I don't know about CA. From the people I know, babysitting other than by grandparents and older siblings is quite rare.

My SIL wanted to give my parents a break. She was unable to find a real babysitter in 3 months of looking. Friends kids? nope. Teenagers from Church? nope. She finally guilted a teenage daughter into watching my niece & nephew for a couple of hours but one of my parents still had to be there in case something went wrong.

Another example from Oz - in Western Australia, retail opening hours are still heavily restricted (i.e. close at 6pm). Newsagents, hardware stores, etc, consequently get a huge rush between 4 and 6 as people come in to grab stuff after work. Solution - hire schoolkids to work 2 hours after school. They want to be home for dinner and homework anyway. Everyone is happy.

New law says 3 hours is the minimum shift, so that people aren't exploited. Kids can't leave school early, shop can't stay open late. Businesses apply for exemption. Nope. Kids fired. Well done Aust Labor Party.

Back on topic, I don't see the problem - surely the babysitter's boyfriend that she invites around once the kids are asleep could cover rest breaks? And she can pay him in kind so everyone's happy!

Oh yes, my sister used to babysit 6 kids (two couples dumped all the kids at one place before dinner). One was diabetic. No, it's really not that hard. And you hardly need rest and meal breaks when you're staying in someone's house and the kids are meant to be in bed. If you do, you're doing it wrong.

Or, you see an increase in parents taking their kids along to dinner . . . !

She finally guilted a teenage daughter into watching my niece & nephew for a couple of hours but one of my parents still had to be there in case something went wrong.

So if an adult hd to be on hand anyway what was the point in haveing a teenager babysit?

New law says 3 hours is the minimum shift, so that people aren't exploited. Kids can't leave school early, shop can't stay open late. Businesses apply for exemption. Nope. Kids fired. Well done Aust Labor Party.

But those kids were taking jobs away from voters.

Lol, brian, I think you have a point. They would rather see that work organised into a shop floor of unruly, work-shy employees than have people sort it out between themselves.

Actually the law exempts babysitters under 18, so if you're in college and making money by babysitting, you just lost your job to your younger sibling.

The law seems to be aimed at nannies especially. Some of the discussions I've read speculate that it may be backed by employment agencies that supply nannies. Individuals won't want to take the legal risk of hiring a nanny themselves, so they'll be more likely to use a service and let them deal with the legal implications.

Of course, using a service is more expensive and the law will drive up costs more so some people who might have hired a nanny won't. It will almost inevitably lead to fewer jobs, as most regulation does.

Way to go, California! Why don't they just make it illegal to employee anybody to do anything?

Actually, Laura - you may be on to something. This will increase the employment of illegals as nannies because who are they going to complain to?

Brian is right. The more difficult you make it to comply with the law the more lawbreaking you get. This will be a boon to illegals just as complex tax laws simply encourage barter and other forms of avoidance.

..and increase the use of institutionalized care rather than allowing children, the sick or elderly to be cared for in their homes. I can't help but wonder if that is the goal of AB 889 - a terrible bill that needs to be stopped.

I suspect that this is the underlying motivation, though not necessarily to promote institutional care. They're probably trying to force people working in these roles into more formal arrangements, through unions and corporate service companies.

Because though they're placing the onus on 'employers', it will be the employee who must accommodate these requirements. Realistically parent's aren't going to start issuing time cards and workers compensation forms for their babysitters - and hiring a back-up babysitter, and enforcing work breaks etc..

People will be forced to find babysitters who can accommodate compliance for them, and that means going to a service bureau that provides these things along with the necessary oversight, record keeping and reporting. Similarly it will knock out all of the housekeepers, gardeners, & in-home caregivers that are currently self employed and work through casual arrangements. They'll be forced to either invest in compliance services (e.g. join a union) or join a service company.

The secondary effect is that this law will create a black market for care giving. Poor and middle class people will have unaccountable black market caregivers, rich people will hire expensive government authorized caregivers.

These kinds of proposed laws make my blood boil. Thankfully we don’t live in California. My husband and I both have demanding full time jobs and after our first child was born we decided to spend almost every penny of our discretionary income to employ a full time nanny. We do everything on the books, requiring that I spend many hours every quarter making sure that we are paying proper taxes and fees. We are paying all that we can afford. If a bill like this passed in our state we would have to fire our nanny and one more person would be unemployed (or working for lower wages in a daycare). Her job is to take care of the kids during the day – we can’t afford to pay a second person to give her breaks from her job. We also can’t afford to pay any more taxes and fees to employ her. There is already a large incentive for people to pay “under the table” since both the nanny makes more money and the employer pays less (win-win other than breaking the law). These lawmakers must be under the impression that money can just be plucked from the air whenever they want to add a new benefit or regulation to a job. We sign a yearly contract with our nanny. There is no ambiguity about what the job requires and, as an adult, she is more than capable of looking out for her own career interests. She is not forced to take care of our children. If she wants other benefits that we can not afford or won’t offer, there is nothing stopping her from looking for another job just like any other professional.

Hey, wait - if you're an employer, don't you have to file for a business license?

