Leftist Californians* Hate Parents


* Let’s get this out of the way right away. I know this is redundant.

From the never ending font of all things cool, we get this:

California Assembly Bill 889 will require these protections for all “domestic employees,” including nannies, housekeepers and caregivers.

Under AB 889, household “employers” (aka “parents”) who hire a babysitter on a Friday night will be legally obligated to pay at least minimum wage to any sitter over the age of 18 (unless it is a family member), provide a substitute caregiver every two hours to cover rest and meal breaks, in addition to workers’ compensation coverage, overtime pay, and a meticulously calculated timecard/paycheck.

What kind of special intersection of crazy and powerful could create this law?

About these ads
6 comments
  1. Good luck enforcing this one. It goes right with people disclosing how many dollars they spent at Amazon, and then paying imputed sales tax to California.

    • pino said:

      It goes right with people disclosing how many dollars they spent at Amazon, and then paying imputed sales tax to California.

      Except that babysitters can self-report as well.

  2. Very weird. I certainly hope this has no chance of passing. I pay sitters $8 to $10 an hour, even when they are under 18, so minimum wage would be a cut! I do have a friend who keeps track of all the purchases he makes in sales tax free New Hampshire and then fills out paperwork in Maine to pay the tax, but I suspect he’s an anomaly. Look, worker protections and the like are important for people who work in factories, low level white collar work and clerical work. We don’t need to regulate babysitters, lemonade stands, garage sales, and people making personal trades and exchanges. There may be some people abusing their nannies, but this kind of law is crazy.

    • pino said:

      There may be some people abusing their nannies, but this kind of law is crazy.

      It does sound crazy, and I suspect you’re right; JD weighs in below. But it’s a funny example of regulation gone crazy.

  3. JD said:

    Pino, it’s your little brother. I skimmed bill and I don’t think it does what is being said it does. A domestic worker is a classification of employee that includes butlers, maids, mechanics, gardeners, nannies, housekeepers, and caregivers. Usually domestic employees are employed by wealthy individuals or large estates and sometimes will live on the premises. On a workers’ compensation policy, these employees would be classified to codes 0908, 0909, 0912, or 0913 depending on how many hours they worked and whether the worked inside or out. Almost every state in the country recognizes these class codes for use in workers’ compensation. Until 01/01/2011 California didn’t recognize any of them. California has been behind the rest of the country in domestic employee coverage up until this year. This law seems to clarify the relationship between a domestic employee and their employer and defines requirements for hiring and employing a domestic employee. A person hired to be an occasional baby sitter would not qualify as a domestic employee. While baby sitter is included in the Scopes definition of class codes 0908 and 0913, it would be extremely difficult if not impossible to prove an employer/employee relationship exists when hiring a babysitter once a week simply due to the infrequency with which you’ve employed that person and the other person’s employment outside of being a weekend babysitter. I highly doubt that this will affect a parent hiring a babysitter on a Friday night. People opposing this are most likely people that employ housekeepers but don’t want to give them the workers’ rights that are afforded to other domestic employees in nearly every other state. Keep in mind how many housekeepers work in wealthy households in California.

    • pino said:

      Pino, it’s your little brother.

      Yo Bro! How goes the new digs?

      On a workers’ compensation policy, these employees would be classified to codes 0908, 0909, 0912, or 0913 depending on how many hours they worked and whether the worked inside or out. Almost every state in the country recognizes these class codes for use in workers’ compensation. Until 01/01/2011 California didn’t recognize any of them.

      Bustin’ out the mad skills; awesome job!

      People opposing this are most likely people that employ housekeepers but don’t want to give them the workers’ rights that are afforded to other domestic employees in nearly every other state. Keep in mind how many housekeepers work in wealthy households in California.

      I’m pretty sure that no one is opposing the idea of giving breaks to the guy that mows the lawn, works on the car or cleans the house. However, the job of watching the kids is one where there really can’t be “breaks”. If the kids are up and at it, so too does the care provider. Now, when the kids go to sleep, I guess time “off” is fine; TV, computer etc.

      I’m sure they aren’t going after the neighbor high school senior, but this is hilarious if that’s how it’s written.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 38 other followers

%d bloggers like this: