It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Kalifornia wants to legislate babysitter pay.

page: 1
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 05:58 PM
link   
As if the little guy wasn't getting squeezed from every direction, now, the Kalifornia legislature wants to make it impossible for parents to skip out every once and a while for a dinner where they don't have to cut up their kid's food.


Calif. Nanny State May Legislate Babysitter Pay

In an effort to create an ultimate Nanny state, the California Assembly has recently passed legislation that legislates the proper treatment of babysitters, as per the Assembly’s standards. The new legislation requires that babysitters receive rest and meal breaks. Additionally, parents who hire babysitters would be required to provide workers’ compensation benefits.

Still, analysts are concerned that such a bill would likely hamper the creation of jobs because families will be less likely to hire housekeepers, nannies and babysitters, opting instead for the use of “institutionalized care rather than allowing children, the sick or elderly to be cared for in their homes.” PJ Tattler writes, “AB 889 will make live-in caretakers and senior companions completely unaffordable, forcing countless seniors into institutionalized living situations, whereas until now they could remain in the comfort of their own homes, with semi-affordable caregivers.” According to PJ Tattler, however, that matters little to those who are engaged in a “march toward a progressive future.”

Likewise, parents have articulated concerns over the bill, particularly as it relates to babysitters and the notion that they are entitled to breaks. Jeanne Sager posted in her blog:

Not only do you have to do the impossible of tracking down a responsible college kid to hang with your tot on a Friday night so you can actually sit down for one meal where you don't have to cut up someone else's food. Now you have to find TWO of them. And the second one will have to agree to just show up every two hours for 15 minutes at minimum wage. AND you're going to have to explain to your 3-year-old why Miss Madison has to get up from the rousing game of SpongeBob Memory to go outside and take a break while this other guy comes in ... for 15 minutes.

The New American


As bad as this is, the original version required parents to provide babysitters with VACATION PAY as well.


Here is the text of the bill in case you don't believe this story is for real.

Its bad enough married couples can rarely afford to go out without the kids, this bill will make it impossible. It will also force elderly people into nursing homes rather that staying at home with some live-in help. I don't even want to think of what this bill will do for single parents who need a sitter to be able to go to work to support their families.

Its already passed in the House and looks like it will fly through the Senate so, it won't be long before this is Kalifornia law.

Makes me wonder why people aren't fleeing that state in droves.




posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 06:07 PM
link   
I was hoping to get a job next summer too. I really like kids. There goes that!



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 06:07 PM
link   
Have pets instead like my husband and I did.


Sorry, couldn't resist. Having children these days costs a fortune no matter what, so people better think long and hard before deciding to have them. Yes, accidents happen, but most children are planned.

My husband and I spoil OTHER people's kids, so it's not like we don't have any children in our lives to love and adore.

I know too many young people who have kids, are on welfare and complain about money, and in their next sentence tell you how they want another.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by FortAnthem

Makes me wonder why people aren't fleeing that state in droves.


It won't be long till other states share the same fate as California so leaving would be worthless and a waste of time. I do agree however that those damn legislators have gone too far with these rediculous laws. It's bad enough with the gun laws that we have here, but as bad as things are here at least we don't have to worry about certain storms like other states *cough katrina*.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 06:20 PM
link   
Much like the required permits for lemonade stands which help to stifle the entrepreneurial spirit of many young Americans; this will help to stifle the work experience for many young girls who use this as a way of not only earning cash but learning about responsibility. For decades in America babysitting has been the iconic image of the teenage girl making a few bucks just like the lemonade stand for young children just having a good time during their summer vacation. But, we cannot have that.

How dare we allow these children learn about work, responsibility, and encourage a sense of entrepreneurship! It obviously must be stopped, there should be a law!



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Stop-loss!
 


They've still got the threat that "The Big One" will finally hit and dump the whole damned state into the ocean. One can always hope anyway.


If things do get bad enough there to cause a huge refugee crisis, that will only mean that all the other states will become overwhelmed with tons of stupid liberal voters looking to repeat the mistakes of the past.


reply to post by Misoir
 



Actually, the law only applies to sitters over the age of 18 and exempts family members so the young girls can still make an honest buck. This will probably drive over-18's out of the babysitting market and then Kalifornia will have to pass a new child labor law.



edit on 9/1/11 by FortAnthem because:




posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by FortAnthem
reply to post by Stop-loss!
 


They've still got the threat that "The Big One" will finally hit and dump the whole damned state into the ocean. One can always hope anyway.


If things do get bad enough there to cause a huge refugee crisis, that will only mean that all the other states will become overwhelmed with tons of stupid liberal voters looking to repeat the mistakes of the past.


