Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP again. Now it's official that childcare is only allowed in CA for essential employees. Neither of us qualifies. We've offered nanny a lump sum that in addition to unemployment will last six months. If this crisis ends early the unused prorated amount will go towards future services. All on the books.

If I’m understanding this correctly, you’ve given the nanny no reason to return to work for you.

That's not fair. PP said they offered nanny a lump sum even though she cannot go to work. They're doing something as opposed to nothing. That's the very reason a nanny would come back when s/he could. People are doing what they can do which is different for everyone.

No, this doesn’t make sense. Yes, a lump sum allows the nanny to collect unemployment (at half her salary) but OP is demanding she work it off when rehired. It’s not in the nanny’s best interest to return. OP is gaming the system and she’ll lose.

OP is going to hurt herself as if nanny is smart she'll look for another job when this is over. Why go back to employers who can pay, but let her go without thinking of her needs as this can happen again. Its not stable employment for her.

We're all going to lose something here. All of us.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP again. Now it's official that childcare is only allowed in CA for essential employees. Neither of us qualifies. We've offered nanny a lump sum that in addition to unemployment will last six months. If this crisis ends early the unused prorated amount will go towards future services. All on the books.

If I’m understanding this correctly, you’ve given the nanny no reason to return to work for you.

That's not fair. PP said they offered nanny a lump sum even though she cannot go to work. They're doing something as opposed to nothing. That's the very reason a nanny would come back when s/he could. People are doing what they can do which is different for everyone.

No, this doesn’t make sense. Yes, a lump sum allows the nanny to collect unemployment (at half her salary) but OP is demanding she work it off when rehired. It’s not in the nanny’s best interest to return. OP is gaming the system and she’ll lose.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP again. Now it's official that childcare is only allowed in CA for essential employees. Neither of us qualifies. We've offered nanny a lump sum that in addition to unemployment will last six months. If this crisis ends early the unused prorated amount will go towards future services. All on the books.

If I’m understanding this correctly, you’ve given the nanny no reason to return to work for you.

That's not fair. PP said they offered nanny a lump sum even though she cannot go to work. They're doing something as opposed to nothing. That's the very reason a nanny would come back when s/he could. People are doing what they can do which is different for everyone.

Anonymous wrote:OP again. Now it's official that childcare is only allowed in CA for essential employees. Neither of us qualifies. We've offered nanny a lump sum that in addition to unemployment will last six months. If this crisis ends early the unused prorated amount will go towards future services. All on the books.

If I’m understanding this correctly, you’ve given the nanny no reason to return to work for you.

Anonymous wrote:OP again. Now it's official that childcare is only allowed in CA for essential employees. Neither of us qualifies. We've offered nanny a lump sum that in addition to unemployment will last six months. If this crisis ends early the unused prorated amount will go towards future services. All on the books.

You’d be better off paying on the same schedule you have to this point.

OP again. Now it's official that childcare is only allowed in CA for essential employees. Neither of us qualifies. We've offered nanny a lump sum that in addition to unemployment will last six months. If this crisis ends early the unused prorated amount will go towards future services. All on the books.

Anonymous wrote:We are in California. Not sure if the statewide stay at home order applies to nannying. Let's assume it does. Our nanny is entitled to two weeks of personal time. If we kept saying her for 2-4 months even though she is not working then jumps to unemployment, is that fair? How do you feel about paying under the table (we do not) in the situation where we are paying her and she is not actually working?

I’m not sure I understand your fear. Is it that you intend to pay your nanny for 4 months to stay home and then let her go? At that point you’re wondering if it fair she file for unemployment?

Yes, it’s fair as she will be unemployed when you stop paying her.

What does paying under the table have to do with it?

Are you the same person worried your nanny is going to take a temporary job while you’re paying her?

Anonymous wrote:Nanny in the NE and while I expect that we will go on lockdown at some point, I cannot envision my employers paying me indefinitely if I can't work.

If they Are being paid, they should pay you to keep you coming back.

Anyway do what you can do and let's just go day by day here no judgment.

Anonymous wrote:Childcare is considered essential work.

Especially for parents.

Childcare is considered essential work.

Nanny in the NE and while I expect that we will go on lockdown at some point, I cannot envision my employers paying me indefinitely if I can't work.

We're in CA too. Our nanny is working. We are paying.

In your case you would be paying your nanny to ensure they come back to you (if you don't need them now).

We are in California. Not sure if the statewide stay at home order applies to nannying. Let's assume it does. Our nanny is entitled to two weeks of personal time. If we kept saying her for 2-4 months even though she is not working then jumps to unemployment, is that fair? How do you feel about paying under the table (we do not) in the situation where we are paying her and she is not actually working?