Anonymous wrote:Wow you are dense. The first rate you were paying was not minimum wage and you could be sued. In fact post your nanny's email here and I'll help her out. I'm the person who posted about winning cases and no I'm not going to post them because then you would know who I am! But learn to google the law lady or you could be paying damages.

Anonymous wrote:Wow you are dense. The first rate you were paying was not minimum wage and you could be sued. In fact post your nanny's email here and I'll help her out. I'm the person who posted about winning cases and no I'm not going to post them because then you would know who I am! But learn to google the law lady or you could be paying damages.

Anonymous wrote:Wow you are dense. The first rate you were paying was not minimum wage and you could be sued. In fact post your nanny's email here and I'll help her out. I'm the person who posted about winning cases and no I'm not going to post them because then you would know who I am! But learn to google the law lady or you could be paying damages.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
21.42, your post is too long to respond inline so I'm posting the answer separately. Let's address your points.

1. No privacy. You said it yourself that most employers don't go into nanny's quarters.
2. Sound carries. Fact of life. It carries in apartments and multifamily living as well. Would the nanny's apartment be free of sound?
3. Food. No one has any idea what "most families" or "most nannies" do. There's no need to make up a narrative to suit your position.
4. Dealing with upset kids is a reality of life.
5. Boundaries are a reality of life.
6 through 10. Made up, and not specific to live-in nannies. Easily solved by not working for assholes.

But that's not the most important thing. The most important thing is that you inserted your own interpretation of the law into the actual law. You interpreted the point about "voluntarily" as "living in is not a requirement for this position." This is just your read of it; the facts do not bear it out. I interpret it to mean "room and board is part of the compensation for this position, and the employee accepts it voluntarily without a gun to her head."

You also inserted a personal interpretation of (3), stating that "lodging is primarily for the benefit of the employee" means "the employee has no other means of housing herself." I don't even understand what that means - of course there are always other means of housing, no one HAS to live with their employers. Dismissed as made up.

If most nannies would rather find their own housing than get their wages docked below the minimum wage, then the question begs itself - why don't they? If what you say is true, the market for $500/week live-in nannies wouldn't exist. And it does.

What an ass. Hardly worth more of a response. Most domestic workers are illegals, Einstein.

All our nannies have been legal, but what do I know? Perhaps a random bozo from the interwebz knows more about the women she's never met than I do.

You're the one paying below minimum wage? Legally? How's that?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
21.42, your post is too long to respond inline so I'm posting the answer separately. Let's address your points.

1. No privacy. You said it yourself that most employers don't go into nanny's quarters.
2. Sound carries. Fact of life. It carries in apartments and multifamily living as well. Would the nanny's apartment be free of sound?
3. Food. No one has any idea what "most families" or "most nannies" do. There's no need to make up a narrative to suit your position.
4. Dealing with upset kids is a reality of life.
5. Boundaries are a reality of life.
6 through 10. Made up, and not specific to live-in nannies. Easily solved by not working for assholes.

But that's not the most important thing. The most important thing is that you inserted your own interpretation of the law into the actual law. You interpreted the point about "voluntarily" as "living in is not a requirement for this position." This is just your read of it; the facts do not bear it out. I interpret it to mean "room and board is part of the compensation for this position, and the employee accepts it voluntarily without a gun to her head."

You also inserted a personal interpretation of (3), stating that "lodging is primarily for the benefit of the employee" means "the employee has no other means of housing herself." I don't even understand what that means - of course there are always other means of housing, no one HAS to live with their employers. Dismissed as made up.

If most nannies would rather find their own housing than get their wages docked below the minimum wage, then the question begs itself - why don't they? If what you say is true, the market for $500/week live-in nannies wouldn't exist. And it does.

What an ass. Hardly worth more of a response. Most domestic workers are illegals, Einstein.

All our nannies have been legal, but what do I know? Perhaps a random bozo from the interwebz knows more about the women she's never met than I do.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
21.42, your post is too long to respond inline so I'm posting the answer separately. Let's address your points.

1. No privacy. You said it yourself that most employers don't go into nanny's quarters.
2. Sound carries. Fact of life. It carries in apartments and multifamily living as well. Would the nanny's apartment be free of sound?
3. Food. No one has any idea what "most families" or "most nannies" do. There's no need to make up a narrative to suit your position.
4. Dealing with upset kids is a reality of life.
5. Boundaries are a reality of life.
6 through 10. Made up, and not specific to live-in nannies. Easily solved by not working for assholes.

But that's not the most important thing. The most important thing is that you inserted your own interpretation of the law into the actual law. You interpreted the point about "voluntarily" as "living in is not a requirement for this position." This is just your read of it; the facts do not bear it out. I interpret it to mean "room and board is part of the compensation for this position, and the employee accepts it voluntarily without a gun to her head."

You also inserted a personal interpretation of (3), stating that "lodging is primarily for the benefit of the employee" means "the employee has no other means of housing herself." I don't even understand what that means - of course there are always other means of housing, no one HAS to live with their employers. Dismissed as made up.

If most nannies would rather find their own housing than get their wages docked below the minimum wage, then the question begs itself - why don't they? If what you say is true, the market for $500/week live-in nannies wouldn't exist. And it does.

