't get 5 consecutive hours of sleep, so I'm paid for all hours, or the child is old enough to sttn, so I'm paid hourly for the first overnight per week, plus any night that the child wakes up. Because the reduction only applies for someone working 24 shifts consecutively, it cuts down on employers taking advantage, and I'm well paid.

3. Live-in nannies are not eligible for overtime except in certain states. Sorry, but I understand this. A live-in nanny who was guaranteed overtime might argue that she should keep track of every minute that she helped kids when she stepped into the main area, and that's ridiculous. This is precisely why I negotiate for salary.

4. Room and board can only be deducted from the nanny's salary if they are provided for the nanny's convenience. A 24 hour nanny is there all the time working, so for her it's not a convenience. A parent who leaves for work before 5 am is unlikely to find a live-out nanny who is willing to do it, stay long-term and be reliable, so a live-in nanny is a necessity. A surgeon who is on call nights and weekends needs the nanny to also be on call, and most live-out nannies can't and won't drop everything, nor will they agree to remain in a 5 minute radius of the house. If the family advertises for a normal schedule, and offers live-in as an option but doesn't require it, then the employer can deduct room and board with the nanny's knowledge and consent.

Minimum wage is low in most areas, but most nannies make more. My last position paid $650/week to start, no housekeeping, just care for toddler twins (40 hours per week, live-in). I've also had part-time, other full-time and one 24/7 position. I don't burn out if I can determine how things can be done more efficiently, and I love working with families who need full-time plus up to 24/7. Of course, the most important word is NEED.

It's great that you know your rights, are confident and able to advocate for yourself, and haven't had employers trying to take advantage of you. However surely you understand that you do not represent the majority of nannies, especially live-in?

I'm actually doing research on the laws governing domestic employment and the level of adherence to those laws, and the sad fact is that most nannies aren't even receiving the little bit of protection afforded to them by the law. A national survey found that 67% of live-in employees aren't receiving minimum wage. That's 2 out of 3. 50% of them are working schedules that do not regularly allow for 5 hours of uninterrupted sleep.

There is a lot that needs to be done to better protect the rights of domestic employees, and it doesn't help when the well-off educated ones who have it pretty good discount the reality of so many others.

5 hours of continuous sleep isn't mandated, paying for all hours is if the nanny doesn't have 5 consecutive hours of sleep.

It's impossible to regulate the industry due to the insular nature. I wish it were different, but it isn't. My personal opinion is that it would be better to push for enforcement of the laws currently in place than to push for new laws that parents won't follow.

Which current laws to protect nannies do you want enforced?

The FLSA would be a good start. All domestic workers should be getting at least minimum wage for all hours worked, and minimum rest time in a 7 day period. ALL workers should be receiving OT after 40 hours. There's absolutely no reason for live-in to be exempted.

Those are not CURRENT laws, troll. Are you confused on purpose?

The fair labor standards act IS a current law. Name calling won't change that. The only part that isn't law is OT for live-in after 40 hours. State laws vary on that and it is not federally mandated. I'm saying it should be.

Current Fair Labor Laws are not being violated by and large for legal nannies. Which CURRENT law do you believe is most violated?

You're backing down since I called you out, aren't you?

[Anonymous]

^^Look, I already told you what the actual data says. The laws are NOT being followed. But I'm done engaging you because you seem more interested in a fight than anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^Look, I already told you what the actual data says. The laws are NOT being followed. But I'm done engaging you because you seem more interested in a fight than anything.

So funny how you keep mixing up actual current (and mostly obeyed) laws with what you think SHOULD become law.

What "data" are you talking about? No one knows how many illegal domestic workers there are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, I'm going to tackle this point by point. For what it's worth, I'm a nanny who only applies for live-in positions, and I advocate for myself. When I interview with a family who advertises a decent rate but the package turns out to be below minimum wage, I report them to Wage and Labor.

1. Many live-in nannies are paid salary, because the lines between working and off duty can blur so easily. According to the regulations, as long as the number of hours is a reasonable approximate, the nanny and family can do that. So, I negotiate for either a. a salary that stays constant every week of the year, with overtime if the family goes over a maximum number of hours ($x for anything up to 50 hours, $y/hour for hours above that) or b. separate salaries for school weeks and non-school weeks (if a child is out of school for 2+ days, it's paid at the non-school rate).

