Anonymous wrote:Agree with 7:18. It is Not at all deceptive to negotiate a weekly rate and then back into the corresponding base rate. How is this wrong if nanny agrees to x money for y hours a week?

I think this approach is fine so long as the employer and the employee understand what the base and OT rates are, and how many hours of each are "guaranteed." The legally binding and "real" numbers need to be spelled out and understood by all.

It's fine to think in short-hand so long this criteria is met.

Agree with 7:18. It is Not at all deceptive to negotiate a weekly rate and then back into the corresponding base rate. How is this wrong if nanny agrees to x money for y hours a week?

If your nanny can't understand basic overtime and paying taxes, you've got much bigger problems.

I think both sides of this argument have valid points. According to http://www.4nannies.com/nanny-wages/:

"In the United States, hours worked in excess of 40 per week, typically, must be compensated at time and a half. The Federal Fair Labor Standards Act applies this rule to domestics who do not reside with the employer (“live out” or “come and go”). Domestics who live in with the employer must be compensated for every hour of work, but the time and a half rule does not apply. (Note: in some states, the overtime requirement for time and a half applies to live-in nannies as well); however, your nanny may interpret overtime to mean hours worked in excess of those originally agreed upon (regardless of whether those “originally agreed upon” hours were 20 per week or 50 per week. It is a good policy to clarify what is meant by this term from the very beginning, especially since occasional overtime needs is often one of the reasons a family has arranged for a nanny."

In the end, I think all that matters is that the employer is upfront about how much is being paid total and how many hours are expected per week. As long as everyone understands the agreement and the employer sticks to the agreement then everyone should be happy.

Anonymous wrote:Your "average" vs. "base" is sheer nonsense for the stupid, just like gross vs. net.

If your rate is 19/hr, it's 19/hr. If you don't comprehend taxes and OT, go back to highschool.

It pays to hire ignorant help.

Every nanny we interviewed asked for a weekly sum and guaranteed hours. In every conversation, we backtracked to the average hourly rate and OT rate to meet the sum. When we hired, we made sure the contract spelled out both.

Nothing deceptive about it if the contract is clear.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nannies need to remember that the only reason this average rate business is an issue is that nannies are non-exempt workers who still insist on getting guaranteed hours that include any hours over 40 that they are likely to be needed. That is a perk that is expensive for families to provide and therefore warrants a reduction in the base rate. That reduction is reflected in an average rate for a 50 hour/week job that may be on par with the base rate for a 40 hour per week job. This isn't deception; it's the market pricing the cost of guaranteed hours into the going rate for nanny care in excess of 40 hours per week. If it weren't for this custom, far more families would split their jobs among two nannies to keep the hourly rate affordable.

Have you ever tried to fill a PT nanny job? Its not easy. If it was, more people would do it for exactly the reasons you stated. But they don't because your "market" doesn't support it. I'm not saying the practice of "average rate" is deceptive. You can average anything. Its deceptive to advertise a $15/hour job, when you plan on averaging the rates, and its really less than $15 for the majority of the hours. When you go to apply to any other job, retail, food service, office work, the hourly rate stated is your rate. Time and a half for hours over 40 is a given. Why is it exactly that nanny employers don't just state the actual hourly rate they are offering? Like I said before, because it sounds nicer to say you pay $15/hour. You don't. Or you don't pay OT. Which is it?

You don't see other jobs advertising an average hourly rate because no other hourly-rate job provides guaranteed hours that exceed 40 per week. That--like average rates--is a construct of the nanny field. And the reason more families don't hire both a full time nanny and a part time nanny for the hours over 40/week is that they don't need to. The vast majority of nannies are happy to earn a guaranteed average rate that is more or less what they could command per hour in a job requiring only 40 hours/week, i.e. $15-$18 per hour. Most think of their overtime rate as kicking where their guaranteed hours leave off, i.e. at the 51st hour to use the example discussed throughout this thread.

Anonymous wrote:Nannies need to remember that the only reason this average rate business is an issue is that nannies are non-exempt workers who still insist on getting guaranteed hours that include any hours over 40 that they are likely to be needed. That is a perk that is expensive for families to provide and therefore warrants a reduction in the base rate. That reduction is reflected in an average rate for a 50 hour/week job that may be on par with the base rate for a 40 hour per week job. This isn't deception; it's the market pricing the cost of guaranteed hours into the going rate for nanny care in excess of 40 hours per week. If it weren't for this custom, far more families would split their jobs among two nannies to keep the hourly rate affordable.

Have you ever tried to fill a PT nanny job? Its not easy. If it was, more people would do it for exactly the reasons you stated. But they don't because your "market" doesn't support it. I'm not saying the practice of "average rate" is deceptive. You can average anything. Its deceptive to advertise a $15/hour job, when you plan on averaging the rates, and its really less than $15 for the majority of the hours. When you go to apply to any other job, retail, food service, office work, the hourly rate stated is your rate. Time and a half for hours over 40 is a given. Why is it exactly that nanny employers don't just state the actual hourly rate they are offering? Like I said before, because it sounds nicer to say you pay $15/hour. You don't. Or you don't pay OT. Which is it?

Nannies need to remember that the only reason this average rate business is an issue is that nannies are non-exempt workers who still insist on getting guaranteed hours that include any hours over 40 that they are likely to be needed. That is a perk that is expensive for families to provide and therefore warrants a reduction in the base rate. That reduction is reflected in an average rate for a 50 hour/week job that may be on par with the base rate for a 40 hour per week job. This isn't deception; it's the market pricing the cost of guaranteed hours into the going rate for nanny care in excess of 40 hours per week. If it weren't for this custom, far more families would split their jobs among two nannies to keep the hourly rate affordable.

If you're so intent on finding stupid sitters for your kid, you're inclined to have a stupid kid to. I bet some of you cheap skates never thought of that. Lol.

Your "average" vs. "base" is sheer nonsense for the stupid, just like gross vs. net.

If your rate is 19/hr, it's 19/hr. If you don't comprehend taxes and OT, go back to highschool.

Anonymous wrote:By your logic every nanny that shares her average rate rather than her lower base rate when asked about her previous compensation is lying.

You're right, she is, or she doesn't know anything about OT and doesn't realize she was paid an "average" rate. All MBs talking about average rates are fully aware of the OT requirement, and they may not be lying, but it is deceptive.

Anonymous wrote:By your logic every nanny that shares her average rate rather than her lower base rate when asked about her previous compensation is lying.

Ha. Good point. Who would want to hire such a deceptive person?

By your logic every nanny that shares her average rate rather than her lower base rate when asked about her previous compensation is lying.

Anonymous wrote:PP, you sound like you are angry because you feel you were duped (because of your own ignorance). This isn't some dirty trick. It's a way to have a simplified conversation. You nit understanding OT does not mean you were being cheated. It just means you were ignorant.

You call it a "simplified conversation", I call it deceptive. You and I both know what it is. If you can't be upfront about it, you're being deceptive.