Anonymous
05/13/2016 00:45
Subject: I know it's a law, but why?
Anonymous wrote:Live-ins should be paid MORE, not less. Who wants to be at your job 24/7
Exactly. It's a major sacrifice.
Anonymous
04/23/2016 08:55
Subject: Re:I know it's a law, but why?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:You all should check out the National Domestic Workers' Alliance http://www.domesticworkers.org/ This is the organization that got the Domestic Workers Bill of Rights passed in NY a few years ago http://www.labor.ny.gov/legal/domestic-workers-bill-of-rights.shtm and just recently in Hawaii http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/05/02/1955901/hawaii-domestic-workers-bill-of-rights/?mobile=nc. They're working on it in CA as well.
This is their local partner: http://www.ips-dc.org/BTCC
These are good resources for nannies to have.
Anonymous
04/07/2016 15:40
Subject: I know it's a law, but why?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Why do live-in nannies not get overtime pay for working over 40 hours? I know some states they do, but only after 44hrs. When you are a live-in your pay is usually less any way because they factor room and board into salary. Why does the government penalize live-in's even more?
Because when this was in formal discussion, the legislative committee (Kathleen Webb? and other business owners) of the International Nanny Association (INA) were silent. Someone please tell us how they get away with that. They not only do NOTHING to help nannies, they PRETEND to be a voice FOR nannies. They are a FRAUD, from what we can see.
INA figures the less parents need to pay the nanny, the more money there is for the nanny agencies (and the other ruthless businesses who take advantage of overwhelmed parents) to charge astronomical fees.
Are you serious? When this law was passed in 1974 it extended protections to domestics for the first time. Maybe not as far as you think is fair, and that's fine. You can work the system and try to change it. However the INA didn't exist when this was done - a good reason to be silent - and I doubt most of its members were born or were in grammar school.
"Be the change you want to see in the world." ~ Ghandi
Which 1974 law are you talking about?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Labor_Standards_Act
"The 1974 amendment expanded coverage to include other state and local government employees that were not previously covered. Domestic workers also became covered and the minimum wage was increased to $2.30 per hour in stages."
Before this domestic workers of any kind were not entitled to minimum wage or overtime protections.
Imagine that, just when feminists were fighting for women's rights... but only for rich white women. The poor non-white women had to take over your domestic responsibilities so you could engage in more important activities, more important than your children and family home.
Anonymous
04/07/2016 15:25
Subject: I know it's a law, but why?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Why do live-in nannies not get overtime pay for working over 40 hours? I know some states they do, but only after 44hrs. When you are a live-in your pay is usually less any way because they factor room and board into salary. Why does the government penalize live-in's even more?
Because when this was in formal discussion, the legislative committee (Kathleen Webb? and other business owners) of the International Nanny Association (INA) were silent. Someone please tell us how they get away with that. They not only do NOTHING to help nannies, they PRETEND to be a voice FOR nannies. They are a FRAUD, from what we can see.
INA figures the less parents need to pay the nanny, the more money there is for the nanny agencies (and the other ruthless businesses who take advantage of overwhelmed parents) to charge astronomical fees.
Are you serious? When this law was passed in 1974 it extended protections to domestics for the first time. Maybe not as far as you think is fair, and that's fine. You can work the system and try to change it. However the INA didn't exist when this was done - a good reason to be silent - and I doubt most of its members were born or were in grammar school.
"Be the change you want to see in the world." ~ Ghandi
Which 1974 law are you talking about?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Labor_Standards_Act
"The 1974 amendment expanded coverage to include other state and local government employees that were not previously covered. Domestic workers also became covered and the minimum wage was increased to $2.30 per hour in stages."
Before this domestic workers of any kind were not entitled to minimum wage or overtime protections.
Anonymous
04/07/2016 13:42
Subject: I know it's a law, but why?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Why do live-in nannies not get overtime pay for working over 40 hours? I know some states they do, but only after 44hrs. When you are a live-in your pay is usually less any way because they factor room and board into salary. Why does the government penalize live-in's even more?
Because when this was in formal discussion, the legislative committee (Kathleen Webb? and other business owners) of the International Nanny Association (INA) were silent. Someone please tell us how they get away with that. They not only do NOTHING to help nannies, they PRETEND to be a voice FOR nannies. They are a FRAUD, from what we can see.
