Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I stupidly went for a job that was salaried. Man, they squeezed the life out of me. If they didn't need me they sure as hell made sure I made up for those hours the next week. "They already paid me." Pure hell. Seriously. If I asked off for something they acted like I had no right to ask off. Apparently when they take random trips without notice is when I can make doctors appioments. Fuckers.

Not the way salary works, not at all! I always do salary, that way I don't have to worry about meeting a minimum number of hours per week, anything above a certain number is paid extra, anything below, well, that's on them for not using the hours. When I take PTO, I take the full day, and the weekly hours are figured as if that was an 8 hour day; if it would mean extra pay because it was a crazy week, my PTO day is given back to me and I'm not paid the extra hours.

It sounds to me that you have guaranteed hours, pp, with PTO given for overtime hours at your usual rate. It is true that nannies are considered hourly workers, not salaried, by law and this must be paid overtime (time and a half) past 40 worked (PTO or holidays not included) hours a week. Your family chooses to guarantee you up to a certain number of hours per week and grants you PTO if you exceed that number of hours to get around the overtime requirement. Most of the time, you probably work no more (and often less) than the guaranteed number of hours so you are happy with the arrangement. If, however, you were asked to work more than the guaranteed hours regularly without getting overtime or its equivalent in PTO, you would be justified in thinking that you were being taken advantage of.

Are you people this stupid? Nannies can be salaried. They cannot be exempt. Two totally different things.

Anonymous wrote:22:49 looks confused.

You may think so, I don't. I like salary But 17.28 allowed the family to move hours from one week to another, didn't make sure she was allowed PTO, etc. The family was out-of-bounds, and the nanny allowed it.

22:49 looks confused.

Anonymous wrote:I stupidly went for a job that was salaried. Man, they squeezed the life out of me. If they didn't need me they sure as hell made sure I made up for those hours the next week. "They already paid me." Pure hell. Seriously. If I asked off for something they acted like I had no right to ask off. Apparently when they take random trips without notice is when I can make doctors appioments. Fuckers.

Not the way salary works, not at all! I always do salary, that way I don't have to worry about meeting a minimum number of hours per week, anything above a certain number is paid extra, anything below, well, that's on them for not using the hours. When I take PTO, I take the full day, and the weekly hours are figured as if that was an 8 hour day; if it would mean extra pay because it was a crazy week, my PTO day is given back to me and I'm not paid the extra hours.

I stupidly went for a job that was salaried. Man, they squeezed the life out of me. If they didn't need me they sure as hell made sure I made up for those hours the next week. "They already paid me." Pure hell. Seriously. If I asked off for something they acted like I had no right to ask off. Apparently when they take random trips without notice is when I can make doctors appioments. Fuckers.

Someone lobbied to get live-in nannies exempted from OT wages. Probably INA and APNA agency owners. Who else? I doubt the butler organization would.

See how INA "helps" nannies? Kathy Webb ironically has gone silent here lately.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP - just to add that for all the complaints about wages, minimum wage is 7.25 and will OT would be around $400/week gross. As long as you're paid that, it is all legal.

The fact that something meets minimum wage requirements does not alone make it legal. You can get busted for not paying overtime or for all hours worked even if you pay well above minimum wage.

For the poster asking for a direct link here is one from the department of labor: http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/whdfs79d.htm

Nannies are hourly workers and must be paid for every hour they are on duty. They cannot be salaried in the true sense of the word, because they are paid for their time and for being available, not for a set task. A nanny cannot leave when her tasks are done for the day, she must be relieved.

Good link to have.

Anonymous wrote:

nannydebsays wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our nanny works anywhere from 17-50hrs a week. I pay her a flat rate of $700/wk. Her "hourly" rate is $10/hr and all additional money is a weekly "bonus". No nanny would work my inconsistent hours at a regular hourly and I want a flat expense.

So it is okay to ignore the law when it stands in the way of something you want?

Are you for real???? PP is paying her nanny anywhere between $12.72 hr plus OT pay for 50 hour weeks and $41.18/hour for 17 hour weeks. Even if nanny averages 40 hours/week year round, she is still making $17.50/hour. Sounds like a good deal to me, and I am usually the first one to speak up about FLSA and nannies legal rights.

Now, if PP was paying$13/hour for 17 hours and expecting nanny to work up to 50 hours a week for the same $221/week wage, I would have no issue with your snark, but geez!

I'm the $700 poster. I have school aged children, but have to have the consistent care. She is there for all illnesses, teacher work days, snow days, and summer. Basically between Now and June she's in the $40/hr range. She will be the fist to tell you this is an amazing set up for her. Right now she is working as a dog walker, essentially double dipping her income.

Most people in my position have long moved to AuPairs due to essentially needing part time hours.

The $40/hr range between now and June sounds good to me. I bet she's amazing. Lucky children.

nannydebsays wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our nanny works anywhere from 17-50hrs a week. I pay her a flat rate of $700/wk. Her "hourly" rate is $10/hr and all additional money is a weekly "bonus". No nanny would work my inconsistent hours at a regular hourly and I want a flat expense.

So it is okay to ignore the law when it stands in the way of something you want?

Are you for real???? PP is paying her nanny anywhere between $12.72 hr plus OT pay for 50 hour weeks and $41.18/hour for 17 hour weeks. Even if nanny averages 40 hours/week year round, she is still making $17.50/hour. Sounds like a good deal to me, and I am usually the first one to speak up about FLSA and nannies legal rights.

Now, if PP was paying$13/hour for 17 hours and expecting nanny to work up to 50 hours a week for the same $221/week wage, I would have no issue with your snark, but geez!

I'm the $700 poster. I have school aged children, but have to have the consistent care. She is there for all illnesses, teacher work days, snow days, and summer. Basically between Now and June she's in the $40/hr range. She will be the fist to tell you this is an amazing set up for her. Right now she is working as a dog walker, essentially double dipping her income.

Most people in my position have long moved to AuPairs due to essentially needing part time hours.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our nanny works anywhere from 17-50hrs a week. I pay her a flat rate of $700/wk. Her "hourly" rate is $10/hr and all additional money is a weekly "bonus". No nanny would work my inconsistent hours at a regular hourly and I want a flat expense.

So it is okay to ignore the law when it stands in the way of something you want?

How am I ignoring the law? She makes $10/hr and gets a guaranteed bonus to shore her up to $700.

Please so share what law I'm breaking.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our nanny works anywhere from 17-50hrs a week. I pay her a flat rate of $700/wk. Her "hourly" rate is $10/hr and all additional money is a weekly "bonus". No nanny would work my inconsistent hours at a regular hourly and I want a flat expense.

So it is okay to ignore the law when it stands in the way of something you want?

Are you for real???? PP is paying her nanny anywhere between $12.72 hr plus OT pay for 50 hour weeks and $41.18/hour for 17 hour weeks. Even if nanny averages 40 hours/week year round, she is still making $17.50/hour. Sounds like a good deal to me, and I am usually the first one to speak up about FLSA and nannies legal rights.

Now, if PP was paying$13/hour for 17 hours and expecting nanny to work up to 50 hours a week for the same $221/week wage, I would have no issue with your snark, but geez!

Anonymous wrote:Our nanny works anywhere from 17-50hrs a week. I pay her a flat rate of $700/wk. Her "hourly" rate is $10/hr and all additional money is a weekly "bonus". No nanny would work my inconsistent hours at a regular hourly and I want a flat expense.

So it is okay to ignore the law when it stands in the way of something you want?

Anonymous wrote:Our nanny works anywhere from 17-50hrs a week. I pay her a flat rate of $700/wk. Her "hourly" rate is $10/hr and all additional money is a weekly "bonus". No nanny would work my inconsistent hours at a regular hourly and I want a flat expense.

I do set salary too. I refuse to have my DB wake me up at 3am because the hospital called him in for an emergency. Setting a weekly salary of $1500 means that I am guaranteed 60 hours (40 at 800, 20 OT at 600). Yes, that leaves an extra 100 per week, and sometimes I only work 40 hours, but I figure that 40 hour weeks and 85 hour weeks even out. Works for us.

Our nanny works anywhere from 17-50hrs a week. I pay her a flat rate of $700/wk. Her "hourly" rate is $10/hr and all additional money is a weekly "bonus". No nanny would work my inconsistent hours at a regular hourly and I want a flat expense.