What an ass. Hardly worth more of a response. Most domestic workers are illegals, Einstein.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have a live-in nanny who works six days a week, 8 am to 6.30 pm. In practice, her Saturdays are much shorter than this. We started her at $400/week when we had a 1-year old, and raised to $500/week when his sister was born two years later.

It should be illegal to have slave labor and you should be arrested. Where is she from?

The word "slave" doesn't mean what you think it means. I'll give you a little hint: when one is free to leave, one isn't a slave.

Precisely. If she has no where to go, she isn't free to get away from your abuse.

My little darling, she could buy her own apartment with all the money she's saved over the years if she wanted to. She could certainly rent one tomorrow if she wished. I guess she doesn't care that what a random internet bozo thinks of her situation. If she wanted to leave, she could have done so a hundred times by now.

What a royal ass you are. Shame on you.

She has a point. A smart live-in can save a lot of money. There have been a number of nannies on DCUM who have posted about it.

How smart do you think someone who's earning $5.70/hr. might be, Einstein? Even mentally challenged people earn minimum wage in the United States. I'm afraid this poor thing is an illegal who has no place else to sleep, and doesn't want to be swept up by Obama for deportation. Her "payment" is obviously off the books.

$5.70 an hour plus free rent sounds better than $8.00 an hour, minus 30% in tax and minus another 40% in rent. Even Einstein can figure that one out!

How it sounds is irrelevant. Under the FLSA nannies are entitled to earn at least minimum wage. A LI Nanny working 63 hours a week is legally entitled to earn $456.75. More if she lives where live ins get paid OT or where minimum wage is higher.

And as far as all the money she is "saving", $20,800 - 26,000 gross minus 20% in taxes minus health/car/renters insurance ($2000/year or more), cell phone (400), car payment (250), credit card (150), clothes (500), toiletries and personal care like hair cuts (500), food and entertainment (1000), etc. - let's say that she spends $200/week. That leaves her with anywhere from $6240 - $10,400 saved. 3276 hours worked means she saves $1.90 - $3.17 per hour worked.

If she is saving to buy a 150K house, it'll take 3 - 5 years to get her 20% down payment. That sounds insane.

Anonymous wrote:
21.42, your post is too long to respond inline so I'm posting the answer separately. Let's address your points.

1. No privacy. You said it yourself that most employers don't go into nanny's quarters.
2. Sound carries. Fact of life. It carries in apartments and multifamily living as well. Would the nanny's apartment be free of sound?
3. Food. No one has any idea what "most families" or "most nannies" do. There's no need to make up a narrative to suit your position.
4. Dealing with upset kids is a reality of life.
5. Boundaries are a reality of life.
6 through 10. Made up, and not specific to live-in nannies. Easily solved by not working for assholes.

But that's not the most important thing. The most important thing is that you inserted your own interpretation of the law into the actual law. You interpreted the point about "voluntarily" as "living in is not a requirement for this position." This is just your read of it; the facts do not bear it out. I interpret it to mean "room and board is part of the compensation for this position, and the employee accepts it voluntarily without a gun to her head."

You also inserted a personal interpretation of (3), stating that "lodging is primarily for the benefit of the employee" means "the employee has no other means of housing herself." I don't even understand what that means - of course there are always other means of housing, no one HAS to live with their employers. Dismissed as made up.

If most nannies would rather find their own housing than get their wages docked below the minimum wage, then the question begs itself - why don't they? If what you say is true, the market for $500/week live-in nannies wouldn't exist. And it does.

Anonymous wrote:
How it sounds is irrelevant. Under the FLSA nannies are entitled to earn at least minimum wage. A LI Nanny working 63 hours a week is legally entitled to earn $456.75. More if she lives where live ins get paid OT or where minimum wage is higher.

And as far as all the money she is "saving", $20,800 - 26,000 gross minus 20% in taxes minus health/car/renters insurance ($2000/year or more), cell phone (400), car payment (250), credit card (150), clothes (500), toiletries and personal care like hair cuts (500), food and entertainment (1000), etc. - let's say that she spends $200/week. That leaves her with anywhere from $6240 - $10,400 saved. 3276 hours worked means she saves $1.90 - $3.17 per hour worked.

If she is saving to buy a 150K house, it'll take 3 - 5 years to get her 20% down payment. That sounds insane.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nah my AP is way cheaper than the nanny options I had. And we pay her phone, take her on trips, out to dinner, but the nannies we tried first were a mess, trying to get random days off, complaining about how late we got off, a lot of the same whiny drama you see on this forum, and we were paying $20/hour.

You weren't hiring professionals.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nah my AP is way cheaper than the nanny options I had. And we pay her phone, take her on trips, out to dinner, but the nannies we tried first were a mess, trying to get random days off, complaining about how late we got off, a lot of the same whiny drama you see on this forum, and we were paying $20/hour.

You weren't hiring professionals.

Most people suck when you're hiring for any job. But APs are working out way way better and after following the absolutely revolting attitudes "professionals" on these boards have, I will never attempt to hire a "professional" nanny again.

Your $20/hr doesn't get you a professional nanny. You simply can't afford one.