I know it's a law, but why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Actually, I do. I'm originally from a very poor, rural area. The county is 95% Caucasian, and most of them were born and raised within county lines. Sometimes they work across county lines, but most don't. Babysitters in that area make $5-minimum wage per hour. Nannies work longer hours, and are paid less than minimum wage to maybe $10/hour.

My point is that there are nannies who would actually benefit from the laws being enforced, and the nannies are following the laws. My personal opinion is that if you can't be bothered to follow the laws, then no, I don't particularly care if others are enforced to benefit you, but that's me. You are welcome to your opinion, of course.

[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.

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.

Come on! I'm 11.32 and 16.23. I've been a nanny for several years, but only part of them have been in the DC area. As I just said (21.46), I believe that nannies should follow the laws and parents should have the laws enforced. I don't see a point in passing another law that parents will ignore, when the money and time advertising/lobbying would be put to better use educating parents about the responsibilities they gain when they hire an employee and enforcing the laws that are supposed to protect nannies.

[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.

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.

Come on! I'm 11.32 and 16.23. I've been a nanny for several years, but only part of them have been in the DC area. As I just said (21.46), I believe that nannies should follow the laws and parents should have the laws enforced. I don't see a point in passing another law that parents will ignore, when the money and time advertising/lobbying would be put to better use educating parents about the responsibilities they gain when they hire an employee and enforcing the laws that are supposed to protect nannies.

Which laws are you referring to? Which laws should parents have enforced? You seem very confused.

[Anonymous]

I imagine the higher cap on hours before OT rules kick in takes commuting time into account. If you're live in, you have no commute.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I imagine the higher cap on hours before OT rules kick in takes commuting time into account. If you're live in, you have no commute.

So then start OT an hour or two after live-outs. Why should they be exempted entirely?

[Anonymous]

No, labor laws do not consider commute time. Don't be silly and stay on topic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Government Affairs Committee shares information only, absolutely NO lobbying activity takes place. Individual members are welcome to lobby for their own point of view.

http://nanny.org/governmental-affairs

Interesting. Would the INA controlling nanny agencies allow INA nannies to lobby on behalf of INA, assuming of course that they had majority support of INA nannies?

Why do you say that "individual members are welcome to lobby for their own point of view", if the INA website says, "INA must be a proactive association"?

What does Government Affairs office of The International Nanny Association lobby for?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why do live-in nannies not get overtime pay for working over 40 hours? I know some states they do, but only after 44hrs. When you are a live-in your pay is usually less any way because they factor room and board into salary. Why does the government penalize live-in's even more?

A bit of a tangent, but I noticed that Montgomery County, MD employers of live-in nannies are required BY LAW to provide the nanny the ability to LOCK her personal living quarters.

Did you all know that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do live-in nannies not get overtime pay for working over 40 hours? I know some states they do, but only after 44hrs. When you are a live-in your pay is usually less any way because they factor room and board into salary. Why does the government penalize live-in's even more?

A bit of a tangent, but I noticed that Montgomery County, MD employers of live-in nannies are required BY LAW to provide the nanny the ability to LOCK her personal living quarters.

Did you all know that?

No, I wasn't aware, but I wouldn't consider a position for which I couldn't lock at least the bedroom and bathroom doors...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is everyone's problem with INA???

Several concerns with the ina have been raised on this, and the other thread. We want these issues addressed. There are a number of current and former ina members who prefer not to be blacklisted by the ina agency leadership, by requesting answers to their questions and concerns. These issues have been festering for years and years, and need to finally be addressed. Ignoring the problems will only make them get even bigger.

The above post is three years old. INA still won't take any stand in support of its nanny members, unless it first and foremost benefits the agencies. They are completely bogus calling themselves a nanny association. They are not a nanny association. They're an agency association that allows nannies to join. They're controlled by business owners and lawyers making a killing over the backs of hard working nannies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why do live-in nannies not get overtime pay for working over 40 hours? I know some states they do, but only after 44hrs. When you are a live-in your pay is usually less any way because they factor room and board into salary. Why does the government penalize live-in's even more?

Because when this was in formal discussion, the legislative committee (Kathleen Webb? and other business owners) of the International Nanny Association (INA) were silent. Someone please tell us how they get away with that. They not only do NOTHING to help nannies, they PRETEND to be a voice FOR nannies. They are a FRAUD, from what we can see.

INA figures the less parents need to pay the nanny, the more money there is for the nanny agencies (and the other ruthless businesses who take advantage of overwhelmed parents) to charge astronomical fees.

[Anonymous]

Is Kathy Webb still heading this group? What's she doing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Government Affairs Committee shares information only, absolutely NO lobbying activity takes place. Individual members are welcome to lobby for their own point of view.

http://nanny.org/governmental-affairs

Interesting. Would the INA controlling nanny agencies allow INA nannies to lobby on behalf of INA, assuming of course that they had majority support of INA nannies?

Why do you say that "individual members are welcome to lobby for their own point of view", if the INA website says, "INA must be a proactive association"?

Ina refuses to respond.

[Anonymous]

Ina is not proactive, except to promote disgraceful nanny agencies.

Nannies are reporting getting placed with families who refuse to pay legally required taxes. Yet agencies continue to represent these families as long as they keep paying the exorbitant agency fees.

This egregious behavior has got to stop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ina is not proactive, except to promote disgraceful nanny agencies.

Nannies are reporting getting placed with families who refuse to pay legally required taxes. Yet agencies continue to represent these families as long as they keep paying the exorbitant agency fees.

This egregious behavior has got to stop.

Bad agency members from INA and APNA can do whatever they want. Zero consequences.