Nonsense. We'll just become the next hawaii and float away from this already busted up country. If it does happen however be prepared for massive flooding from the ocean. Nanny state=Sandy paradise state.

edit on 1-9-2011 by Stop-loss! because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by FortAnthem
 


Well point still stands, many girls even over 18 have babysitting as their first job or as a part time job. That will hurt them regardless. It is just all about crushing the freedoms of private individuals to deal with each other without the government stepping in to dictate the rules of engagement. I would elaborate further but out of fear that government may read this, let me just say most of everything I do is off the radar.


P.s. Don’t worry it is nothing illegal.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 06:56 PM
link   
Holy crap I hate this state! We have the lowest paid EMS system in the country 8.50 an hour that is less than minimum wage, and now these Jackholes want to tax me and require I pay a certain amount which may very well be more than I get paid, to a kid watching my kid??!! I hate this state!!
Start paying your Emergency Services and school teachers better before you start finding ways to tax kids and their benefactors YET AGAIN! this is right along with the "We need to tax the working classes more and find a way to dig even deeper" campaign.
edit on 12/08/11 by LanternOfDiogenes because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 07:02 PM
link   
As a resident of California, this madness comes as no surprise. But not all people are morons, so most will just pay under the table. We do it for all the field workers and dishwashers, why not babysitters? When there is demand for the service and people are willing to do it, loopholes will be found.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 07:03 PM
link   
Why are you still living in Cali?

What is wrong with everybody. This should and probably will not pass. I think this would, should, be a career ender for the persons who proposed it.

People should stage a massive evac of California.......That is the only thing that will work. If everybody just packs up and starts leaving. Walk if you have to.(too?)



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by SuperSecretSquirrel
As a resident of California, this madness comes as no surprise. But not all people are morons, so most will just pay under the table. We do it for all the field workers and dishwashers, why not babysitters? When there is demand for the service and people are willing to do it, loopholes will be found.



Maybe that's what they want; a massive underground economy for them to crack down on like the jack-booted thugs they are.

It seems everything they do anymore in that state is custom designed to destroy the economy or drive it underground.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 07:15 PM
link   
I went the the CA site where the proposed legislation's status and history of amendments exists.

I read this thread (so far) and the text of the proposal including the preamble, and IMHO the legislation is intended to provide people who are hired as employees in a home with legal protections given to anyone else who works for a person or company, where the workplace is not a private home.

As far as babysitters go, it clearly excludes anyone hired to look after minors/children. Pay them $4 or $8 per hour, go to dinner and a movie... no change from what is common practice. The "headline" for this thread seems to be 100% inaccurate.

The proposed legislation appears to address the concept that domestic employees shouldn't be treated differently than other employees. (i.e. hotel cleaners, cooks, dishwashers, gardeners, administrative assistants etc.) I support the concept of employment fairness and equity in general, and find it difficult to understand why some are opposed to this?



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 07:17 PM
link   
There is an old saying that my mechanic has hanging in his garage, and about a 10' by 10' metal version.
Cash is King! It amazes me how you dupes in California let this garbage keep going on? I wouldn't doubt, this was brought up by some liberal Congressman. Time to tax the teenagers!
Amazing, to say the least, now what will they do with the illegal aliens? Surely, they won't be deporting them as Obama has re-stated from the prompter? And don't call me Shirley



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by surfin4it
I went the the CA site where the proposed legislation's status and history of amendments exists.

I read this thread (so far) and the text of the proposal including the preamble, and IMHO the legislation is intended to provide people who are hired as employees in a home with legal protections given to anyone else who works for a person or company, where the workplace is not a private home.

As far as babysitters go, it clearly excludes anyone hired to look after minors/children. Pay them $4 or $8 per hour, go to dinner and a movie... no change from what is common practice. The "headline" for this thread seems to be 100% inaccurate.


Actually, it appears to exempt only babysitters for people who receive some type of government benefits for the care of their children.

I can see what this law intends to do: it seeks to force all domestic employers to go through some middleman, an employment agency or nanny service or something, in order to have anyone work inside their home. The reporting, payroll and benefits requirement would be too much for the average family. To avoid them, most families will choose to go through a third party employer.

Instead of all of the wages going directly from the employer to the employee, now a middleman will step in to take his cut, driving up the costs for the employer and probably driving down the wages for the employee. This will also insure that the state gets its fair share of taxes.

Those who think this will drive this industry underground have to remember that the employees have the right to bring up complaints against their employer seeking legal remedy whether the employer paid over the table or not. Paying domestic employees under the table will only subject the employer to even more liability.

Only the middlemen and the tax collector stand to gain from this bill.




edit on 9/1/11 by FortAnthem because:




posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by FortAnthem
 


I appreciate your effort to analyze the proposed legislation - it appears that your interpretation may apply to ADULTS emplyed to provide childcare. I checked and the legislation ALSO has parts (B), (C) which specifically exempt under 18 babysitters.

There are many others exlcusions (which may also be the parts you are referring to. But, if you're hiring an adult to perform childcare, the person is not a "babysitter" and IMHO should not be treated much differently than a child care worker who is employed outside (or inside) a private home.

In closing, any CA parents could therefore hire a "babysitter" (who is under 18) and not be subject to the proposals:

(2) “Domestic work employee” does not include any of the
following:
(A) ... Any person who performs services through the In-Home
Supportive Services program under Article 7 (commencing with
Section 12300) of Chapter 3 of Part 3 of Division 9 of the Welfare
and Institutions Code.

(B) Any person who is the parent, grandparent, spouse, sibling,
child, or legally adopted child of the domestic work employer.

(C) Any person under 18 years of age who is employed as a
babysitter for a minor child of the domestic work employer.

(D) ... continues to section (F)



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 09:45 PM
link   
reply to post by FortAnthem
 


But, if you plan on doing it under the table, you better make sure you're kids are on the same page.
If the kids mention that in school, the school may decide that the parents are unfit and take the kids away.

I'm sure you'll all heard horror stories about school teacher and counselors jumping to the wrong conclusions, or of kids getting upset with their parents and ratting them out.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
reply to post by FortAnthem
 


But, if you plan on doing it under the table, you better make sure you're kids are on the same page.
If the kids mention that in school, the school may decide that the parents are unfit and take the kids away.

I'm sure you'll all heard horror stories about school teacher and counselors jumping to the wrong conclusions, or of kids getting upset with their parents and ratting them out.


At the risk of their parents getting fined or jailed? Seems like those kids will get what they deserve for snitching on their parents. Then again its the law makers fault in the first place for putting this hell on them in the first place.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 11:09 PM
link   
First you will need a law firm and a judge to make any sense of these laws.
Second this bill appears to include all domestic workers but exclude baby sitters
if they are under 18 and babysitting a minor child of the employer.
Third it appears that the intent of this bill is TO TAX THE DOMESTIC WORKER
since it requires the person hiring them to create a paper trail.
Many domestic workers work for cash and do not report it.
Fourth it will make it easier for the domestic worker to SUE YOU FOR ANYTHING,
and they are by law entitled to attorneys fees which could easily be
tens of thousands of dollars.


Domestic Worker can mean ANYONE who works at your house, your gardner,
your neighbors kid,some handyman,the dog walker,etc.

Time to start over,this is insanity.





CHAPTER 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS AND DEFINITIONS


1450. This part shall be known and may be cited as the Domestic
Work Employee Equality, Fairness, and Dignity Act.
1451. As used in this part, the following definitions apply:
(a) "Domestic work" means services related to the care of persons
in private households or maintenance of private households or their
premises. Domestic work occupations include childcare providers,
caregivers of sick, convalescing, or elderly persons, house cleaners,
housekeepers, maids, and other household occupations.
(b) (1) "Domestic work employee" means an individual who performs
domestic work and includes live-in domestic work employees and
personal attendants.
(2) "Domestic work employee" does not include any of the
following:
(A) Any person who performs services through the In-Home
Supportive Services program under Article 7 (commencing with Section
12300) of Chapter 3 of Part 3 of Division 9 of the Welfare and
Institutions Code.
(B) Any person who is the parent, grandparent, spouse, sibling,
child, or legally adopted child of the domestic work employer.
(C) Any person under 18 years of age who is employed as a
babysitter for a minor child of the domestic work employer.
(D) Any person employed by a licensed health facility, as defined
in Section 1250 of the Health and Safety Code.
(E) Any person who is employed by, or contracts with, an
organization vendored or contracted through a regional center or the
State Department of Developmental Services pursuant to the Lanterman
Developmental Disabilities Services Act (Division 4.5 (commencing
with Section 4500) of the Welfare and Institutions Code) and the
California Early Intervention Services Act (Title 14 (commencing with
Section 95000) of the Government Code) to provide services and
support for persons with developmental disabilities, as defined in
Section 4512 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, when funding for
those services is provided through the State Department of
Developmental Services.
(F) Any person who provides child care and who, pursuant to
subdivision (d) or (f) of Section 1596.792 of the Health and Safety
Code, is exempt from the licensing requirements of Chapters 3.4
(commencing with Section 1596.70), 3.5 (commencing with Section
1596.90), and 3.6 (commencing with Section 1597.30) of Division 2 of
the Health and Safety Code, if the parent or guardian of the child to
whom child care is provided receives child care and development
services pursuant to any program authorized under the Child Care and
Development Services Act (Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 8200) of
Part 6 of Division 1 of Title 1 of the Education Code) or the
California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids Act (Chapter 2
(commencing with Section 11200) of Part 3 of Division 9 of the
Welfare and Institutions Code).
(c) (1) "Domestic work employer" means a person, including
corporate officers or executives, who directly or indirectly, or
through an agent or any other person, including through the services
of a third-party employer, temporary service, or staffing agency or
similar entity, employs or exercises control over the wages, hours,
or working conditions of a domestic work employee.
(2) "Domestic work employer" does not include any of the
following:
(A) The State of California or individuals who receive domestic
work services through the In-Home Supportive Services program under
Article 7 (commencing with Section 12300) of Chapter 3 of Part 3 of
Division 9 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.
(B) An employment agency that complies with Section 1812.5095 of
the Civil Code and that operates solely to procure, offer, refer,
provide, or attempt to provide work to domestic workers if the
relationship between the employment agency and the domestic workers
for whom the agency procures, offers, refers, provides, or attempts
to provide domestic work is characterized by all of the factors
listed in subdivision (b) of Section 1812.5095 of the Civil Code and
Section 687.2 of the Unemployment Insurance Code.


