Reply to Is It Legal to Pay 1/2 Rate Overnight Instead of OT?

Forum Index » Employer Issues

Reply to "Is It Legal to Pay 1/2 Rate Overnight Instead of OT?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]If you think your nanny isn't on duty and working while she and your children are asleep. And you don't intend to pay her for those hours. She should get to go home for those 8hrs, and leave your young children all alone in the house during the night.[/quote]

This. It may be "legal", for what reasons, idk, but if your nanny is stupid enough to agree to not being paid while expected to be at work (ie. notin her own bed, not able to do as she please, and still responsible for your kid) then she is an idiot and I'd wonder why you would hire an idiot to care for your child. [/quote]

I don't think most employers or nannies really would look at it as "I am not being paid for the sleeping hours."  Both sides look at the entire amount being paid for the week and decide whether it's worth it to them (in the employer's case - can I pay this and is it worth not keeping my child with me for that week?; in the nanny's case - is this amount worth giving up a week straight of my time?).

As an example, if a nanny's rate was $15/hour - the parents could offer a minimum of $2,220 for a 7-day week of full-time childcare.  That's because each "day" counts as 16 hours, so 112 hours of work for the week, with 72 hours of that being overtime.  Obviously, assuming the kids are actually sleeping for at least 8 hours a night.

If parents weren't able to deduct sleeping hours, then the minimum legally allowed for a rate of $15/hour would be $3,480 for the week.

I imagine most nanny's wouldn't turn down an occasional offer of over $2,000 for a week of care even if they technically aren't being paid for the nights.  [/quote]
I imagine you could find someone out there to do it for $200. Why pay $2000 when you can pay $200? What a bargain. Lol.[/quote]

What a bizarre statement.  As if $2,220 is anywhere close to $200.  Seriously you think an employer would have a ton of trouble finding a competent nanny to watch their kid for a week for $2,220?  You think that's a paltry amount?  Anyway, we're talking about very few people who could actually afford that sum in addition to whatever they were actually doing that week and who would even want to leave their child for a full week.  So I really don't understand the outrage on this - there is very little demand for this kind of service.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics