 sj |
||
|
||
BS: The Baby Sitter Law
|
|
|
Subject: BS: The Baby Sitter Law From: GUEST,DonMeixner Date: 08 Sep 11 - 10:47 AM According to a friend who was a signalman on board a US DE from the end of WWII to the beginning of the Viet Nam War there was a signal on US ships that read WARBI. It meant We Are Run By Idiots. Surely it flys over the California Legislature. When Gold Turns to Dross By Peter Hannaford on 9.8.11 @ 6:07AM California is still a land of political surprises--outlandish, foolish, and mischievous ones. Consider the latest: The state legislature is about to pass a bill (AB 889) requiring that adult babysitters (age 18 and up) be paid the minimum wage, overtime pay and worker's compensation insurance. In addition, they must have a break every two hours, plus a meal break. This means parents will have to hire two babysitters at the same time, one on duty, the other to take over during the breaks. It's the Nanny State run wild, for the sitters would have to keep time sheets and the parents who engage them would have to issue paychecks, keep payroll records, and pay an employer's share of payroll taxes. Outraged parents in the state have dubbed it "The Babysitter Bill." Governor Jerry Brown announced recently that before any new state regulation can go into effect it must be analyzed for its potential impact on the state's economy in order to make sure it is justified. Guess who does the analyzing? The regulators who promulgated it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Baby Sitter Law From: Wesley S Date: 08 Sep 11 - 10:57 AM It sounds like a law that will be ignored. Don't worry about it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Baby Sitter Law From: GUEST,DonMeixner Date: 08 Sep 11 - 11:06 AM Hi Wesley, I am not concerned about whether it is ignored or enforced really. I am more amazed that somebody dreamed it up and there are people who actually think it is a good idea. What a world. D |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Baby Sitter Law From: katlaughing Date: 08 Sep 11 - 11:25 AM i'm surprised they didn't add mandatory drug testing, plus proof of nationality, etc. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Baby Sitter Law From: SINSULL Date: 08 Sep 11 - 11:39 AM Nice goin' Miss Kitty. Now they will. No wonder the state is bankrupt. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Baby Sitter Law From: jacqui.c Date: 08 Sep 11 - 11:44 AM More work for the jobsworths. I'd like to see anyone trying to police this bit of nonsense. Potential impact on the state's economy? How about less people going out for the evening? That means less revenue for all the various places of entertainment, leading to less tax revenue. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Baby Sitter Law From: kendall Date: 08 Sep 11 - 11:59 AM Don't be too complacent, some years ago it was illegal to chop wood on the sidewalk in Portland Maine.And to swear in public could get you thrown in jail. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Baby Sitter Law From: Wesley S Date: 08 Sep 11 - 12:15 PM Keep in mind that the bill hasn't passed yet. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Baby Sitter Law From: Greg F. Date: 08 Sep 11 - 12:16 PM I am more amazed that somebody dreamed it up and there are people who actually think it is a good idea. I'm amazed that you're amazed considering the show the Tea Potty loonies & the fundagelicals have been putting on for years. Stupidity is now a positive VIRTUE in the Good Ol' U S of A. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Baby Sitter Law From: DebC Date: 08 Sep 11 - 12:23 PM Being a native Californian, yes sometimes there are some really kooky things that get put forward, usually through ballot intitiatives. I read this and something just didn't seem right. So I thought I'd look a bit further and found the source. This was published in The American Spectator . From Wikipedia : "The American Spectator is a conservative U.S. monthly magazine covering news and politics, edited by R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. and published by the non-profit American Spectator Foundation. From its founding in 1967 until the late 1980s, the small-circulation magazine featured the writings of authors such as Thomas Sowell, Tom Wolfe, P.J. O'Rourke, George F. Will, Malcolm Gladwell, Patrick J. Buchanan, and Malcolm Muggeridge, although today the magazine is best known for its reports in the 1990s on Bill Clinton and its "Arkansas Project", funded by businessman Richard Mellon Scaife and the Bradley Foundation.[1]" 'Nuff said. Debra |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Baby Sitter Law From: open mike Date: 08 Sep 11 - 12:45 PM i think it is more focussed on daily childcare...which can be for 8 or more hours a day....than those who watch kids so the parents can enjoy a night out... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Baby Sitter Law From: DebC Date: 08 Sep 11 - 01:09 PM You might be correct, Laurel. I think it's not the whole story. The American Spectator is a CONSERVATIVE publication. Yes they hae some conservatives that I respect (PJ O'Rouke, George Will), but they also have some of those that distort the truth, take things out of context, and don't give the entire story. Like Thomas Sowell and Patrick Buchanan. Deb |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Baby Sitter Law From: GUEST,leeneia Date: 08 Sep 11 - 01:22 PM Some baby sitters work a few hours for a family when the parents go out on an occasional date. Other people are called baby sitters, but they are working full-time, raising children. They deserve the same benefits as other workers, even if they are minority females and even if their employers are not a business in the usual sense. The same applies to cleaners and handymen. Wasn't there a candidate for the Supreme Court who was not accepted because she failed to appreciate that this basic concept applied to her household help? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Baby Sitter Law From: DebC Date: 08 Sep 11 - 01:31 PM I agree with you Leeneia. Child-care WORKERS deserve the same benefits as established law dictates. The only story regarding this issue that I have seen comes out of the American Spectator and I am now even more convinced that the article is a complete distortion of the truth. I am considering the source. This is probably not about "baby-sitters", it's about people who do child-care or day care for a living. Can someone point us to a non-partisan objective source for this legislation? With facts, please. Deb |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Baby Sitter Law From: GUEST,DonMeixner Date: 08 Sep 11 - 01:49 PM Hi Deb Can you name a non partisan objective source to appeal too? Everyone seems to have an opinion but the source that substantiates their facts are unacceptable to others. I usually rely on the Christian Science Monitor for strict news. Pull all the demagoguery out of this article and the fact remains that there is a bill that is likely to become law that reads on the surface to require all baby sitter types to be paid a union wage with benefits. I haven't looked up the bill to see if specifically exempts high schoolers from this bill. Perhaps I should have. Nothing surprises me anymore. And I won't be terribly amazed should it come to the turn that the statement I posted suggests. It sounds silly but imagine the restaurants that will go out of business because Mom and Dad can't go out at night. And if single Moms have it tough now affording child care it will become impossible in California. D |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Baby Sitter Law From: artbrooks Date: 08 Sep 11 - 02:30 PM This bill applies to licensed home care for the disabled and frail elderly, and has absolutely nothing to do with baby sitting. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Baby Sitter Law From: Amos Date: 08 Sep 11 - 02:53 PM A recent legislative analysis of the bill makes it seem less draconian. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Baby Sitter Law From: GUEST Date: 08 Sep 11 - 02:53 PM Yup another Shakespeare moment from me. Much Ado about nothing. D |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Baby Sitter Law From: GUEST,DonMeixner Date: 08 Sep 11 - 02:54 PM Me above. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Baby Sitter Law From: John P Date: 08 Sep 11 - 03:23 PM I tried to find some info about this on the web and got a LOT of conservative blogs. I finally looked up the California Legislature and read the bill. There is some lack of clarity about babysitters but mostly it sounds like parents need to feed babysitters if they work more than five hours. A vast majority of the bill talks about full-time, live-in domestic help. Here are a couple quotes: 1460. (a) A domestic work employer shall permit a domestic work employee who works five hours or more to choose the food he or she eats and to prepare his or her own meals. A domestic work employer shall permit a domestic work employee to use the job site's kitchen facilities and kitchen appliances without charge or deduction from pay. Here's what the bill is really about: Any work in excess of eight hours in one workday and any work in excess of 40 hours in any one workweek and the first eight hours worked on the seventh day of work in any one workweek shall be compensated at the rate of no less than one and one-half times the regular rate of pay for an employee. Any work in excess of 12 hours in one day shall be compensated at the rate of no less than twice the regular rate of pay for an employee. In addition, any work in excess of eight hours on any seventh day of a workweek shall be compensated at the rate of no less than twice the regular rate of pay of an employee. Nothing in this section requires an employer to combine more than one rate of overtime compensation in order to calculate the amount to be paid to an employee for any hour of overtime work.) - Right to meal and rest periods. - A domestic work employee required to be on duty for 24 hours or more shall have a minimum of eight hours of uninterrupted sleep except in an emergency. - A live-in domestic work employee shall not be required to work more than five days in any one workweek without a day off. Work in excess of this schedule shall be compensated with the appropriate overtime. - A live-in domestic work employee who is not required to be on duty for 24 hours shall have 12 hours free of duty, of which a minimum of eight are for uninterrupted sleep. - Live-in domestic work employees and those who work for more than 24 hours shall be provided sleeping accommodations that are adequate and sanitary. It also says that if you employ people on a regular basis you have to pay the same employment taxes as other employers and you have to provide pay records to your employees. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Baby Sitter Law From: gnu Date: 08 Sep 11 - 03:36 PM No worries Don. We all do it sometimes. Well, I can't speak for everyone but perhaps a lot of us. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Baby Sitter Law From: Jim Dixon Date: 08 Sep 11 - 04:48 PM Everybody seems to be overlooking the "18 and up" clause. There is a specific exemption for people under 18. How many people over 18 do you know that work as babysitters? We aren't talking about people who work at day-care centers—employment law already applies to them. And we aren't talking about grandma looking after the kids, either. There is an exemption for relatives, too. All they are saying is, people over 18 deserve to be paid a living wage. Either that or you need to hire someone under 18. As far as being required to hire 2 babysitters, one to take over while the other takes a break, that sounds like an over-strict interpretation of the law. I doubt that the law was ever applied that strictly to ANY occupation, let alone babysitters. Do you suppose firefighters, police officers, etc., refuse to respond to emergency calls when they're on break? Why would you expect a babysitter to be any different? There are breaks and there are breaks—I don't know about California, but here in Minnesota, although the law requires breaks, the law is widely ignored. Or breaks are officially allowed, but in a half-assed way. For example, at your break time, you're officially allowed to eat a snack or read a magazine for 15 minutes, but if the phone rings, you're expected to answer it. Or if the boss decides to hold an impromptu meeting, you're expected to attend. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Baby Sitter Law From: Greg F. Date: 08 Sep 11 - 05:43 PM Gee- a conservative Tea Potty magazine / blog being alarmist, telling lies and blowing things up all out of proportion??? Imagine MY surprise! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Baby Sitter Law From: DebC Date: 08 Sep 11 - 10:16 PM My Bogus-O-Meter just went off the scale when I read the original post. I guess I couldn't be quiet any longer. No worries, Don. It's exactly what these guys want: immediate reactions and we took the bait. Deb |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Baby Sitter Law From: Big Mick Date: 08 Sep 11 - 10:37 PM Gets pretty tiresome, doesn't it, sister? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Baby Sitter Law From: GUEST,leeneia Date: 09 Sep 11 - 09:59 AM Some people like to call the child-care worker "the nanny." It's cuter that way. Jim asked how many people over 18 are babysitters. I don't know the number, but it's enough that there is a black comedian named Brad Somebody who has (or had)a syndicated radio feature where he sums up the action on the soap opera "The Young and the Restless" for babysitters who have to miss it. My husband chanced upon it while driving one day, and he laughed so hard he had to pull over and park. We now have a CD of it somewhere. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Baby Sitter Law From: GUEST,999 Date: 09 Sep 11 - 11:45 AM Don, Given the stupid laws that have and do get passed, it's not surprising that we get sucked into these. When I was teaching, and the government was cutting the education budget, I made a sign for the staff washroom that read Due to the government's new austerity program, we request that you use both sides of the toilet paper. This will result in a substantial monetary saving and help the environment at the same time. It's a win/win situation. (Parenthetically, I detest that win/win buzz word.) Well, in less than an hour I was called to the office. It seems that some folks took it seriously and were upset with the school administration. I have no idea why they thought I was responsible for putting the sign there. Go figure. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Baby Sitter Law From: GUEST,leeneia Date: 09 Sep 11 - 05:41 PM "Stupid laws" ? So it's okay for athletes, CEO's and movie stars to make huge amounts of money, but the people who care for our children (and watch the house) don't even deserve minimum wage? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Baby Sitter Law From: GUEST,999 Date: 09 Sep 11 - 07:41 PM Took your nasty pill today? If you'd actually read the damned thread (or the proposed law itself), you wouldn't have said something to foolish. How you can contrive that I think "it's okay for athletes, CEO's and movie stars to make huge amounts of money, but the people who care for our children (and watch the house) don't even deserve minimum wage?" is beyond me. It is stupid to put a law in place that can't be enforced--that with regard to baby sitters. And that is ALL the term stupid was meant to address and in NO way was it meant to say I disagree with the intent of the law to ensure that domestic workers (so-called nannies) are treated properly. Now, kindly bugger off and get bitchy with someone else. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Baby Sitter Law From: GUEST,leeneia Date: 10 Sep 11 - 12:52 AM Don't drink and type. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Baby Sitter Law From: Joe Offer Date: 10 Sep 11 - 04:16 PM That "Don't Drink and Type" struck me funny, and the coffee sprayed out my nose onto the keyboard.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Baby Sitter Law From: GUEST,999 Date: 10 Sep 11 - 06:23 PM I don't drink; and I, ma'am, keyboard. |
