Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I think the PP was pointing out that the OP IS a native english speaker but terribly uneducated. Her writing and grammar isn't indicative of someone who is not fluent in English or even makes mistakes because English is a second language.
No, PP was implying that because OP's grammar was less than stellar she must speak English as a second language...and therefore must be an illegal immigrant. Ignorant and just plain shameful.
Anonymous wrote:Yes I agree children should learn about choice and learning. But calling them brats, and the OP making them responsible for her horrible experence is not.
Anonymous wrote:I agree with others that the OP does not sound like a stellar nanny and probably deserved to be fired. However, some of the advice being given is false or at least misleading.
Unemployment eligibility is not dependent on being paid above the table. Most states do not provide unemployment if the individual was fired for cause, this is correct. However, there is no downside to the nanny for applying and seeing if she can get it. If she files for unemployment, her employers will be sent a letter and form. If they respond that she was fired for cause, her request will be denied but she can request an appeal. The employer and the nanny will need to come in and both give their account of the termination reasons. The employer usually prevails in these instances BUT most employers do not want to hassle with taking a day off and pursuing this. The only penalty for the employer is that they would need to pay unemployment insurance if they hadn't and their future unemployment insurance rates increase but this increase is really minimal. Many nannies who actually let go for cause end up getting unemployment because their employers do not want to bother with contesting it.
On taxes, the employer holds the liability for both employer and employee portions of SSN and Med. The nanny bears the liability of her back federal and state income taxes. It makes sense for the nanny to first understand what her tax burden would have been had she paid and what penalties she would incur. This way she knows exactly what her risks would be and whether it is in her financial interest to come forward. If the costs to the nanny are modest and something she can afford, I would recommend doing it because she would also then receive those contributions back into her SSN/Med. This isn't money that goes into your pocket but it can be useful later on. Its also beneficial to have a documented work history including tax returns to establish credit and other grown up things.
It is stupid to just run off seeking revenge and shooting your mouth off. It is smart to understand your situation, act in your best financial interest, and be more professional next time around.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I think the PP was pointing out that the OP IS a native english speaker but terribly uneducated. Her writing and grammar isn't indicative of someone who is not fluent in English or even makes mistakes because English is a second language.
No, PP was implying that because OP's grammar was less than stellar she must speak English as a second language...and therefore must be an illegal immigrant. Ignorant and just plain shameful.
Anonymous wrote:I think the PP was pointing out that the OP IS a native english speaker but terribly uneducated. Her writing and grammar isn't indicative of someone who is not fluent in English or even makes mistakes because English is a second language.
Anonymous wrote:Not Being fluent in English is a prerequisite for paying under the table, isn't it? If OP is illegal she is screwed.