1452. The Division of Labor Standards Enforcement shall enforce
this part.
1453. (a) Any domestic work employee aggrieved by a violation of
this part may bring an administrative action pursuant to Section 98
or may bring a civil action in a court of competent jurisdiction
against the domestic work employer violating this part.
(b) Upon prevailing, a domestic work employee bringing an action
pursuant to this section shall be entitled to any legal or equitable
relief as may be appropriate to remedy the violation, including the
payment of any back wages unlawfully withheld, the payment of an
additional sum as liquidated damages or penalties as specified in
this part, reinstatement of employment, interest, or injunctive
relief, or any combination of these remedies, as appropriate. A
domestic work employee bringing a civil action pursuant to this
section shall also be entitled to recover an award of reasonable
attorney's fees and costs, including expert witness fees.

edit on 1-9-2011 by RRokkyy because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 11:22 PM
link   
I cant say for sure but the below section indicates that if you hire a domestic
worker you are required "to secure workers compensation" and if you fail to
do so you are guilty of a misdemeanor.

So if there is someone who actually understands this please clarify what it means
for someone hiring a cleaning lady for 2 hours a month. What exactly is required?


Existing law requires employers to secure the payment of workers'
compensation for injuries incurred by their employees that arise out
of and in the course of employment. The failure to secure workers'
compensation as required by the workers' compensation law is a
misdemeanor. Under existing law, employers of persons who engage in
specified types of household domestic service and who work less than
a specified number of hours are excluded from that definition of
employer and are therefore excluded from the requirement to secure
the payment of workers' compensation, as specified.
This bill would remove that exclusion and require all domestic
work employers, as defined, to secure the payment of workers'
compensation and would make conforming changes. By expanding the
definition of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local
program.

3715. (a) Any employee whose employer has failed to secure the
payment of compensation as required by this division, or his or her
dependents in case death has ensued, may, in addition to proceeding
against his or her employer by civil action in the courts as provided
in Section 3706, file his or her application with the appeals board
for compensation and the appeals board shall hear and determine the
application for compensation in like manner as in other claims and
shall make the award to the claimant as he or she would be entitled
to receive if the employer had secured the payment of compensation as
required, and the employer shall pay the award in the manner and
amount fixed thereby or shall furnish to the appeals board a bond, in
any amount and with any sureties as the appeals board requires, to
pay the employee the award in the manner and amount fixed thereby.
(b) (1) In any claim in which it is alleged that the employer has
failed to secure the payment of compensation, the director, only for
purposes of this section and Section 3720, shall determine, on the
basis of the evidence available to him or her, whether the employer
was prima facie illegally uninsured. A finding that the employer was
prima facie illegally uninsured shall be made when the director
determines that there is sufficient evidence to constitute a prima
facie case that the employer employed an employee on the date of the
alleged injury and had failed to secure the payment of compensation,
and that the employee was injured arising out of, and occurring in
the course of, the employment.
edit on 1-9-2011 by RRokkyy because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
9
<<   2 >>

log in

join