Minimum wage rising and nannies wages

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP once again. The joint employer laws are actually meant to protect employees from their jobs being split between two connected employers and resulting loss of overtime. It also means that both employers are equally responsible to the nanny for her entire paycheck.

Except it never happens that way in real life. Something needs to be done about this law in respect to nanny shares. It clearly isn't going to protect us from anything, and will just allow cheap people to pay less than minimum wage.

I agree that some employers choose to follow the part of that law that suits them and ignore the other part. The same goes for those employers who pay under the table. That doesn't mean there is something wrong with the law though, just how well it's enforced. It's up to both nannies and employers to make sure they are following the law. If an employer isn't, then quit or report them or whatever you want to do but you can't argue that the law should change so that a nanny share should be treated as 2 separate jobs for minimum wage purposes but not OT etc. As several people have pointed out, the point of the law is to protect the nanny in a share. So make sure you have employers who follow the law.

I understand what you're saying, and appreciate you not being a jerk like the above poster. It just seems wrong and illogical to me that a nanny share is treated as two jobs in all other respects except for this oh so convenient expection.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Something needs to be done about this law in respect to nanny shares. It clearly isn't going to protect us from anything, and will just allow cheap people to pay less than minimum wage.

You certainly are a dumb bozo. You clearly don't understand minimum wage laws. It is designed to ensure that an employee makes a minimum amount for "a" job performed. It is not there to designate which jobs pay more. There is no reason from an employment law perspective for a nanny to make more in a share than in a single family job. If the laws did try to designate which jobs get more above minimum wage then daycare workers should be paid twice as much as nannies. They have a much harder job, don't get the opportunity for all that "me" time during naps, and don't get chances to run their own errands.

You chose an easy job that requires no skills or no education. This is your fault and no law should give you a windfall double salary that you don't deserve.

If you believe in your argument so wholeheartedly, you should be able to make a sound argument without insulting me. The fact that you can't says more than I ever could.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP once again. The joint employer laws are actually meant to protect employees from their jobs being split between two connected employers and resulting loss of overtime. It also means that both employers are equally responsible to the nanny for her entire paycheck.

Except it never happens that way in real life. Something needs to be done about this law in respect to nanny shares. It clearly isn't going to protect us from anything, and will just allow cheap people to pay less than minimum wage.

I agree that some employers choose to follow the part of that law that suits them and ignore the other part. The same goes for those employers who pay under the table. That doesn't mean there is something wrong with the law though, just how well it's enforced. It's up to both nannies and employers to make sure they are following the law. If an employer isn't, then quit or report them or whatever you want to do but you can't argue that the law should change so that a nanny share should be treated as 2 separate jobs for minimum wage purposes but not OT etc. As several people have pointed out, the point of the law is to protect the nanny in a share. So make sure you have employers who follow the law.

I understand what you're saying, and appreciate you not being a jerk like the above poster. It just seems wrong and illogical to me that a nanny share is treated as two jobs in all other respects except for this oh so convenient expection.

That makes sense but in what other ways is it really treated as 2 completely separate jobs. My understanding of the law is that it basically links them together so while there are still 2 employers everything is tied together. Isn't that pretty much how it works in all aspects of a share? I'm genuinely asking, not trying to be snarky.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It all depends on what you mean by "nanny", a HS graduate trying to "find" herself, or a 25 year veteran with amazing skills. Obviously, the 19 year old is more likely to accept minimum wage, whereas the accomplished professional earns at least double, or even triple that.

Be careful what generalizations you make. I had a 30 yr vet nanny who was terrible. Our current 19 yo nanny is amazing. No problems out of her at all. She is professional, friendly and fun. My DH and I love her and are glad to pay what we pay.

Did the 19 year old properly obey your orders?

[Anonymous]

... in what other ways is it really treated as 2 completely separate jobs. My understanding of the law is that it basically links them together so while there are still 2 employers everything is tied together. Isn't that pretty much how it works in all aspects of a share? I'm genuinely asking, not trying to be snarky.

I'm confused too about how the nanny sees a share as being two separate jobs in every other way.

You commute to one location each day. The work all occurs within the same hours. If you call in sick for a day, you get charged 8 hours of PTO not 16 hours. Don't see any logic in anyone thinking that it is two jobs.

I can see a young nanny thinking it should be just because she would love to get $23 an hour rather than $15-$20. However, this isn't logic its desire and rationalization without any logic.

[Anonymous]

No nanny does a share for 15/hr, unless she's "illegal" and can't get any other employment. That's a starting rate for a novice nanny working with only one family.

