OH MY

have I fallen through the looking glass.

"Pending Legislation in California: “The Law to Eliminate Employment of Babysitters in the State”

From California State Senator Doug LaMalfa (R-4th District):


"How will California parents react when they find out they will be expected to provide workers' compensation benefits, rest and meal breaks, and paid vacation time for…babysitters? Dinner and a movie night may soon become much more complicated.

California Assembly Bill 889 will require these protections for all “domestic employees,” including nannies, housekeepers and caregivers. The bill has already passed the Assembly and is quickly moving through the Senate with blanket support from the Democrat members that control both houses of the Legislature – and without the support of a single Republican member. Assuming the bill will easily clear its last couple of legislative hurdles, AB 889 will soon be on its way to the Governor's desk.

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2011/08/bab ... ecome.html

Sounds like it will be a big boon to babysitters under the age of 18. What happened to $2/hour and all you can eat out of the fridge?

It sounds like a well-intentioned law to bring nannies, housekeepers and caregivers into line with other jobs, and babysitters were unintentionally caught up in it. It doesn't sound as if it was made to "eliminate baby sitters" as you characterized it. I don't know if mischaracterization was intentional on your part.

In Colorado, if a house cleaner is injured on the job in your house, who pays if they are injured?

Illegal aliens should like this new legislation. If the homeowners are going to break the law by not having all these benefits, they might as well hire illegals who won't demand such.

And consider this. How do you give nannies and babysitters 15 minute breaks every four hours? Do you have to hire another to watch the kids during the break, or do you come home from work to spell them? Or maybe you just lock the kids in a closet for 15 minutes at a time.

Progressive California at it's best rofllol

WayneH wrote: It sounds like a well-intentioned law to bring nannies, housekeepers and caregivers into line with other jobs, and babysitters were unintentionally caught up in it. It doesn't sound as if it was made to "eliminate baby sitters" as you characterized it. I don't know if mischaracterization was intentional on your part.

In Colorado, if a house cleaner is injured on the job in your house, who pays if they are injured?

When my wife was doing this, the service company she worked for called her a independent contractor so they didn't have workmen's comp for her. They only had coverage for the office staff.

I never really considered this until now. Wouldn't your homeowner's cover a cleaning lady if she fell down your stairs while cleaning?

Wayne - it should - same if anyone - guest or employee - gets injured in your house.

However, I know from past experience with a former boss, there is a way to get around this type of legislation when you hire a nanny or housekeeper. You hand them a 1099, and even if you promised pay the employer's taxes and workman's comp, all that then falls on the head of the employee, making them liable for both their own employment tax and the employers side as well, which can add up to quite a hefty bundle - in my case, over a month's pay. Employer then gets off scott free. They even get tax credits for having childcare.

It's sad that babysitters got caught up in this, but I otherwise support the legislation, - and I've been a nanny on and off since I was 17. The legislation needs to be reworded a bit to exclude the casual evening out babysitter.

Local_Historian wrote: Wayne - it should - same if anyone - guest or employee - gets injured in your house.

However, I know from past experience with a former boss, there is a way to get around this type of legislation when you hire a nanny or housekeeper. You hand them a 1099, and even if you promised pay the employer's taxes and workman's comp, all that then falls on the head of the employee, making them liable for both their own employment tax and the employers side as well, which can add up to quite a hefty bundle - in my case, over a month's pay. Employer then gets off scott free. They even get tax credits for having childcare.

It's sad that babysitters got caught up in this, but I otherwise support the legislation, - and I've been a nanny on and off since I was 17. The legislation needs to be reworded a bit to exclude the casual evening out babysitter.

Shouldn't a nanny being paid 1099 take the costs of doing business into account when setting their rates? Self Employment taxes are a good sized chunk of change.

Not when the nanny expected a W-2 as promised. As was recieved the year before.
It was- shall I say - a not fun surprise.