This might be hype. When I get the air-conditioner repairman over for lightning damage, I am not an employer.

No matter how many times I call him.

Tom Ammiano is a hardcore liberal and a staunch LGBT activist ... with all the political nonsense that implies.

He spent years in the city's Board of Supervisors trying to get San Francisco to pass a living wage ordinance requiring all businesses within the city to pay workers a "living wage." He dismissed concerns that with higher wages comes higher prices which under the ordinance would then require higher wages ... and create higher prices.

His also wanted the city to implement rent control to create "affordable housing" - at the same time he opposed proposals to expand the housing supply (by permitting of new apartment buildings and the conversion of former industrial lofts to live-work space).

tweet

I literally just dealt with this workers comp shit for my company here in NYC. Independent Contractors, as baby-sitters would properly be categorized, are legally required to provide their own insurance and workers compensation. It is the contractor's choice whether or not they do or do not purchase it.

@LauraB. If you are correct that it's coming from nanny services, then it's the services job to handle all of the workers comp, payroll and everything else.

Plus: "Provide a substitute caregiver every two hours to cover rest and meal breaks." Jesus christ even hard-core unions in the film industry only require meals/breaks every six hours. And those guys work in actual strenuous conditions.

This shit is retarded.

It could be about taxes. Most babysitters get paid in cash or by personal check--and that money never gets reported.

what do you expect? these are the same morons that just voted to give illegals the same access to financial aid as legal residents

So ... is crack dealer still an unregulated job?

If I didn't think this was just the natural progression of the Nanny State, I'd be more disgusted.

The state we live in requires that families who hire nannies pay payroll taxes, provide health insurance, and 2 weeks paid vacation (assuming nanny is full time). That's in addition to salary, which around here averages 40,000 a year. Yes, you read that right.

And lenka is right - what it's done is created a two-tier system; the rich obey the rules because they can afford to. The middle class and lower classes hire illegals, or put their kids in warehouse day care (which around here will still run you 14,000 a year on average).

Once again I must say to California: "When you guys have riots that make Greece look like an afternoon tea, and LA and San Fran are burning, you had better not come crying to the Federal Government. You dug your own grave."

Do I understand this bill correctly?

If I hire someone over the age 18 to watch my child, even for an evening, I need to provide a substitute caregiver every two hours to cover rest and meal breaks, in addition to workers' compensation coverage? But if I hire a child to do the same work, I'm not obliged to do these things?

How is it possible to have in-home childcare while both parents work and provide a substitute caregiver every two hours? Do I also need to hire a second caregiver to come by my home?

Even in the case of large companies with many providers, this requirement is an expensive burden. But it makes it near-impossible to legally hire a nanny who works independently. Hell, I might as well skip the pretense and hire an illegal.

If this becomes law, it will be a notably stupid achievement, for a legislature that specializes in them.

"the rich obey the rules because they can afford to."

No, like Zoe Baird, the rich ignore the rules because they can get away with it most of the time. Everybody will ignore this rule, because it is unenforceable. Pay cash, treat your sitter well, no problem.

> If this becomes law, it will be a notably
> stupid achievement

Too emotional, Christoper! The brazen audacity of your impudent rhetoric is off-putting!

This will be a boon to illegals just as complex tax laws simply encourage barter and other forms of avoidance.

My dad and about 5 of his freinds all worked construction, my dad as an electrition, on of the guys does tile, another does concrete, ect.

When ever one of them needs something done he calls up the 'expert' for a recomended supply list and they all show up one day and knock the job out. I watched these 6 guys take a bare 30x60 basement and turn it into a 3bed, bath, floo with a general room and a storage/utility room inside of 9 hours on 3 different occasions.

Who ever needed the help would by their own supplies and they'd all just swap labor with each other - they've ben doing it for the last 20yrs

Just wait until those scumbag ADA lawyers get a hold of this.
1. Your house isn't handicap accessible? That means you couldn't hire a handicapped babysitter/housekeeper/whatever. That's DISCRIMINATION!!!
2. File lawsuits.
3. Profit!!!!

Too emotional, Christoper! The brazen audacity of your impudent rhetoric is off-putting!

Do allow me to rephrase: "If this becomes law, it will be an unusually ill-considered piece of legislation, for a group that specializes in such."

Better?

> Better?

Not really. Have you ever had a boner? Or an earache, a growling stomach, or a sneeze?

Y'know... Something glandular and humanoid?

___________________________________


Meanwhile, precisely on topic.

Way to go, California! Why don't they just make it illegal to employee anybody to do anything?

Oh I'm sure that's the plan, and we're well on our way there.

Unless it's a gov't or Union job, of course.

Not really.

Drat! Lemme try again: "This bill is yet another example of the California legislature's apparent inability to consider the practical consequences of its actions."

Meanwhile, precisely on topic.

Good link. And correct.

The mandated break is ridiculous. The minimum wage, not so much.

I'm always amused at the insistence that raising children is the Most Important and Difficult Job in the World ... except when it comes to paying someone else to do it. Then it's "How hard can it be, anyway?".