[Anonymous]

"You clearly don't understand minimum wage laws. It is designed to ensure that an employee makes a minimum amount for "a" job performed. It is not there to designate which jobs pay more. There is no reason from an employment law perspective for a nanny to make more in a share than in a single family job. "

+1
A nannyshare job - if you work for families that share the same or virtually the same set of hours at least and jointly track PTO - is indeed 1 job. This is not screwing a nanny out of anything. And I can tell you for sure that if i had to solo pay the new min wage rate myself I would be in daycare because that is way beyond my childcare budget.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP once again. The joint employer laws are actually meant to protect employees from their jobs being split between two connected employers and resulting loss of overtime. It also means that both employers are equally responsible to the nanny for her entire paycheck.

Except it never happens that way in real life. Something needs to be done about this law in respect to nanny shares. It clearly isn't going to protect us from anything, and will just allow cheap people to pay less than minimum wage.

I agree that some employers choose to follow the part of that law that suits them and ignore the other part. The same goes for those employers who pay under the table. That doesn't mean there is something wrong with the law though, just how well it's enforced. It's up to both nannies and employers to make sure they are following the law. If an employer isn't, then quit or report them or whatever you want to do but you can't argue that the law should change so that a nanny share should be treated as 2 separate jobs for minimum wage purposes but not OT etc. As several people have pointed out, the point of the law is to protect the nanny in a share. So make sure you have employers who follow the law.

I understand what you're saying, and appreciate you not being a jerk like the above poster. It just seems wrong and illogical to me that a nanny share is treated as two jobs in all other respects except for this oh so convenient expection.

That makes sense but in what other ways is it really treated as 2 completely separate jobs. My understanding of the law is that it basically links them together so while there are still 2 employers everything is tied together. Isn't that pretty much how it works in all aspects of a share? I'm genuinely asking, not trying to be snarky.

I think that is the big issue, and I suppose it can differ from share to share. In my experience, aside from splitting the hourly rate and sharing the same general space, my share families have little to do with each other on a daily basis. I filled out two seperate w4s, and recieve two seperate w2s for tax purposes, in which I have to file as someone that has 2 jobs, each at an hourly rate of $10.00. I recieve two paychecks (and wouldn't dream of holding the other family responsible for a missed or late check), set the schedule with each family (which are not always identical), discuss any issues, changing needs of their family and child, plan and shop for meals, etc. all independently of the other family. I also recieve two separate evaluations, and 2 annual bonuses, which have not always been the same. I also perform different duties for each family, depending on who is hosting (one family pays me extra to cook dinner during their host week). The only thing my employers do jointly was to hire me, and approve my vacation time (which is entirely mine to use as I please).

It truly is like having two jobs simultaneously, each with their own expectations, tasks, hours, and pay. Its more work for me, trying to juggle everyone's needs and desires, different schedules, and tasks, but I really do my best to give them as close to a normal nanny experience as they would if they weren't sharing. As far as I can see, in experience and by law, a share is otherwise two jobs. I maintain that it is illogical that it would suddenly be treated as one for the purpose of minimum wage.

[Anonymous]

Not really PP. You are basically doing the same job watching two kids at the same time in the same location. The things that you list are about how your employers pay you and file taxes. Its not a compelling argument that you should get double because you need to speak to two employers. Just doesn't hold water but good try.

If the schedules are different when you are watching one child then you do deserve at least minimum wage for watching that one child but not double minimum wage when you watch 2 kids. Its one job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I think that is the big issue, and I suppose it can differ from share to share. In my experience, aside from splitting the hourly rate and sharing the same general space, my share families have little to do with each other on a daily basis. I filled out two seperate w4s, and recieve two seperate w2s for tax purposes, in which I have to file as someone that has 2 jobs, each at an hourly rate of $10.00. I recieve two paychecks (and wouldn't dream of holding the other family responsible for a missed or late check), set the schedule with each family (which are not always identical), discuss any issues, changing needs of their family and child, plan and shop for meals, etc. all independently of the other family. I also recieve two separate evaluations, and 2 annual bonuses, which have not always been the same. I also perform different duties for each family, depending on who is hosting (one family pays me extra to cook dinner during their host week). The only thing my employers do jointly was to hire me, and approve my vacation time (which is entirely mine to use as I please).

It truly is like having two jobs simultaneously, each with their own expectations, tasks, hours, and pay. Its more work for me, trying to juggle everyone's needs and desires, different schedules, and tasks, but I really do my best to give them as close to a normal nanny experience as they would if they weren't sharing. As far as I can see, in experience and by law, a share is otherwise two jobs. I maintain that it is illogical that it would suddenly be treated as one for the purpose of minimum wage.