2. Employers must pay for ALL hours unless the nanny is able to sleep 5 consecutive hours during a 24 hour shift. In that case, the parent is required to pay for all hours in the first 24 hour shift, but the later shifts in which she sleeps at least 5 consecutive hours do not have to have the nanny's sleep period paid, up to 8 hours. Personally, I consider this reasonable. If I'm working 24 hour shifts, either the child is young enough that the child wakes and I don't get 5 consecutive hours of sleep, so I'm paid for all hours, or the child is old enough to sttn, so I'm paid hourly for the first overnight per week, plus any night that the child wakes up. Because the reduction only applies for someone working 24 shifts consecutively, it cuts down on employers taking advantage, and I'm well paid.

3. Live-in nannies are not eligible for overtime except in certain states. Sorry, but I understand this. A live-in nanny who was guaranteed overtime might argue that she should keep track of every minute that she helped kids when she stepped into the main area, and that's ridiculous. This is precisely why I negotiate for salary.

4. Room and board can only be deducted from the nanny's salary if they are provided for the nanny's convenience. A 24 hour nanny is there all the time working, so for her it's not a convenience. A parent who leaves for work before 5 am is unlikely to find a live-out nanny who is willing to do it, stay long-term and be reliable, so a live-in nanny is a necessity. A surgeon who is on call nights and weekends needs the nanny to also be on call, and most live-out nannies can't and won't drop everything, nor will they agree to remain in a 5 minute radius of the house. If the family advertises for a normal schedule, and offers live-in as an option but doesn't require it, then the employer can deduct room and board with the nanny's knowledge and consent.

Minimum wage is low in most areas, but most nannies make more. My last position paid $650/week to start, no housekeeping, just care for toddler twins (40 hours per week, live-in). I've also had part-time, other full-time and one 24/7 position. I don't burn out if I can determine how things can be done more efficiently, and I love working with families who need full-time plus up to 24/7. Of course, the most important word is NEED.

It's great that you know your rights, are confident and able to advocate for yourself, and haven't had employers trying to take advantage of you. However surely you understand that you do not represent the majority of nannies, especially live-in?

I'm actually doing research on the laws governing domestic employment and the level of adherence to those laws, and the sad fact is that most nannies aren't even receiving the little bit of protection afforded to them by the law. A national survey found that 67% of live-in employees aren't receiving minimum wage. That's 2 out of 3. 50% of them are working schedules that do not regularly allow for 5 hours of uninterrupted sleep.

There is a lot that needs to be done to better protect the rights of domestic employees, and it doesn't help when the well-off educated ones who have it pretty good discount the reality of so many others.

5 hours of continuous sleep isn't mandated, paying for all hours is if the nanny doesn't have 5 consecutive hours of sleep.

It's impossible to regulate the industry due to the insular nature. I wish it were different, but it isn't. My personal opinion is that it would be better to push for enforcement of the laws currently in place than to push for new laws that parents won't follow.

No one said 5 hours was mandated. I simply stated that many live in nannies are being worked around the clock, responsible for young children, with very little rest, and not being paid minimum wage for those hours. Is this acceptable to you? Do you think such things would stand if the majority of nannies were not foreign women of color? It's disgusting.

Ok, in between my post (11.32) and this one, those are all other people.

I would prefer to push for enforcement of minimum wage and payment for all hours worked (with the exception for overnights when children sttn), rather than push for overtime or payment for all 24 hours in a shift. To me, the women who are most at need would benefit from those two, NOT the other two. What good would it do them to add more laws when the current ones aren't enforced enough?

Btw, I've worked 24/7 for crap pay, and I'm neither foreign nor "of color." Please don't conflate the issues. Yes, there are plenty of women who are foreign, not Caucasian, and they're desperate for jobs, so they nanny. Although I would love to see the standards for the industry rise, and see the laws enforced, many of those women don't want them enforced. I'm sorry, but you don't get to cherry-pick laws. Either you have all laws apply (including taxes and legal to work) or you are on your own to make the best case you can to a potential or current employer.

