Brilliant California Legislators Move To Regulate ... Babysitting
Sen. Doug LaMalfa writes that a new bill sailing through the California legislature will require parents to provide babysitter's workers' comp benefits, rest and meal breaks and paid vacation time.
Assembly Bill 889 is sponsored by Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco, and 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.
Failure to abide by any of these provisions may result in a legal cause of action against the employer including cumulative penalties, attorneys' fees, legal costs and expenses associated with hiring expert witnesses, an unprecedented measure of legal recourse provided no other class of workers – from agricultural laborers to garment manufacturers. (On the bright side, language requiring an hour of paid vacation time for every 30 hours worked was amended out of the bill in the Senate.)
Speaking as a stay-at-home mother who hires babysitters, my response is unprintable but could be shortened to "Are you kidding me?" Are there no women or men in the California legislature who have ever dealt with either a real income or the real constraints of securing child care? It is difficult enough to secure quality childcare without having to come up with some bizarre plan whereby said caregivers get a break every two hours. It's insane. Mothers themselves don't take "breaks" every two hours (or 24 hours, sometimes) and women actually understand how to manage this enterprise without overburdening their assistants.
My difficulties managing self-employment are big enough, and the net money I make after hiring a sitter to allow me to go report a story are so meager, that if I lived in California, I could imagine not working and not hiring a babysitter.
Beyond the problems with the unnecessary regulation of an industry that women have managed quite well over the years, this bill will hurt those people who make their living in housekeeping and child care.
As people are more and more burdened by regulatory overreach, they avoid hiring people
I don't know if this bill is being pushed by institutionalized care services or what, but it would be nice if the California legislature would think about some of the unintended consequences of this bill.
More information on the text and status of the bill can be accessed from Sen. LaMalfa.
- Comment (29)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Dec '10
Re: Brilliant California Legislators Move To Regulate ... Babysitting
I heard a new acronym at work yesterday that covers this: NTAC. No Talent [expletive] Clown.
Dec '10
Re: Brilliant California Legislators Move To Regulate ... Babysitting
I thank the Lord that my kids are 17 and 21, and that I don't live in Cali. Even Oregon isn't that loony. Well, maybe it is, but in different areas.
Jun '10
Re: Brilliant California Legislators Move To Regulate ... Babysitting
Molly, much of those requirements are already in existence. They're just never enforced. Babysitting is usually part of a black market, underground arrangement. But technically, the sitter is supposed to report the income and the parents are supposed to pay the employer share of social security and handle withholding, etc. Nobody does, I know, but we are all breaking the law with the informal hand shake agreements currently in place.
May '11
Re: Brilliant California Legislators Move To Regulate ... Babysitting
Wasn't there a post recently describing how each of us are lawbreakers on a daily basis because of inane, obscure gov't. regulations?
Chalk this up as yet another way.
Dec '10
Re: Brilliant California Legislators Move To Regulate ... Babysitting
It begs the question, when will sensible Californians have had enough? What will it take to either abandon the place or accumulate enough votes to rid the legislature of such nonsense? Peter? Rob?
Sep '10
Re: Brilliant California Legislators Move To Regulate ... Babysitting
Actually babysitters are specifically exempted. See sec. 1451(b)(2)(C). But yeah, there will be fewer people employed overall.
Aug '10
Re: Brilliant California Legislators Move To Regulate ... Babysitting
I would be shocked - except that it's California we're talking about.
Re: Brilliant California Legislators Move To Regulate ... Babysitting
You're the second person to say that but here's what I get when I read sec. 1451(b)(2)(C):
Is babysitter a term to describe only people under 18 years of age? I've never used it that way. And in 4+ years of babysitter hiring, I've yet to even find someone under 18 who babysits, much less hire them.
Re: Brilliant California Legislators Move To Regulate ... Babysitting
You beat me to writing about this by about ten seconds. I was reading the bill. It's as insane as it sounds, and it's not just babysitting, but all domestic care. If enforced--and I doubt it can be, it will just create an even bigger black market--I suspect quite a number of elderly people who might otherwise live fairly independently will end up in state institutions.
Jun '10
Re: Brilliant California Legislators Move To Regulate ... Babysitting
If your undocumented babysitter is also an undocumented alien, then don't worry. You're safe.
Jan '11
Re: Brilliant California Legislators Move To Regulate ... Babysitting
Yet again the stalwart public servants in government make it that much harder to a) find good child labor, and b) exploit the living hell out of it. Just how far do they expect an evil, soulless, profiteering capitalist to go to turn a dishonest buck?
Re: Brilliant California Legislators Move To Regulate ... Babysitting
Ironically, the underage babysitters are the only ones exempt from this. So if this bill worked as claimed, it would be exploiting child labor.
Re: Brilliant California Legislators Move To Regulate ... Babysitting
Unbelievable. Aside from all the other horrible unintended consequences (if we are being charitable) of this insane bill, it also discourages perhaps the greatest benefit of girls and young women from 12 to 22 babysitting regularly: practicing for motherhood. Consequently, when these young women who have been kicked out of the babysitting industry because of overregulation begin to have their own children, they will be more inclined to turn their children over to the EXPERTS. By that time there will likely be a babysitting union if the loonies in California have their way.
Jan '11
Re: Brilliant California Legislators Move To Regulate ... Babysitting
Well, if the bill was written properly in the first place, with all logical consequences accounted for, then the assembly-critters would have one less thing to do in the next legislative session, which very well could lead to the frightening possibility that they the people might decide that they the legislators aren't really needed and can thus go home and find something productive to do.
Jun '10
Re: Brilliant California Legislators Move To Regulate ... Babysitting
some people will simply do without -- not everyone -- but enough to do more harm to the lower wage earners. These are the kinds of jobs they have to take to make ends meet -- whether as a sole job or as one of many. Do they really think that these kinds of jobs are sweat shop jobs that need their regulation?
This is how the left truly hurts the poor and increases their dependency on the state. This is criminal.
Jun '10
Re: Brilliant California Legislators Move To Regulate ... Babysitting
Part of the reason parents hassle with payroll deductions for sitters is so they can then claim childcare tax credits. Just another layer of bureaucracy piled on.
Feb '11
Re: Brilliant California Legislators Move To Regulate ... Babysitting
It's good to see the California legislature concentrating on really important issues. I expect this bill to revitalize the state's economy and bring it roaring back to fiscal solvency.
Jun '10
Re: Brilliant California Legislators Move To Regulate ... Babysitting
What? No licensing requirements for babysitters? No government mandated training? No government agency to oversee the industry? No enforcement mechanism? The tax requirement is only the beginning.
Dec '10
Re: Brilliant California Legislators Move To Regulate ... Babysitting
Rewarded: Illegal aliens working in the black market will be in greater demand. More state workers will be hired to administer awareness, compliance, and enforcement of the law. State worker unions will be enriched with more members, dues, and power.
Punished: Honest middleclass families with children. Taxpayers supporting the social services of a greater number of people forced into the black market.
Government has declared class warfare on the private market. Tea party movement: Faster please.
Apr '11
Re: Brilliant California Legislators Move To Regulate ... Babysitting
As one radio host here likes to say, this is why California needs a part time legislature. Full timers have nothing better to do but sit around and decide how to run our lives. At this right, I will end up back in Oregon because California will kill all jobs and businesses.
I tend to be a pessimist any more. Nowadays I believe that many people have to experience the full extent of their foolishness before seeing error. And some never will. Proverbs 26:12 -- "Do you see a man who is wise in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him."