I agree that in many ways it is somewhat like having 2 jobs and clearly it is much more work than nannying for a single family but I don't think it's really double the work. Most people on DCUM seem to agree that a nanny in a share should make significantly more than the same nanny would for 1 of the families but not double. The law also doesn't really say it counts as 1 job, just that they are linked and what happens with 1 family is affected by the other.

Moreover, when it comes to minimum wage I don't really see how for most people that is relevant. The point of minimum wage is to establish a standard "minimum" that someone could subsist on. I know I don't speak for all employers but I don't consider a nanny position anything close to a minimum wage position and thus pay our nanny WELL over minimum wage. It would never occur to me to take minimum wage into account when agreeing to a rate with her because she deserves much more than that. When I interviewed nannies I chose the one I liked the most, asked her how much she was looking for and since it fit into our budget and it seemed fair I agreed to it. She gets a yearly raise of course but if minimum wage increases it's not going to change what I pay her since even with the increase she still makes significantly more than that.

In terms of a nanny share, as I previously stated, the minimum wage law was established to ensure that even the lowest paid people still make enough to subsist on. It has nothing to do with what should be a fair salary for any given position. The consensus on DCUM seems to be a fair rate for a share is somewhere between $18-$22/hr. I know some people pay less and some more but I'm just using an average here as an example. If minimum wage goes up to $11.50 and a nanny in a share has to be paid at least double minimum wage then the lowest possible share rate is $23/hr. Obviously it's not that much more than the current average but why should the nanny's salary go up solely because it's been decided that the current minimum wage isn't enough to live on when the nanny is already making much more than that?

Granted, I know that there are crappy families out there who think they can pay a nanny minimum wage but then they most likely get what they pay for (a crappy nanny). For those of us that try to treat our nannies fairly I don't think minimum wage has any relevance to what we pay them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not really PP. You are basically doing the same job watching two kids at the same time in the same location. The things that you list are about how your employers pay you and file taxes. Its not a compelling argument that you should get double because you need to speak to two employers. Just doesn't hold water but good try.

If the schedules are different when you are watching one child then you do deserve at least minimum wage for watching that one child but not double minimum wage when you watch 2 kids. Its one job.

Sure. Just ask any nursery school teacher. You know you're being completely ridiculous here. Haven't you seen all the parenting threads from moms who don't know how they'll be able to cope when #2 comes along? And then the endless issues when #2 has arrived. It's not exactly a piece of cake, even for some parents.

I know some nannies who leave if there's #2 coming. They say if they are paid the same for one child as for two, why should they double their workload? The token extra dollar an hour is of no interest to them.

Minimum wage from each family in a share, is really a bargain if you're lucky enough to find a good nanny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not really PP. You are basically doing the same job watching two kids at the same time in the same location. The things that you list are about how your employers pay you and file taxes. Its not a compelling argument that you should get double because you need to speak to two employers. Just doesn't hold water but good try.

If the schedules are different when you are watching one child then you do deserve at least minimum wage for watching that one child but not double minimum wage when you watch 2 kids. Its one job.

Sure. Just ask any nursery school teacher. You know you're being completely ridiculous here. Haven't you seen all the parenting threads from moms who don't know how they'll be able to cope when #2 comes along? And then the endless issues when #2 has arrived. It's not exactly a piece of cake, even for some parents.

I know some nannies who leave if there's #2 coming. They say if they are paid the same for one child as for two, why should they double their workload? The token extra dollar an hour is of no interest to them.

Minimum wage from each family in a share, is really a bargain if you're lucky enough to find a good nanny.

So you think a nursery school teacher gets paid per child? They get a salary that is the same regardless of how many children there are in their class.

I do agree that a nanny should be paid more than $1 increase when a family has more children but it is most definitely NOT double the work and they shouldn't receive double the pay. I have 3 children (3 and under) and have been on my own with them on maternity leave for 6 months now. While there is a little more work with each child it isn't anywhere close to double the work so I would never hire a nanny who thinks it is. It would make me think that the nanny isn't competent enough to handle more than 1 child.

[Anonymous]

There are some very competent nannies, but most of them charge accordingly. Few parents want to pay for their expertise. Even fewer parents can afford to.

[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

That's incorrect, only total rate counts. We had a tax person look into this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

That's incorrect, only total rate counts. We had a tax person look into this.

Which "tax person" told you that?