Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have just accepted a new job that will move our nanny from 36 hours a week to 50 hours a week. I am very worried about being able to afford ten hours of overtime at $30 an hour. Our nanny is paid legally with a payroll service.

Is there anyway to legally get around overtime?

Of course. She works no more than 40 hours a week. Aren't you just too, too wonderful , trying to find a way to screw the person who cares for your most possession, your children.

Children are not a possession. I wish people would stop saying that.

When you have them you will understand.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have just accepted a new job that will move our nanny from 36 hours a week to 50 hours a week. I am very worried about being able to afford ten hours of overtime at $30 an hour. Our nanny is paid legally with a payroll service.

Is there anyway to legally get around overtime?

Of course. She works no more than 40 hours a week. Aren't you just too, too wonderful , trying to find a way to screw the person who cares for your most possession, your children.

Children are not a possession. I wish people would stop saying that.

Where is the headdesk emoji on this site?

Yes PP, you are correct. Nannies hired for PT work generally earn more per hour than FT nannies. Nannies hired for FT work generally earn less per hour than PT nannies.

However, rarely does a parent recognize that reducing the needed hours or schedule for their nanny means increasing the hourly rate. At the time of hire? Of course. When adjusting the terms of the job? They don't usually think of that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dear "stupid MBs" poster,
Everyone knows that securing less hours of a nanny results in a higher hourly rate and vice versa. USUALLY.

For example, an after school only position commands a higher RATE than a full-time 40-50 hour week position. USUALLY.

Also, your previous rate may indeed have NO BEARING on your next job or employer. A family will post what they need and have their own budget, often consulting the market, friends and agencies. It is very rarely a string of never-ending rate increases.

Finally, short-term nannies that just job hop around every 12-18 months are not the majority of the market. There are many, many real nannies who grow and work with a family on the ever-changing duties, tasks, and schedules over time.
Good luck.

Stop the bull shit. In the reverse of this situation-nanny works 50 hours, her hours are being reduced to 38 hours- does her rate get raised to compensate the loss of the hours/OT? You and I know damn well that the answer is a big fat NO. To your last point, you who are not a nanny, and have likely only hired one or two, are not actually an authority on what a "real nanny" is. A "real" nanny knows what she is worth and knows better than to let some spoiled MB convince her to lower herself for the MBs benefit.

Lemme guess, a "real" nanny curses all the time like you.

And yes, if you reduce someone's hours to afternoon only or less days per week you do typically pay them a higher rate than when they had tons of hours.

Well you SHOULD increase her hourly rate if her hours are cut, but I think most of us nannies would be able to tell you that is not at all standard and cannot be expected; most families expect you to charge the same hourly rate and be just as available and flexible as when you worked FT, only paid less.

This is very typical here in the DC area to have 20 hour/week nannies make more per hour than a 40 hour/week nanny. How else would you get someone to drive to/from your house and leave 2pm-6pm open for you.
DCUM posters are loony bins compared with the realities of the market.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh my you all wouldn't make it in Los Angeles! It's overtime after 8 hrs a day. My nanny (and I only have one. I love her, my children LOVE her, my DH loves her. She's been with us 3 years) works 12 hours a day, sometimes 15 hours (about 2 to 3 times a week). She gets overtime after 8 hours, which is legal. My nanny works very hard. She cares for my children, helps them grow and succeed in life. Why would I not pay her?

We don't pay our nanny overtime after 8 hours and the payroll service we use has never suggested that we do. We are in California as well. Are you sure your information is correct?

Definition of Overtime

In California, overtime is any hours worked over 8 hours in a day or 40 hours in a week.  There is an exception if your company has instituted a bona fide alternate work week in which you normally work 10 hour days, 4 days a week – in which case the overtime is after 10 hours rather than 8, but still after 40 in the week.  This alternate work week must meet certain formalities and can not be done on a person by person basis.

Unless you meet an Exemption, California requires that all hours over 8 in a day or 40 in a week or worked on the 7th consecutive day of a work week be paid at 1.5 times an employee’s regular rate of pay.  In addition, hours worked over 12 in a day or hours over 8 worked on the 7th consecutive day in a week are paid at 2 times an employee’s regular rate of pay.   

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dear "stupid MBs" poster,
Everyone knows that securing less hours of a nanny results in a higher hourly rate and vice versa. USUALLY.

For example, an after school only position commands a higher RATE than a full-time 40-50 hour week position. USUALLY.

Also, your previous rate may indeed have NO BEARING on your next job or employer. A family will post what they need and have their own budget, often consulting the market, friends and agencies. It is very rarely a string of never-ending rate increases.

Finally, short-term nannies that just job hop around every 12-18 months are not the majority of the market. There are many, many real nannies who grow and work with a family on the ever-changing duties, tasks, and schedules over time.
Good luck.

Stop the bull shit. In the reverse of this situation-nanny works 50 hours, her hours are being reduced to 38 hours- does her rate get raised to compensate the loss of the hours/OT? You and I know damn well that the answer is a big fat NO. To your last point, you who are not a nanny, and have likely only hired one or two, are not actually an authority on what a "real nanny" is. A "real" nanny knows what she is worth and knows better than to let some spoiled MB convince her to lower herself for the MBs benefit.

Lemme guess, a "real" nanny curses all the time like you.

