Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Here's my take on this. Any nanny who'd consider a share for less than 25/hr, is probably not smart enough to bring forth a law suit, and the parents all know that. (My basic rates are 25. for just one child, and I don't believe I'm a genius.)

No wonder nannies don't have a union or any other professional association - they have such contempt for their own peers, and for very superficial reasons, too.

Your warm-bodied sitter isn't my "peer". I don't believe you'd know a professional nanny if you saw one.

Btw, Einstein, we have several excellent professional associations. You may want to educate yourself a bit before making a fool of yourself again. GL.

NP here. What exactly are your "several excellent professional associations" doing for you?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's my take on this. Any nanny who'd consider a share for less than 25/hr, is probably not smart enough to bring forth a law suit, and the parents all know that. (My basic rates are 25. for just one child, and I don't believe I'm a genius.)

No wonder nannies don't have a union or any other professional association - they have such contempt for their own peers, and for very superficial reasons, too.

Your warm-bodied sitter isn't my "peer". I don't believe you'd know a professional nanny if you saw one.

Btw, Einstein, we have several excellent professional associations. You may want to educate yourself a bit before making a fool of yourself again. GL.

You have no idea who my sitter is. Your name-calling, angry attitude is hardly an asset to your professionalism. I wouldn't want you around my child, he may learn to call names.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's my take on this. Any nanny who'd consider a share for less than 25/hr, is probably not smart enough to bring forth a law suit, and the parents all know that. (My basic rates are 25. for just one child, and I don't believe I'm a genius.)

No wonder nannies don't have a union or any other professional association - they have such contempt for their own peers, and for very superficial reasons, too.

Your warm-bodied sitter isn't my "peer". I don't believe you'd know a professional nanny if you saw one.

Btw, Einstein, we have several excellent professional associations. You may want to educate yourself a bit before making a fool of yourself again. GL.

Anonymous wrote:Here's my take on this. Any nanny who'd consider a share for less than 25/hr, is probably not smart enough to bring forth a law suit, and the parents all know that. (My basic rates are 25. for just one child, and I don't believe I'm a genius.)

No wonder nannies don't have a union or any other professional association - they have such contempt for their own peers, and for very superficial reasons, too.

Anonymous wrote:
I suspect that most share families are doing at least the "visiting" family off the books. Of course we all know there is zero documentation of any financial data from the domestic worker economy. Volunteer self-reporting by either the employers or the employees, is not credible without systematic supporting documentation to confirm accuracy.

Of course it isn't, but neither are your suspicions.

I don't believe you're a genius, either.

Here's my take on this. Any nanny who'd consider a share for less than 25/hr, is probably not smart enough to bring forth a law suit, and the parents all know that. (My basic rates are 25. for just one child, and I don't believe I'm a genius.)

I suspect that most share families are doing at least the "visiting" family off the books. Of course we all know there is zero documentation of any financial data from the domestic worker economy. Volunteer self-reporting by either the employers or the employees, is not credible without systematic supporting documentation to confirm accuracy.

Our most reliable data could be the "household tax" outfits themselves, who provide the paycheck and tax services. But even if they would openly share their "average" figures, or whatever, their customers are only a tiny slice of the total domestic market. Analysts seem to believe that in general, most of this particular economy is still underground, unfortunately. Unless you're chasing a high profile government appointment or such, chances are slim that you'll be caught and charged. Feel free to share your tales about your friend who did get caught and charged.

I should add that even the domestic worker payroll services might not have 100% accuracy, as employers may report an artificially low hourly rate, at or near minimum wage just to get on the books, but then give the nanny very generous routine "benefits", either in cash or other forms of payment to supplement her official low hourly rate. It's always the total benefits package that matters most, not the individual little parts.

I am not an employment attorney. I am willing to share my opinion however....

In a nanny share where the nanny works for both employers at the same time (this is a key point, definitions of nanny share abound!) so long as the nanny's total hourly compensation meets minimum wage and overtime rules, how this is divided among each employer is not important.

In a practical sense, I rarely see either family's contribution fall below minimum wage; however there are for instances. Two families with 3 children, one with 2 and the other with 3, may choose to pay a nanny $18/hour. The family with one child may pay $6/hour and the family with 2 $12. Total hourly compensation to the employee is $18.

Here are things I would suggest to protect everyone:

1. This has to be guaranteed compensation. Meaning the employee is paid by the two employers the total rate no matter if one family is missing one or more days.

2. Overtime has to be considered. If $18/hour is a blended rate for 45 hours for instance, you need to back it out to hourly and overtime. In this illustration the hourly wage being offered is $17.05. The overtime wage is $25.58. (our Hourly Rate Calculator will do the math https://www.4nannytaxes.com/calculator/hourly.cfm)

3. I strongly encourage a 3 way work agreement between all parties that spells this out. (A best practice anyway, but especially if you want to make the case for joint employment for FLSA compliance purposes.)

4. Recordkeeing is important - time and attendance, calculation of gross wages, calculation of deductions and documentation of net pay.


I hope this helps. I am unaware of any wage and hour complaints in a nanny share where the considerations above were documented and there was a ruling against one or both of the employers.

Anonymous wrote:

webbkathy wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We're thinking of hiring a private nanny (for the first time). We understood that we'd be witholding for her social seciruty and medicaid amounts, but she told us that she prefers we don't withold anything, but will give us a statement each month when she sends funds to the IRS for taxes that way she can also claim driving miles on her taxes.

Does this make any sense? How do you pay for your nanny? Also, do you pay her weekly or bi-monthly?

It's not up to the nanny to tell you not to withhold SS and Medicaid, as these are employer responsibilities. You have an option of withholding or not withholding income taxes, as these are the nanny's liability. She can claim miles and other deductions on her taxes as employer-unreimbursed expenses, this has nothing to do with what you withhold.

Make absolutely certain that she is clear you will pay on the books.

This is absolutely correct OP.

It better be, you guys counseled me on this

Kathy, by the way, there was a debate here last week on whether the minimum wage requirement applies to EACH parent in the nanny share (meaning each employer must pay at least a minimum wage), or BOTH of them (meaning only the total rate should be minimum wage or more.) The law seems to say only the total rate counts. Can you weigh in on this, to settle the debate once and for all?

Anonymous wrote:The law is extremely clear and multiple links to it have been posted.

Kathy might prefer not to weigh in on this seeing that the isn't so clear.