As for the person who couldn't find a babysitter in three months of looking: the free market at work there.

The mandated break is ridiculous. The minimum wage, not so much.

I have nothing against decent pay for people trusted with real responsibility. I'd be hard pressed to imagine leaving my kid with a child, or someone else who would work for less than minimum wage. I don't know that the minimum wage matters, or not, but I want an adult with some brains and judgment. Those aren't available here for anywhere near minimum wage.

The mandated break and alternate caregiver business is where things get crazy.

Please tell me this means they'll say home with their hellspawn, rather than letting them run roughshod all over my nice expensive dining experience.

Wishful thinking, I know.

except when it comes to paying someone else to do it.

Ha! Tell it to my sister Kevin, who now works in childcare. Terrible wages, arrives at 6am for early drop-offs, all that stuff, but god forbid she doesn't finish her reports on how "educated" and "stimulated" the little darlings have been during the day. And the parents still complain about the bill.

She had a kid yesterday trip, fall, split chin open, blood everywhere, etc. Nothing serious, but she couldn't get either parent on the phone and ended up calling an ambulance. While she was trying to staunch the bleeding someone else came in "can I ask a question?" That parent, I suspect will never ask that again. I've been on the receiving end of her piercing voice a few times, and it ain't fun.

The minimum wage, not so much. -- Kevin at September 1, 2011 7:30 PM

There is a fallacy to the minimum wage. If a business has to pay the person $1 more per hour to put vegetables on a shelf in the grocery store, is he going to accept less profit for his store?

No, he's going to raise the price of a tomato $0.01 and hope to sell 25 every hour. Oh, you don't like tomatoes? He'll add an additional $0.01 to the lettuce, the bell peppers, the deli meat, laundry detergent and everything else. So he will end up with more profit. The worker who got that $1 -- will see an increase on 500 items to cover his $1. So the worker is going to get less spending power for that extra $1.

Jim, I'm not arguing the merits or demerits of the minimum wage. I'm saying that it's ridiculous that the least skilled laborer employed legally gets paid minimum wage, but people balk at the same for babysitting or child care. If watching a 3-year-old is important, then it should be paid like any important job.

I often hear from parents that teenagers don't babysit any more, which may be true. Sounds like the free market in action to me. As a teenager, I worked in a movie theater for minimum wage. You would have had to pay me more - a lot more - to spend my nights watching children rather than selling movie tickets.

A buddy of mine was lobbying for this. It's a non issue, as most domestic workers prefer to be paid under the table for tax reasons. They will continue to be paid so, and laws don't apply to the black market, by definition.

Kevin, by definition domestic work has to be paid less than most jobs, otherwise you wouldn't get a job to begin with if you had to spend your whole paycheck on the domestic labor replacing your lost at-home labor.

Actually, that is part of the reason a lot of women I know are SAHMs. The childcare is so expensive, when you factor in taxes, gas, clothing you pretty much break even.

This reminds me of the service workers union in the midwest in the last year or two, pushing for requiring all home caregivers to join the unions. They wanted to get all the folks who care for family etc. and get gov. support checks for it. IIRC, they were going around door to door to try to convince folks to support the bill.

Reminds me of this 1999 editorial cartoon by Mr. Horsey in Seattle:

Senator: You teachers should quit WHINING about your PAY! Heck, you're only in class for seven hours a day for a mere 180 days a year!

Teacher: OK, Senator, just pay me what you'd pay a babysitter.

Senator: HEY! I'll take THAT deal! Let's see, that's $4 an hour times 7 hours times 30 kids times 180 days....EGAD! That's $151,200!

Teacher: Yeah, but you don't have to buy me pizza.

(end)

Trust my pedantic father to ruin that joke, however - I told it to him and he said: "No, that's $5,040. Babysitters don't get paid by the kid." If I'd been quicker on the draw, I would have said: "They certainly DO get paid per kid if the kids come from different families!"

But here's the point - when I told it to my baby-boomer mother, she growled: "Why would I buy pizza for a babysitter?"

Or, you see an increase in parents taking their kids along to dinner . . . !

"Hey, wait - if you're an employer, don't you have to file for a business license?"

Exactly. If you pay someone to watch your kids, and that person doesn't have guaranteed hours, they aren't employed by you. They are an independent contractor.

So this law wouldn't apply to all those parents paying a babysitter to watch their children for the night.

"New law says 3 hours is the minimum shift, so that people aren't exploited."

Funny you don't hear too many unemployed people proclaiming how happy they are that they're not being "exploited".

"There is a fallacy to the minimum wage. If a business has to pay the person $1 more per hour to put vegetables on a shelf in the grocery store, is he going to accept less profit for his store?"

Yup, it doesn't take a genius to figure this out, but minimum wage simultaneously raises unemployment and works additional inflation into everything (and in fact, hurts purchasing power more than it raises income, if you do the math). E.g. Malaysia (no minimum wage) unemployment is 3.9%, and yet even the poorest can afford things like food and cellphones, because everything is extremely cheap.