And yes, if you reduce someone's hours to afternoon only or less days per week you do typically pay them a higher rate than when they had tons of hours.

Well you SHOULD increase her hourly rate if her hours are cut, but I think most of us nannies would be able to tell you that is not at all standard and cannot be expected; most families expect you to charge the same hourly rate and be just as available and flexible as when you worked FT, only paid less.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dear "stupid MBs" poster,
Everyone knows that securing less hours of a nanny results in a higher hourly rate and vice versa. USUALLY.

For example, an after school only position commands a higher RATE than a full-time 40-50 hour week position. USUALLY.

Also, your previous rate may indeed have NO BEARING on your next job or employer. A family will post what they need and have their own budget, often consulting the market, friends and agencies. It is very rarely a string of never-ending rate increases.

Finally, short-term nannies that just job hop around every 12-18 months are not the majority of the market. There are many, many real nannies who grow and work with a family on the ever-changing duties, tasks, and schedules over time.
Good luck.

Stop the bull shit. In the reverse of this situation-nanny works 50 hours, her hours are being reduced to 38 hours- does her rate get raised to compensate the loss of the hours/OT? You and I know damn well that the answer is a big fat NO. To your last point, you who are not a nanny, and have likely only hired one or two, are not actually an authority on what a "real nanny" is. A "real" nanny knows what she is worth and knows better than to let some spoiled MB convince her to lower herself for the MBs benefit.

Lemme guess, a "real" nanny curses all the time like you.

And yes, if you reduce someone's hours to afternoon only or less days per week you do typically pay them a higher rate than when they had tons of hours.

So your Nanny makes $720/week now, for 36 hours. You want to increase her to 50 hours. You don't want to increase her pay by $380 a week to compensate for a 39% increase in work hours.

So why not offer a 39% pay increase? That would be $280 more per week. Then if she objects to her hourly rate being lowered to $18, you can decide if she is important enough to pay that extra $100/week and keep her, or if you prefer to start the hunt for a new Nanny as you start working 50 hour weeks.

Is having to find a new Nanny less expensive than paying your current Nanny less than an additional 6K a year?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Basically, OP, you have a new job to create and offer. Offer it to your current nanny first, and then open it up to new applicants.

This is also BS. If what you're truly doing is letting her go from her current job, let her collect unemployment while she actually looks for a new job. This crap forces her to take your "new" job, or be jobless and ineligible for unemployment. You're forcing her to accept a paycut. All of you will reap what you sow.

You need to turn it down a notch. The nanny is, of course, free to turn down the reconstructed job and search for other employment. She may want to do that, regardless of the rate, as she doesn't want the extra hours. She would also be eligible for unemployment, as a job significantly changing to that degree is a legal reason for leaving.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dear "stupid MBs" poster,
Everyone knows that securing less hours of a nanny results in a higher hourly rate and vice versa. USUALLY.

For example, an after school only position commands a higher RATE than a full-time 40-50 hour week position. USUALLY.

Also, your previous rate may indeed have NO BEARING on your next job or employer. A family will post what they need and have their own budget, often consulting the market, friends and agencies. It is very rarely a string of never-ending rate increases.

Finally, short-term nannies that just job hop around every 12-18 months are not the majority of the market. There are many, many real nannies who grow and work with a family on the ever-changing duties, tasks, and schedules over time.
Good luck.

Stop the bull shit. In the reverse of this situation-nanny works 50 hours, her hours are being reduced to 38 hours- does her rate get raised to compensate the loss of the hours/OT? You and I know damn well that the answer is a big fat NO. To your last point, you who are not a nanny, and have likely only hired one or two, are not actually an authority on what a "real nanny" is. A "real" nanny knows what she is worth and knows better than to let some spoiled MB convince her to lower herself for the MBs benefit.

Totally disagree. I'm a mb who agrees with at least discussing a lower base rate, maintaining or even increasing the average rate. If someone were doing the reverse, cutting hours and eliminating OT, they absolutely should base the new rate on the average, not base rate.

Except we know that wouldn't actually happen. The nanny would be forced to accept a "new" job at the same rate but less hours, as the lovely and fair MBs on this site like to say. "You aren't lowering her rate! You're offering a new different job!" Seriously, in what world is this okay? If your bosses pulled this shit you would raise hell. But a nanny is a lesser human being, not worthy of fairness or the protection of the law...

Anonymous wrote:Basically, OP, you have a new job to create and offer. Offer it to your current nanny first, and then open it up to new applicants.

This is also BS. If what you're truly doing is letting her go from her current job, let her collect unemployment while she actually looks for a new job. This crap forces her to take your "new" job, or be jobless and ineligible for unemployment. You're forcing her to accept a paycut. All of you will reap what you sow.

Basically, OP, you have a new job to create and offer. Offer it to your current nanny first, and then open it up to new applicants.

Anonymous wrote:Oh my you all wouldn't make it in Los Angeles! It's overtime after 8 hrs a day. My nanny (and I only have one. I love her, my children LOVE her, my DH loves her. She's been with us 3 years) works 12 hours a day, sometimes 15 hours (about 2 to 3 times a week). She gets overtime after 8 hours, which is legal. My nanny works very hard. She cares for my children, helps them grow and succeed in life. Why would I not pay her?

We don't pay our nanny overtime after 8 hours and the payroll service we use has never suggested that we do. We are in California as well. Are you sure your information is correct?