Something needs to be done about this law in respect to nanny shares. It clearly isn't going to protect us from anything, and will just allow cheap people to pay less than minimum wage.

You certainly are a dumb bozo. You clearly don't understand minimum wage laws. It is designed to ensure that an employee makes a minimum amount for "a" job performed. It is not there to designate which jobs pay more. There is no reason from an employment law perspective for a nanny to make more in a share than in a single family job. If the laws did try to designate which jobs get more above minimum wage then daycare workers should be paid twice as much as nannies. They have a much harder job, don't get the opportunity for all that "me" time during naps, and don't get chances to run their own errands.

You chose an easy job that requires no skills or no education. This is your fault and no law should give you a windfall double salary that you don't deserve.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP once again. The joint employer laws are actually meant to protect employees from their jobs being split between two connected employers and resulting loss of overtime. It also means that both employers are equally responsible to the nanny for her entire paycheck.

Except it never happens that way in real life. Something needs to be done about this law in respect to nanny shares. It clearly isn't going to protect us from anything, and will just allow cheap people to pay less than minimum wage.

I agree that some employers choose to follow the part of that law that suits them and ignore the other part. The same goes for those employers who pay under the table. That doesn't mean there is something wrong with the law though, just how well it's enforced. It's up to both nannies and employers to make sure they are following the law. If an employer isn't, then quit or report them or whatever you want to do but you can't argue that the law should change so that a nanny share should be treated as 2 separate jobs for minimum wage purposes but not OT etc. As several people have pointed out, the point of the law is to protect the nanny in a share. So make sure you have employers who follow the law.

Anonymous wrote:PP once again. The joint employer laws are actually meant to protect employees from their jobs being split between two connected employers and resulting loss of overtime. It also means that both employers are equally responsible to the nanny for her entire paycheck.

Except it never happens that way in real life. Something needs to be done about this law in respect to nanny shares. It clearly isn't going to protect us from anything, and will just allow cheap people to pay less than minimum wage.

PP once again. The joint employer laws are actually meant to protect employees from their jobs being split between two connected employers and resulting loss of overtime. It also means that both employers are equally responsible to the nanny for her entire paycheck.

nannydebsays wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I do pay her full OT rate if I am late. Other family has 1 kid vs our 2 so the contract specifies a slightly lower rate for OT for them but it is based on a specified 1 child rate. OT applies for anything worked over normal joint share schedule even if one family was out of town for part of the week.

She has 1 job since the hours overlap 99 pct of the time for her employers. This would make total sense in a nanny split but not in a share since her rate for a given hour would be double min wage.

She has ONE job, and TWO employers.

EACH employer must pay her at least minimum wage if they are going to pay legally.

It's not rocket science.

It's going to make LEGALLY PAID nanny shares less cost effective, because the TWO employers will eventually be paying $12.50 EACH, which kind of defeats the purpose of a nanny share, i.e., saving money.

So nanny shares will dissolve and parents will choose daycare if that's all they can afford, or nanny share employers will offer illegally low wages, or each nanny share employer will choose to hire their own NEW nanny and will pay minimum wage or close to it. That means parents will be struggling to find affordable childcare, and more nannies will be struggling to find work that pays a living wage.

Please refer to the actual law at:

https://www.osha.gov/pls/epub/wageindex.download?p_file=F8764/wh1057.pdf


Specifically the portion that states: "In discharging the joint obligation each employer may, of course, take credit toward minimum wage and overtime requirements for all
payments made to the employee by the other joint employer or employers."

In other words, what you are, and other anonymous posters are saying is simply not true. The minimum base rate must be minimum wage between the two employers. Note, I'm not saying this is a good, market, or acceptable rate. But it's legal.

Anonymous wrote:I do pay her full OT rate if I am late. Other family has 1 kid vs our 2 so the contract specifies a slightly lower rate for OT for them but it is based on a specified 1 child rate. OT applies for anything worked over normal joint share schedule even if one family was out of town for part of the week.

She has 1 job since the hours overlap 99 pct of the time for her employers. This would make total sense in a nanny split but not in a share since her rate for a given hour would be double min wage.

She has ONE job, and TWO employers.

EACH employer must pay her at least minimum wage if they are going to pay legally.

It's not rocket science.

It's going to make LEGALLY PAID nanny shares less cost effective, because the TWO employers will eventually be paying $12.50 EACH, which kind of defeats the purpose of a nanny share, i.e., saving money.

So nanny shares will dissolve and parents will choose daycare if that's all they can afford, or nanny share employers will offer illegally low wages, or each nanny share employer will choose to hire their own NEW nanny and will pay minimum wage or close to it. That means parents will be struggling to find affordable childcare, and more nannies will be struggling to find work that pays a living wage.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It all depends on what you mean by "nanny", a HS graduate trying to "find" herself, or a 25 year veteran with amazing skills. Obviously, the 19 year old is more likely to accept minimum wage, whereas the accomplished professional earns at least double, or even triple that.

Be careful what generalizations you make. I had a 30 yr vet nanny who was terrible. Our current 19 yo nanny is amazing. No problems out of her at all. She is professional, friendly and fun. My DH and I love her and are glad to pay what we pay.

What exactly makes her professional, in your eyes? Does she adhere to any professional standards, as a nanny?

"friendly and fun" refers to her behavior with the kids, as in, she will get down in the dirt and play with them.
The professional standards I'm talking about are generally basic, but hard to come by. Ex: punctual, respectful of our wishes and schedules, goes above and beyond all duties.

I WOH but DH is WAH and he tells me that she is wonderful and I see that as well when I come home.

I do pay her full OT rate if I am late. Other family has 1 kid vs our 2 so the contract specifies a slightly lower rate for OT for them but it is based on a specified 1 child rate. OT applies for anything worked over normal joint share schedule even if one family was out of town for part of the week.

She has 1 job since the hours overlap 99 pct of the time for her employers. This would make total sense in a nanny split but not in a share since her rate for a given hour would be double min wage.

Anonymous wrote:We share and it was ages ago that I asked a pay service the min wage question but I swear the answer was that it is DH's combined rate that matters. Frankly does not make sense to me as not being that way since otherwise nanny is required to be paid double the min wage at least and why would that make sense ?

Because she has 2 jobs. What your friend pays her has nothing to do with what you pay her. If your friend misses payroll, are you going to make up the difference, or is it only separate when it suits you? I see the laws about joint employment, but I think the other ramifications of that law are generally ignored. For example, if your share nanny makes $18/hour for a 40 hour work week in the share, it would seem that then her OT rate is $27/hour and she would be entitled to that rate for any hour she worked beyond 40, for your family or the other family, ie. evening babysitting, coming in early, "whoops, I'm going to be an hour late".

We share and it was ages ago that I asked a pay service the min wage question but I swear the answer was that it is DH's combined rate that matters. Frankly does not make sense to me as not being that way since otherwise nanny is required to be paid double the min wage at least and why would that make sense ?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It all depends on what you mean by "nanny", a HS graduate trying to "find" herself, or a 25 year veteran with amazing skills. Obviously, the 19 year old is more likely to accept minimum wage, whereas the accomplished professional earns at least double, or even triple that.

Be careful what generalizations you make. I had a 30 yr vet nanny who was terrible. Our current 19 yo nanny is amazing. No problems out of her at all. She is professional, friendly and fun. My DH and I love her and are glad to pay what we pay.

What exactly makes her professional, in your eyes? Does she adhere to any professional standards, as a nanny?

What exactly are these "professional standards?"

Depends who ask, so you get to pick and choose whatever you want. For some parents, you indeed need to be "friendly and fun". Why not?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It all depends on what you mean by "nanny", a HS graduate trying to "find" herself, or a 25 year veteran with amazing skills. Obviously, the 19 year old is more likely to accept minimum wage, whereas the accomplished professional earns at least double, or even triple that.

Be careful what generalizations you make. I had a 30 yr vet nanny who was terrible. Our current 19 yo nanny is amazing. No problems out of her at all. She is professional, friendly and fun. My DH and I love her and are glad to pay what we pay.

What exactly makes her professional, in your eyes? Does she adhere to any professional standards, as a nanny?

What exactly are these "professional standards?"

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It all depends on what you mean by "nanny", a HS graduate trying to "find" herself, or a 25 year veteran with amazing skills. Obviously, the 19 year old is more likely to accept minimum wage, whereas the accomplished professional earns at least double, or even triple that.

Be careful what generalizations you make. I had a 30 yr vet nanny who was terrible. Our current 19 yo nanny is amazing. No problems out of her at all. She is professional, friendly and fun. My DH and I love her and are glad to pay what we pay.

What exactly makes her professional, in your eyes? Does she adhere to any professional standards, as a nanny?

Anonymous wrote:It all depends on what you mean by "nanny", a HS graduate trying to "find" herself, or a 25 year veteran with amazing skills. Obviously, the 19 year old is more likely to accept minimum wage, whereas the accomplished professional earns at least double, or even triple that.

Be careful what generalizations you make. I had a 30 yr vet nanny who was terrible. Our current 19 yo nanny is amazing. No problems out of her at all. She is professional, friendly and fun. My DH and I love her and are glad to pay what we pay.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry. Employed by 2 or more employers.

If someone works ft at Starbucks and ft at McDonalds, the 2 employers don't get to pay less because their employee works for them both, right?

You are right. Each employer must pay the employee minimum wage, at least.

That's not correct. Minimum wage us about how much the employee is being paid per hour, not who pays her. The analogy doesn't apply because presumably no one is working for Starbucks and mcdonalds during the same hours.

What evidence do you have?

Google "joint employment relationship." The parents are pretty clearly joint employers under FLSA and can each use the others payments in credit towards minimum wage. The statute is actually meant to protect employees from loss of OT, as joint employers are also both responsible for OT payments for time worked over 40 hours to either employer.

I don't know any share employers following the law.