I don't think so...I think the law is just stating that the said nanny need to make AT LEAST the minimum wage per hour.

11:47 again. I've pasted the exact wording from the law below. There's tons of commentary you can get by google. What gets confusing is that the normal pattern of business abuse is to try to classify an employee as /not/ being jointly employed. In order to avoid overtime and benefits otherwise owed.

However, the upshot is that in order to be in an employment relationship with two different entities and not be jointly employed, the two entities must be completely disassociated.

So, basically, a nanny in a share - jointly employed. A nanny who works part time for two different employers in two different locations at different times - not jointly employed. In the latter case, you'd never expect the employers to coordinate vacation time or to get OT if the total hours exceed 40. In a share, of course, you would.

A single individual may stand in the relation of an employee to two or more employers at the same time under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, since there is nothing in the act which prevents an individual employed by one employer from also entering into an employment relationship with a different employer. A determination of whether the employment by the employers is to be considered joint employment or separate and distinct employment for purposes of the act depends upon all the facts in the particular case. If all the relevant facts establish that two or more employers are acting entirely independently of each other and are completely disassociated with respect to the employment of a particular employee, who during the same workweek performs work for more than one employer, each employer may disregard all work performed by the employee for the other employer (or employers) in determining his own responsibilities under the Act. 4 On the other hand, if the facts establish that the employee is employed jointly by two or more employers, i.e., that employment by one employer is not completely disassociated from employment by the other employer(s), all of the employee's work for all of the joint employers during the workweek is considered as one employment for purposes of the Act. In this event, all joint employers are responsible, both individually and jointly, for compliance with all of the applicable provisions of the act, including the overtime provisions, with respect to the entire employment for the particular workweek. 5 In discharging the joint obligation each employer may, of course, take credit toward minimum wage and overtime requirements for all payments made to the employee by the other joint employer or employers

Anonymous wrote:No. There's an employment law concept call joint employment which pretty clearly applies to a nanny share. The nanny's total salary has to be greater than minimum wage, not each parent's half.

If nanny share arrangements weren't joint employment situations, parents could schedule vacations separately, only pay overtime on half the salary, create different schedules, basically it would make no sense.

Would love to see this. Could you please share a link? Thank you.

^^ this. As long as the nanny is making more than minimum wage, the individual families dont each have to pay that much. Its the nanny's total wage, not the family's portion.

No. There's an employment law concept call joint employment which pretty clearly applies to a nanny share. The nanny's total salary has to be greater than minimum wage, not each parent's half.

If nanny share arrangements weren't joint employment situations, parents could schedule vacations separately, only pay overtime on half the salary, create different schedules, basically it would make no sense.

I would think yes, but others may argue that.
So who to call??

Curious since minimum wage went up to 10.50 today if you were to do a nanny share would that mean that each family would have to pay 10.50 an hour each making it a salary of 21$ an hour?