[Anonymous]

For 16:23. Do you seriously know of legal nannies who are paid less than minimum wage? Where?

You know that isn't a problem for legal nannies. You just keep trying to derail the discussion of the real problems. Nice try.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok, I'm going to tackle this point by point. For what it's worth, I'm a nanny who only applies for live-in positions, and I advocate for myself. When I interview with a family who advertises a decent rate but the package turns out to be below minimum wage, I report them to Wage and Labor.

1. Many live-in nannies are paid salary, because the lines between working and off duty can blur so easily. According to the regulations, as long as the number of hours is a reasonable approximate, the nanny and family can do that. So, I negotiate for either a. a salary that stays constant every week of the year, with overtime if the family goes over a maximum number of hours ($x for anything up to 50 hours, $y/hour for hours above that) or b. separate salaries for school weeks and non-school weeks (if a child is out of school for 2+ days, it's paid at the non-school rate).

2. Employers must pay for ALL hours unless the nanny is able to sleep 5 consecutive hours during a 24 hour shift. In that case, the parent is required to pay for all hours in the first 24 hour shift, but the later shifts in which she sleeps at least 5 consecutive hours do not have to have the nanny's sleep period paid, up to 8 hours. Personally, I consider this reasonable. If I'm working 24 hour shifts, either the child is young enough that the child wakes and I don't get 5 consecutive hours of sleep, so I'm paid for all hours, or the child is old enough to sttn, so I'm paid hourly for the first overnight per week, plus any night that the child wakes up. Because the reduction only applies for someone working 24 shifts consecutively, it cuts down on employers taking advantage, and I'm well paid.

3. Live-in nannies are not eligible for overtime except in certain states. Sorry, but I understand this. A live-in nanny who was guaranteed overtime might argue that she should keep track of every minute that she helped kids when she stepped into the main area, and that's ridiculous. This is precisely why I negotiate for salary.

4. Room and board can only be deducted from the nanny's salary if they are provided for the nanny's convenience. A 24 hour nanny is there all the time working, so for her it's not a convenience. A parent who leaves for work before 5 am is unlikely to find a live-out nanny who is willing to do it, stay long-term and be reliable, so a live-in nanny is a necessity. A surgeon who is on call nights and weekends needs the nanny to also be on call, and most live-out nannies can't and won't drop everything, nor will they agree to remain in a 5 minute radius of the house. If the family advertises for a normal schedule, and offers live-in as an option but doesn't require it, then the employer can deduct room and board with the nanny's knowledge and consent.

Minimum wage is low in most areas, but most nannies make more. My last position paid $650/week to start, no housekeeping, just care for toddler twins (40 hours per week, live-in). I've also had part-time, other full-time and one 24/7 position. I don't burn out if I can determine how things can be done more efficiently, and I love working with families who need full-time plus up to 24/7. Of course, the most important word is NEED.

It's great that you know your rights, are confident and able to advocate for yourself, and haven't had employers trying to take advantage of you. However surely you understand that you do not represent the majority of nannies, especially live-in?

I'm actually doing research on the laws governing domestic employment and the level of adherence to those laws, and the sad fact is that most nannies aren't even receiving the little bit of protection afforded to them by the law. A national survey found that 67% of live-in employees aren't receiving minimum wage. That's 2 out of 3. 50% of them are working schedules that do not regularly allow for 5 hours of uninterrupted sleep.

There is a lot that needs to be done to better protect the rights of domestic employees, and it doesn't help when the well-off educated ones who have it pretty good discount the reality of so many others.

5 hours of continuous sleep isn't mandated, paying for all hours is if the nanny doesn't have 5 consecutive hours of sleep.

It's impossible to regulate the industry due to the insular nature. I wish it were different, but it isn't. My personal opinion is that it would be better to push for enforcement of the laws currently in place than to push for new laws that parents won't follow.

You sound exactly like a nanny agency owner who would fight any regulation tooth and nail. The more often your clients fail with the nannies you send them, the more often they need a new match. And voila, you get another windfall in your lap. The current lack of regulation is working out perfectly well for INA nanny agency owners. They'll fight any regulation whatsoever.