Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
This is 100% incorrect. Each family is viewed as a separate employer in the eyes of the law.
They each-by federal law-must pay the nanny minimum wage.
ease do some research before spreading incorrect information information as truth.
Actually, this topic came up a few months ago, and Kathy Webb, who leads a nanny tax preparation firm, confirmed definitively that only the cumulative rate matters, not the per-family rate.
Prove it
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
This is 100% incorrect. Each family is viewed as a separate employer in the eyes of the law.
They each-by federal law-must pay the nanny minimum wage.
ease do some research before spreading incorrect information information as truth.
Actually, this topic came up a few months ago, and Kathy Webb, who leads a nanny tax preparation firm, confirmed definitively that only the cumulative rate matters, not the per-family rate.
Anonymous wrote:
This is 100% incorrect. Each family is viewed as a separate employer in the eyes of the law.
They each-by federal law-must pay the nanny minimum wage.
ease do some research before spreading incorrect information information as truth.
MJackson804 wrote:I'm horrified at how this poor woman is being treated for asking a simple question. Multiple people judging her and called her a bad parent - really? Do you know her financial situation? Whether she's new to the area, is well-educated or is even good at math? How do you know that CPR certification isn't a given for her as I'm sure it is for the rest of us all? Would you call her (or the father) a bad parent to their face, or only as an anonymous keyboard cowboy?
MJackson804 wrote:I'm horrified at how this poor woman is being treated for asking a simple question. Multiple people judging her and called her a bad parent - really? Do you know her financial situation? Whether she's new to the area, is well-educated or is even good at math? How do you know that CPR certification isn't a given for her as I'm sure it is for the rest of us all? Would you call her (or the father) a bad parent to their face, or only as an anonymous keyboard cowboy?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Even $400 per family per week would be low.
No. It would be about right.
No, it would be low. 50 hours a week means 10 hours of OT. $400/55 hours (to account for the OT) is $7.27/hour. That is, in fact, low.
Per family. That's $15.50/hr (thought I'm not sure where you are getting the 55 hours as OP only needs 50) Yes it's on the low side here, but for the area OP is referencing, it isn't so far off.
Personally, if I wanted to pay for a nanny share with 2 kids, I'd start out with the expectation of $20/hr ($10/hr per family).
Because the final 10 hours of that 50 is over time, which means it's paid at time & a half. So 10 OT hours = 15 regular hours. So the pay is equivalent to 55 regular hours. So Nanny Deb is right - OP is offering $7.27/hr pay, which is 2 cents more than minimum wage. OP's not going to find a nanny to share at that rate. She might find a neighbor SAHM who's willing to babysit - my friends do that in the same neighborhood. Some in-homes licensed by the city charge around $200/week so maybe OP would have luck with that.
But none of the major centers in town or any nannies will be able to provide full time childcare at $200/week.
How does it matter what the OP is paying as long as the total $ for the nanny is well above minimum $15.50? Say OP's friend is wealthier and Op pays $5 and friend pays $15 for total of $20 for nanny share is that considered illegal?
Minimum wage is per wage, not per employing family. A business that's jointly owned by two parties doesn't owe its employees double the minimum wage. You are correct that the market rate for nanny shares in this area is above $15/hr but you won't be able to find a source that confirms your notion that it's illegal to offer less than $15.50. Glad to be proven wrong though - any sources on that?
This is 100% incorrect. Each family is viewed as a separate employer in the eyes of the law.
They each-by federal law-must pay the nanny minimum wage.
ease do some research before spreading incorrect information information as truth.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Even $400 per family per week would be low.
No. It would be about right.
No, it would be low. 50 hours a week means 10 hours of OT. $400/55 hours (to account for the OT) is $7.27/hour. That is, in fact, low.
Per family. That's $15.50/hr (thought I'm not sure where you are getting the 55 hours as OP only needs 50) Yes it's on the low side here, but for the area OP is referencing, it isn't so far off.
Personally, if I wanted to pay for a nanny share with 2 kids, I'd start out with the expectation of $20/hr ($10/hr per family).
Because the final 10 hours of that 50 is over time, which means it's paid at time & a half. So 10 OT hours = 15 regular hours. So the pay is equivalent to 55 regular hours. So Nanny Deb is right - OP is offering $7.27/hr pay, which is 2 cents more than minimum wage. OP's not going to find a nanny to share at that rate. She might find a neighbor SAHM who's willing to babysit - my friends do that in the same neighborhood. Some in-homes licensed by the city charge around $200/week so maybe OP would have luck with that.