INA figures the less parents need to pay the nanny, the more money there is for the nanny agencies (and the other ruthless businesses who take advantage of overwhelmed parents) to charge astronomical fees.
Are you serious? When this law was passed in 1974 it extended protections to domestics for the first time. Maybe not as far as you think is fair, and that's fine. You can work the system and try to change it. However the INA didn't exist when this was done - a good reason to be silent - and I doubt most of its members were born or were in grammar school.
"Be the change you want to see in the world." ~ Ghandi
Which 1974 law are you talking about?
Anonymous
04/07/2016 13:37
Subject: I know it's a law, but why?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Why do live-in nannies not get overtime pay for working over 40 hours? I know some states they do, but only after 44hrs. When you are a live-in your pay is usually less any way because they factor room and board into salary. Why does the government penalize live-in's even more?
Because when this was in formal discussion, the legislative committee (Kathleen Webb? and other business owners) of the International Nanny Association (INA) were silent. Someone please tell us how they get away with that. They not only do NOTHING to help nannies, they PRETEND to be a voice FOR nannies. They are a FRAUD, from what we can see.
INA figures the less parents need to pay the nanny, the more money there is for the nanny agencies (and the other ruthless businesses who take advantage of overwhelmed parents) to charge astronomical fees.
Are you serious? When this law was passed in 1974 it extended protections to domestics for the first time. Maybe not as far as you think is fair, and that's fine. You can work the system and try to change it. However the INA didn't exist when this was done - a good reason to be silent - and I doubt most of its members were born or were in grammar school.
"Be the change you want to see in the world." ~ Ghandi
Anonymous
04/07/2016 13:30
Subject: I know it's a law, but why?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Government Affairs Committee shares information only, absolutely NO lobbying activity takes place. Individual members are welcome to lobby for their own point of view.
http://nanny.org/governmental-affairs
Interesting. Would the INA controlling nanny agencies allow INA nannies to lobby on behalf of INA, assuming of course that they had majority support of INA nannies?
Why do you say that "individual members are welcome to lobby for their own point of view", if the INA website says, "INA must be a proactive association"?
What does Government Affairs office of The International Nanny Association lobby for?
As previously stated (apparently years ago) the INA DOES NOT LOBBY. Continuing to ask what the association that doesn't lobby lobbies for is silly.
The INA does educate - nannies, families and agencies. Have you read the INA's Nanny Employer Handbook? Do you share it with families when you interview?
Anonymous
04/06/2016 18:04
Subject: I know it's a law, but why?
This is really a shame to hear.
Anonymous
04/02/2016 06:23
Subject: I know it's a law, but why?
Anonymous wrote:Many of our employers and nanny agencies have professional lobbyists advocating for these loopholes in the law. No one is advocating for nanny rights or protection. No one that I am aware of. Someone please correct me, with all details, if I am wrong.
This is one of the many problems with the ina, International NANNY Association. Their attorneys and lobbyists are advocating for laws that financially benefit nanny agencies and their clients, not for the nannies.
Thank you, Kathy Webb of the INA Legislative Committee. She's a business owner, not a nanny.
Are INA nannies allowed to advocate for nannies?
Apparently not.
Anonymous
04/02/2016 06:16
Subject: I know it's a law, but why?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Ina is not proactive, except to promote disgraceful nanny agencies.
Nannies are reporting getting placed with families who refuse to pay legally required taxes. Yet agencies continue to represent these families as long as they keep paying the exorbitant agency fees.
This egregious behavior has got to stop.
Bad agency members from INA and APNA can do whatever they want. Zero consequences.
INA ?
Anonymous
04/01/2016 22:37
Subject: I know it's a law, but why?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:PP, why do you have a live-in then?
Because I thought it would be good for my situation. Turns out its more hassle that its worth. There are TWO sides to everything, just wanted to make that point.
No one has a live-in because they feel sorry for the nanny. Live-ins are a convienence for the family. Period.
Actually I have a live in I hired as a regular nanny. Who turned out to have a crappy family/living situation. So I let her move in. I didn't cut her pay. But I did eliminate ot. She benefits a lot. I feed her. House her. She doesn't need to commute anymore. And I am paying her same base wage. She is making not a whole lot keys wage wise, but has zero other home related living expenses expenses.