Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've done extensive research on this and there doesn't seem to be a clear answer. Even the big nanny tax companies disagree on this.

Would be interesting to see if anyone ever takes a case to court what the ruling would be.

How dumb can you be.

The families are getting together to split the cost, the nanny is earning $18 an hour. I mean it really takes a certain kind of dumb to think she isn't getting minimum wage.

If I rent a room in a house and me and all the roommates get together to hire someone to mow the law for $20, we each pay $5 would we be breaking the law? Come on grow a brain.

OK, smart one, I bow to you.

The issue is that some people argue that each family has to pay minimum wage because they are individual employers. They give the nanny separate checks and separate W-2's at the end of the year, thus making them separate employer. Others argue that the "joint employer" law applies to nanny shares.

As I said, it's a grey area. Call up the three biggest Nanny Tax Companies. The people who do this for a living. 1 of them will tell you that it's fine for each family to not pay minimum wage. The other 2 will tell you that each family has to pay minimum wage.

I don't need to call a "nanny tax company" (ps that phrase carries no weight for me, you act like they are the IRS) because I have common sense. I already described to you another situation which is exactly like this that has been going on for years and is obviously again common sense. The hourly wage earned by the nanny needs to be above minimum wage, that is it. She is working two jobs simultaneously, you are splitting her cost. You are not employing a nanny for below minimum wage while the other family is simultaneously doing the same, she is taking two children into her care for $18 an hour, the nanny doesn't care if one family pays it or both. If it's such a confusing grey area for you then why don't you just have one family pay her (one employer) and the other family can just reimburse the first family for adding their child to the nannies list of duties, SIMPLE

You think you know it all.

It's not a confusing grey area for me dumb shit, as I'm not in a nanny share. We contemplated one before and did extensive research, but have my own nanny thank you very much. Newsflash- There are people in this world who can't chance doing something illegally because of our jobs, we are that family. Having one family pay is also illegal you dumbass. If a family wants a nanny and wants to be legal, they have to be an employer with an Employee ID #, pay taxes, etc..

The nanny tax companies are experts in household employment law. Regular accountants and attorneys give out incorrect information and answers to everyday household employment questions all the time because they are not familiar. Example- "oh just give her a 1099, that's what everyone does.

I'd love one of these nannies to take some of you assholes to court and test the joint employment law. Just the hassle and expense for some of you asshole employees would be worth it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've done extensive research on this and there doesn't seem to be a clear answer. Even the big nanny tax companies disagree on this.

Would be interesting to see if anyone ever takes a case to court what the ruling would be.

How dumb can you be.

The families are getting together to split the cost, the nanny is earning $18 an hour. I mean it really takes a certain kind of dumb to think she isn't getting minimum wage.

If I rent a room in a house and me and all the roommates get together to hire someone to mow the law for $20, we each pay $5 would we be breaking the law? Come on grow a brain.

OK, smart one, I bow to you.

The issue is that some people argue that each family has to pay minimum wage because they are individual employers. They give the nanny separate checks and separate W-2's at the end of the year, thus making them separate employer. Others argue that the "joint employer" law applies to nanny shares.

As I said, it's a grey area. Call up the three biggest Nanny Tax Companies. The people who do this for a living. 1 of them will tell you that it's fine for each family to not pay minimum wage. The other 2 will tell you that each family has to pay minimum wage.

I don't need to call a "nanny tax company" (ps that phrase carries no weight for me, you act like they are the IRS) because I have common sense. I already described to you another situation which is exactly like this that has been going on for years and is obviously again common sense. The hourly wage earned by the nanny needs to be above minimum wage, that is it. She is working two jobs simultaneously, you are splitting her cost. You are not employing a nanny for below minimum wage while the other family is simultaneously doing the same, she is taking two children into her care for $18 an hour, the nanny doesn't care if one family pays it or both. If it's such a confusing grey area for you then why don't you just have one family pay her (one employer) and the other family can just reimburse the first family for adding their child to the nannies list of duties, SIMPLE

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've done extensive research on this and there doesn't seem to be a clear answer. Even the big nanny tax companies disagree on this.

Would be interesting to see if anyone ever takes a case to court what the ruling would be.

How dumb can you be.