But none of the major centers in town or any nannies will be able to provide full time childcare at $200/week.
How does it matter what the OP is paying as long as the total $ for the nanny is well above minimum $15.50? Say OP's friend is wealthier and Op pays $5 and friend pays $15 for total of $20 for nanny share is that considered illegal?
Minimum wage is per wage, not per employing family. A business that's jointly owned by two parties doesn't owe its employees double the minimum wage. You are correct that the market rate for nanny shares in this area is above $15/hr but you won't be able to find a source that confirms your notion that it's illegal to offer less than $15.50. Glad to be proven wrong though - any sources on that?
This is 100% incorrect. Each family is viewed as a separate employer in the eyes of the law.
They each-by federal law-must pay the nanny minimum wage.
ease do some research before spreading incorrect information information as truth.
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Even $400 per family per week would be low.
No. It would be about right.
No, it would be low. 50 hours a week means 10 hours of OT. $400/55 hours (to account for the OT) is $7.27/hour. That is, in fact, low.
Per family. That's $15.50/hr (thought I'm not sure where you are getting the 55 hours as OP only needs 50) Yes it's on the low side here, but for the area OP is referencing, it isn't so far off.
Personally, if I wanted to pay for a nanny share with 2 kids, I'd start out with the expectation of $20/hr ($10/hr per family).
Because the final 10 hours of that 50 is over time, which means it's paid at time & a half. So 10 OT hours = 15 regular hours. So the pay is equivalent to 55 regular hours. So Nanny Deb is right - OP is offering $7.27/hr pay, which is 2 cents more than minimum wage. OP's not going to find a nanny to share at that rate. She might find a neighbor SAHM who's willing to babysit - my friends do that in the same neighborhood. Some in-homes licensed by the city charge around $200/week so maybe OP would have luck with that.
But none of the major centers in town or any nannies will be able to provide full time childcare at $200/week.
How does it matter what the OP is paying as long as the total $ for the nanny is well above minimum $15.50? Say OP's friend is wealthier and Op pays $5 and friend pays $15 for total of $20 for nanny share is that considered illegal?
Minimum wage is per wage, not per employing family. A business that's jointly owned by two parties doesn't owe its employees double the minimum wage. You are correct that the market rate for nanny shares in this area is above $15/hr but you won't be able to find a source that confirms your notion that it's illegal to offer less than $15.50. Glad to be proven wrong though - any sources on that?
This is 100% incorrect. Each family is viewed as a separate employer in the eyes of the law.
They each-by federal law-must pay the nanny minimum wage.
ease do some research before spreading incorrect information information as truth.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Even $400 per family per week would be low.
No. It would be about right.
No, it would be low. 50 hours a week means 10 hours of OT. $400/55 hours (to account for the OT) is $7.27/hour. That is, in fact, low.
Per family. That's $15.50/hr (thought I'm not sure where you are getting the 55 hours as OP only needs 50) Yes it's on the low side here, but for the area OP is referencing, it isn't so far off.
Personally, if I wanted to pay for a nanny share with 2 kids, I'd start out with the expectation of $20/hr ($10/hr per family).
Because the final 10 hours of that 50 is over time, which means it's paid at time & a half. So 10 OT hours = 15 regular hours. So the pay is equivalent to 55 regular hours. So Nanny Deb is right - OP is offering $7.27/hr pay, which is 2 cents more than minimum wage. OP's not going to find a nanny to share at that rate. She might find a neighbor SAHM who's willing to babysit - my friends do that in the same neighborhood. Some in-homes licensed by the city charge around $200/week so maybe OP would have luck with that.
But none of the major centers in town or any nannies will be able to provide full time childcare at $200/week.
How does it matter what the OP is paying as long as the total $ for the nanny is well above minimum $15.50? Say OP's friend is wealthier and Op pays $5 and friend pays $15 for total of $20 for nanny share is that considered illegal?
Minimum wage is per wage, not per employing family. A business that's jointly owned by two parties doesn't owe its employees double the minimum wage. You are correct that the market rate for nanny shares in this area is above $15/hr but you won't be able to find a source that confirms your notion that it's illegal to offer less than $15.50. Glad to be proven wrong though - any sources on that?
