Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't imagine setting up a share the way the previous poster describes, with two separate agreements, checks, etc.. I always thought that if I did a share, the other parents and I would set it up together so that we were jointly the one employer, and the onus for collecting the money, taxes, etc. would fall on us. Having two separate bosses seems absurd. So one family could just leave the share with impunity, and the other family wouldn't be on the hook to pay you more?

No, that's not the way I have ever done it. In my experience, if a share family jilts me on a check, it's my issue with them, just as it would be in the case of a non share job. I would never expect the other family to pay the difference, and I have a feeling that if I did, they'd look at me like I had two heads. Its two families, two sets of bosses, and two jobs to juggle. They conveniently share hours and location, but that's it. My employers literally don't even see each other on a regular basis outside of any meetings I may call.

I certainly hope they each pay you minimum wage, at the very least. You have a full plate managing two families.

Anonymous wrote:I can't imagine setting up a share the way the previous poster describes, with two separate agreements, checks, etc.. I always thought that if I did a share, the other parents and I would set it up together so that we were jointly the one employer, and the onus for collecting the money, taxes, etc. would fall on us. Having two separate bosses seems absurd. So one family could just leave the share with impunity, and the other family wouldn't be on the hook to pay you more?

No, that's not the way I have ever done it. In my experience, if a share family jilts me on a check, it's my issue with them, just as it would be in the case of a non share job. I would never expect the other family to pay the difference, and I have a feeling that if I did, they'd look at me like I had two heads. Its two families, two sets of bosses, and two jobs to juggle. They conveniently share hours and location, but that's it. My employers literally don't even see each other on a regular basis outside of any meetings I may call.

I can't imagine setting up a share the way the previous poster describes, with two separate agreements, checks, etc.. I always thought that if I did a share, the other parents and I would set it up together so that we were jointly the one employer, and the onus for collecting the money, taxes, etc. would fall on us. Having two separate bosses seems absurd. So one family could just leave the share with impunity, and the other family wouldn't be on the hook to pay you more?

Anonymous wrote:FYI, nanny shares are illegal in Montgomery County, MD, unless the home is licensed, and the provider of the care is licensed to.

I had no idea. I was about to start looking for a share. Can you please paste a link here with that law?

FYI, nanny shares are illegal in Montgomery County, MD, unless the home is licensed, and the provider of the care is licensed to.

Anonymous wrote:She hasn't posted on this forum in ages. Besides, I'm sure she's obligated to adhere to your local laws, which can affect the legality of a nanny share. Did you mention where you live?

You never mentioned location in your previous arguments, so why bring it up now? We've had her firm confirm the legality of our arrangement, which they did, to our satisfaction.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not really PP. You are basically doing the same job watching two kids at the same time in the same location. The things that you list are about how your employers pay you and file taxes. Its not a compelling argument that you should get double because you need to speak to two employers. Just doesn't hold water but good try.

If the schedules are different when you are watching one child then you do deserve at least minimum wage for watching that one child but not double minimum wage when you watch 2 kids. Its one job.

Sure. Just ask any nursery school teacher. You know you're being completely ridiculous here. Haven't you seen all the parenting threads from moms who don't know how they'll be able to cope when #2 comes along? And then the endless issues when #2 has arrived. It's not exactly a piece of cake, even for some parents.

I know some nannies who leave if there's #2 coming. They say if they are paid the same for one child as for two, why should they double their workload? The token extra dollar an hour is of no interest to them.

Minimum wage from each family in a share, is really a bargain if you're lucky enough to find a good nanny.

Just as many nannies stay when #2 comes along, and finding a good share nanny for under $23/hr is very easy.

She hasn't posted on this forum in ages. Besides, I'm sure she's obligated to adhere to your local laws, which can affect the legality of a nanny share. Did you mention where you live?

For the nannies about who say that if you cannot afford to pay $40,000 to $50,000 a year for a nanny then you should go to daycare, realize that you'd be putting a lot of people out of work. The bottom line is that there are a lot of people working for less. If those people are out of work, they will compete even harder for your jobs -- which will bring the rates employers are willing to pay down.

It's a market just like any other. There are some non-price sensitive employers who will pay extra for a highly educated professional nanny. But the bulk are price sensitive -- and you can't ignore the rest of the economy.

If people with four year college degrees are having a hard time finding an office job that pays $40,000 a year, you had better realize that nanny wages will shrink too.

Why are you asking this question, 9:45?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So first you argue that the law says what you think it says, and when someone shows that isn't actually the case, you switch to arguing that "something needs to be done about this law"?

Yes. I have the ability to admit that I am wrong. I see the law now, and can't argue that it doesn't say what it says. That doesn't mean I have to think its right. There are plenty of laws I think need fixing. Why is that so crazy to you?

It's not. It's only crazy when someone argues what the law says after being demonstrated that it doesn't.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In a nanny share, if the families pay legally, they EACH have to pay at least minimum wage, since each family is an employer, and there is no general exemption from minimum wage laws based on one person being em

That's incorrect, only total rate counts. We had a tax person look into this.

Which "tax person" told you that?

There is a representative of nanny tax service who posts here regularly. Her handle is webcathy. Her company prepared our tax reports when we employed a nanny in a share. If you want her to weigh in, you can start a new thread clearly marked for her attention in the thread title.

What exactly should the law say, MB?

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So first you argue that the law says what you think it says, and when someone shows that isn't actually the case, you switch to arguing that "something needs to be done about this law"?

Yes. I have the ability to admit that I am wrong. I see the law now, and can't argue that it doesn't say what it says. That doesn't mean I have to think its right. There are plenty of laws I think need fixing. Why is that so crazy to you?

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.

So first you argue that the law says what you think it says, and when someone shows that isn't actually the case, you switch to arguing that "something needs to be done about this law"?