The families are getting together to split the cost, the nanny is earning $18 an hour. I mean it really takes a certain kind of dumb to think she isn't getting minimum wage.

If I rent a room in a house and me and all the roommates get together to hire someone to mow the law for $20, we each pay $5 would we be breaking the law? Come on grow a brain.

OK, smart one, I bow to you.

The issue is that some people argue that each family has to pay minimum wage because they are individual employers. They give the nanny separate checks and separate W-2's at the end of the year, thus making them separate employer. Others argue that the "joint employer" law applies to nanny shares.

As I said, it's a grey area. Call up the three biggest Nanny Tax Companies. The people who do this for a living. 1 of them will tell you that it's fine for each family to not pay minimum wage. The other 2 will tell you that each family has to pay minimum wage.

Anonymous wrote:OP, the easy workaround if you're concerned is to have one family pay the nanny and then split the costs between the families separately. Then you're 100% covered.

This is a great idea. Then we only need to pay her $9.50 an hour plus we can split that in half!

OP, the easy workaround if you're concerned is to have one family pay the nanny and then split the costs between the families separately. Then you're 100% covered.

Anonymous wrote:I've done extensive research on this and there doesn't seem to be a clear answer. Even the big nanny tax companies disagree on this.

Would be interesting to see if anyone ever takes a case to court what the ruling would be.

How dumb can you be.

The families are getting together to split the cost, the nanny is earning $18 an hour. I mean it really takes a certain kind of dumb to think she isn't getting minimum wage.

If I rent a room in a house and me and all the roommates get together to hire someone to mow the law for $20, we each pay $5 would we be breaking the law? Come on grow a brain.

I've done extensive research on this and there doesn't seem to be a clear answer. Even the big nanny tax companies disagree on this.

Would be interesting to see if anyone ever takes a case to court what the ruling would be.

It's the combined pay that counts. We are in another region with a higher minimum but same situation--just below it when you divide by two. We just make a note on the paystub that this is for a share, and we are each registered with our state as employers so that it's clear that our nanny is not actually getting paid below minimum wage. That said, if you're that close you could also just consider raising it, or doing so at the next anniversary.

If I had a nanny I liked and wanted to keep, 50 cents an hour, $20.00/week would be well worth giving up Starbucks every day. Then again, I am a nice person who views a nanny as a human being, not a work horse.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So DC's minimum wage is now 9.50 per hour as of July first of this year, makes me WONDER!!!! since I share my nanny with another family, do we need to raise her rate to 9.50/hr, (we currently pay $9/hr each)
would it be illegal if we don't? Or is it the money from both families that count?????
help pleasee

I'd give her the 50 cents raise. Why not?

Cause people don't just deserve free money because "why not"

Perhaps you'd like a better return, on a better investment. Perhaps not.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So DC's minimum wage is now 9.50 per hour as of July first of this year, makes me WONDER!!!! since I share my nanny with another family, do we need to raise her rate to 9.50/hr, (we currently pay $9/hr each)
would it be illegal if we don't? Or is it the money from both families that count?????
help pleasee

I'd give her the 50 cents raise. Why not?

Cause people don't just deserve free money because "why not"

Anonymous wrote:So DC's minimum wage is now 9.50 per hour as of July first of this year, makes me WONDER!!!! since I share my nanny with another family, do we need to raise her rate to 9.50/hr, (we currently pay $9/hr each)
would it be illegal if we don't? Or is it the money from both families that count?????
help pleasee

I'd give her the 50 cents raise. Why not?

Pp here. I didn't put my last point well. Nanny is owed OT if she works 40+ hours total during the week. Even if she doesn't work over 40 hours for either family individually.

No. The employers in a share are legally considered joint employers. It's the total wage that must meet the minimum.

I know you didn't specifically ask, the other implications of this law is that both employers are equally responsible that the nanny receive her entire wage. Also, the nanny's hours worked for either family count towards overtime, not just working over 40 for either.

So DC's minimum wage is now 9.50 per hour as of July first of this year, makes me WONDER!!!! since I share my nanny with another family, do we need to raise her rate to 9.50/hr, (we currently pay $9/hr each)
would it be illegal if we don't? Or is it the money from both families that count?????
help pleasee