Just because this law is being passed doesn't mean all employers will actually comply. Many nannies are paid off the books anyway, so why would they bother following an overtime law.

I am paid legally and already require all the families I work for to pay me overtime for any hours over 8 hours per day, or 40 hours a week. For the first few years I was a nanny I let families take advantage of me but I wised up and now only work for families who are willing to give me the benefits I would receive at any other job. Like overtime, paid sick days, paid vacation and guaranteed hours. The only thing I don't get is breaks, but that's just the nature of the job.

http://www.4nannytaxes.com/index.cfm/resources/news-and-updates/flsa-overtime-rules/

Apparently CA already had an OT pay differential of some kind for LI caregivers.

The right to OT is not new and exciting, unless CA has extended that right to live-in nannies/caregivers.

Way back in the day, the Fair Labor Standards Act guaranteed OT to household workers, I believe.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The increase is not permanent. It will expire in 2017 if not renewed.

You're talking about the minimum wage law, completely separate from the domestic workers bill of rights.

I meant the right to overtime, see the following quote from the article: "The new rights for nannies and personal attendants go into effect on January 1. But they are not permanent. Under a sunset clause, the protections would end in 2017 if they are not extended by the Legislature."

Anonymous wrote:The increase is not permanent. It will expire in 2017 if not renewed.

You're talking about the minimum wage law, completely separate from the domestic workers bill of rights.

The increase is not permanent. It will expire in 2017 if not renewed.

Anonymous wrote:Excellent information for us ALL.

Notice how nanny agencies collectively fight AGAINST legalized nanny rights. Why are they doing this????

Nannies deserve the same basic rights that most other Americans already have.

Unfortunately, this means that the families paying under the table will have even a greater incentive to continue.

The argument that I've seen made, is that it creates an "unreasonable" burden on low income people who need full time care (elderly, low income single parents etc.). What I don't get is, why those people are somehow entitled to in-home personal care while the people who provide said care are not entitled to basic protections under the law and to make enough money to feed house and clothe themselves.

Excellent information for us ALL.

Notice how nanny agencies collectively fight AGAINST legalized nanny rights. Why are they doing this????

Nannies deserve the same basic rights that most other Americans already have.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE98Q00820130927?irpc=932