This is 100% incorrect. Each family is viewed as a separate employer in the eyes of the law.
They each-by federal law-must pay the nanny minimum wage.
ease do some research before spreading incorrect information information as truth.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Even $400 per family per week would be low.
No. It would be about right.
No, it would be low. 50 hours a week means 10 hours of OT. $400/55 hours (to account for the OT) is $7.27/hour. That is, in fact, low.
Per family. That's $15.50/hr (thought I'm not sure where you are getting the 55 hours as OP only needs 50) Yes it's on the low side here, but for the area OP is referencing, it isn't so far off.
Personally, if I wanted to pay for a nanny share with 2 kids, I'd start out with the expectation of $20/hr ($10/hr per family).
Because the final 10 hours of that 50 is over time, which means it's paid at time & a half. So 10 OT hours = 15 regular hours. So the pay is equivalent to 55 regular hours. So Nanny Deb is right - OP is offering $7.27/hr pay, which is 2 cents more than minimum wage. OP's not going to find a nanny to share at that rate. She might find a neighbor SAHM who's willing to babysit - my friends do that in the same neighborhood. Some in-homes licensed by the city charge around $200/week so maybe OP would have luck with that.
But none of the major centers in town or any nannies will be able to provide full time childcare at $200/week.
How does it matter what the OP is paying as long as the total $ for the nanny is well above minimum $15.50? Say OP's friend is wealthier and Op pays $5 and friend pays $15 for total of $20 for nanny share is that considered illegal?
Minimum wage is per wage, not per employing family. A business that's jointly owned by two parties doesn't owe its employees double the minimum wage. You are correct that the market rate for nanny shares in this area is above $15/hr but you won't be able to find a source that confirms your notion that it's illegal to offer less than $15.50. Glad to be proven wrong though - any sources on that?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Even $400 per family per week would be low.
No. It would be about right.
No, it would be low. 50 hours a week means 10 hours of OT. $400/55 hours (to account for the OT) is $7.27/hour. That is, in fact, low.
Per family. That's $15.50/hr (thought I'm not sure where you are getting the 55 hours as OP only needs 50) Yes it's on the low side here, but for the area OP is referencing, it isn't so far off.
Personally, if I wanted to pay for a nanny share with 2 kids, I'd start out with the expectation of $20/hr ($10/hr per family).
Because the final 10 hours of that 50 is over time, which means it's paid at time & a half. So 10 OT hours = 15 regular hours. So the pay is equivalent to 55 regular hours. So Nanny Deb is right - OP is offering $7.27/hr pay, which is 2 cents more than minimum wage. OP's not going to find a nanny to share at that rate. She might find a neighbor SAHM who's willing to babysit - my friends do that in the same neighborhood. Some in-homes licensed by the city charge around $200/week so maybe OP would have luck with that.
But none of the major centers in town or any nannies will be able to provide full time childcare at $200/week.
How does it matter what the OP is paying as long as the total $ for the nanny is well above minimum $15.50? Say OP's friend is wealthier and Op pays $5 and friend pays $15 for total of $20 for nanny share is that considered illegal?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Even $400 per family per week would be low.
No. It would be about right.
No, it would be low. 50 hours a week means 10 hours of OT. $400/55 hours (to account for the OT) is $7.27/hour. That is, in fact, low.
Per family. That's $15.50/hr (thought I'm not sure where you are getting the 55 hours as OP only needs 50) Yes it's on the low side here, but for the area OP is referencing, it isn't so far off.
Personally, if I wanted to pay for a nanny share with 2 kids, I'd start out with the expectation of $20/hr ($10/hr per family).
Because the final 10 hours of that 50 is over time, which means it's paid at time & a half. So 10 OT hours = 15 regular hours. So the pay is equivalent to 55 regular hours. So Nanny Deb is right - OP is offering $7.27/hr pay, which is 2 cents more than minimum wage. OP's not going to find a nanny to share at that rate. She might find a neighbor SAHM who's willing to babysit - my friends do that in the same neighborhood. Some in-homes licensed by the city charge around $200/week so maybe OP would have luck with that.
But none of the major centers in town or any nannies will be able to provide full time childcare at $200/week.
How does it matter what the OP is paying as long as the total $ for the nanny is well above minimum $15.50? Say OP's friend is wealthier and Op pays $5 and friend pays $15 for total of $20 for nanny share is that considered illegal?