Tuesday, August 30, 2011

Pending Legislation in California: “The Law to Eliminate Employment of Babysitters in the State”

From California State Senator Doug LaMalfa (R-4th District):

"How will California parents react when they find out they will be expected to provide workers' compensation benefits, rest and meal breaks, and paid vacation time for…babysitters? Dinner and a movie night may soon become much more complicated.

California Assembly Bill 889 will require these protections for all “domestic employees,” including nannies, housekeepers and caregivers. The bill has already passed the Assembly and is quickly moving through the Senate with blanket support from the Democrat members that control both houses of the Legislature – and without the support of a single Republican member. Assuming the bill will easily clear its last couple of legislative hurdles, AB 889 will soon be on its way to the Governor's desk.

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 ("parents") 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." 

MP: Just one more example of excessive regulation and high labor costs in the "unionocracy of California," giving businesses one more reason to leave the state in record numbers.  


42 Comments:

At 8/30/2011 6:51 PM, Blogger Bret said...

This may be an example of why employers are leaving California, but not a very good one. Employers don't hire a lot of babysitters.

 
At 8/30/2011 6:56 PM, Blogger Mark J. Perry said...

Business owners and their employees in California never hire babysitters on Friday of Saturday night? The unionacracy of California has over-regulated and over-taxed businesses and now they are raising the costs of hiring babysitters. Businesses never leave a state for a single reason, but when the overall business, tax and regulatory enviornment becomes excessively burdersome, many companies will leavel, and that's what's happened in CA.

 
At 8/30/2011 7:03 PM, Blogger Scott Grannis said...

I'm a California resident and this is outrageous! It's going to turn a lot of parents into criminals, and it could end up really hurting restaurants and movie theaters if people decide to stay at home instead of dealing with all the paperwork and legal risks.

 
At 8/30/2011 7:04 PM, Blogger Craig said...

Employers don't hire a lot of babysitters.

Anyone who hires a babysitter is, ipso facto, an employer. Or was.

 
At 8/30/2011 7:49 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"I'm a California resident and this is outrageous! It's going to turn a lot of parents into criminals, and it could end up really hurting restaurants and movie theaters if people decide to stay at home instead of dealing with all the paperwork and legal risks."

Or, worse yet, they could start bringing their children with them.

 
At 8/30/2011 7:56 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 8/30/2011 7:58 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

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

What twisted mind could possibly call this guaranteed loss of employment "protection"?

 
At 8/30/2011 8:39 PM, Blogger Methinks said...

Or, worse yet, they could start bringing their children with them.

Holy crap! NOOOOOOO!

When there are too many rules and they are extremely stupid, they are ignored. I predict that this is what will happen.

Babysitting jobs will go to people under the age of 18 or to illegals who are not eager to go to the authorities.

The problem is that once people start losing respect for the law, they tend to do so indiscriminately. A general disrespect for all laws starts to set in and that's not really really great for a civilization.

 
At 8/30/2011 8:40 PM, Blogger Methinks said...

I'd love to see a case brought before a Jury. Would this be a jury or a bench trial?

I do so hope people in CA are familiar with jury nullification.

 
At 8/30/2011 11:07 PM, Blogger Andy said...

Why is my state so terrible? Sigh.

 
At 8/31/2011 12:43 AM, Blogger JC said...

The law is clearly not targeted at "babysitters", rather more full time domestic workers; nannies, cleaners, etc. No one is going to get arrested for hiring a babysitter and not reporting it to the IRS.

California has lost companies because it became too competitive. If it were a country, it would have the eight largest economy in the world and has the largest GDP in the country. That spells inflation, higher costs, etc. Silicon Valley is doing quite well thank you very much.

 
At 8/31/2011 1:39 AM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"When there are too many rules and they are extremely stupid, they are ignored. I predict that this is what will happen."

I sure hope so, but in any case, as you said, respect for the law is diminished by such clueless BS.

 
At 8/31/2011 4:11 AM, Blogger rjs said...

documents associated with AB 889:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_889&sess=CUR&house=B&author=ammiano

 
At 8/31/2011 4:37 AM, OpenID American Delight said...

I've got a national debt solution. Mexico: how much would you be willing to pay if we sold you California?

 
At 8/31/2011 6:39 AM, Blogger Methinks said...

JC,

You claim that competition in California is hot. Then, you claim that this has lead to higher prices. How can that be?

You also claim that the a large and vibrant economy "spells inflation". By that logic, the United States should have inflation exceeding Zimbabwe's. In fact, economic growth does not cause inflation.

 
At 8/31/2011 8:08 AM, Blogger Junkyard_hawg1985 said...

"I've got a national debt solution. Mexico: how much would you be willing to pay if we sold you California?"

I think we'll have to pay them to take it.

 
At 8/31/2011 8:25 AM, Blogger Bill Champ said...

Read the bill. Minor babysitters are exempted. Section 1451 2(C). However, I find no exemption for adult babysitters.

(2) “Domestic work employee” does not include any of the following:
...
(C) Any person under 18 years of age who is employed as a babysitter for a minor child of the domestic work employer.

See Bill Text PDF

 
At 8/31/2011 9:04 AM, Blogger Che is dead said...

Read the bill. Minor babysitters are exempted. Section 1451 2(C). However, I find no exemption for adult babysitters. -- Bill Champ

Oh, well, that makes it alright then. Pathetic.

 
At 8/31/2011 9:44 AM, Blogger Kitty said...

Would that apply to dogsitters, too?

 
At 8/31/2011 10:35 AM, Blogger bix1951 said...

when they interview you for a jury
don't mention nullification
they won't let you serve on a jury if you have common sense or principles
they only want sheep who do what they are told to do

 
At 8/31/2011 11:32 AM, Blogger Medical Mania said...

Reason number 2,300,212,238 for leaving the Peoples Republic of California for State which values freedom. Leave while you can. The walls haven't been put up yet to keep you in.

 
At 8/31/2011 1:25 PM, Blogger $9,000,000,000 Write Off said...

the wage & hour, meal & break time provisions tie into fines for every single violation. What usually happens to businesses is (1) a fired employee hires a plaintiff's attorney, who adds this to wrongful termination or (2) a plaintiffs attorney brings a class action for a quick settlement payoff.

The way to avoid this is to hire babysitters for brief periods that don't require the substitute, which means fewer hours for babysitters and less entertainment dollars spent outside of the home.

 
At 8/31/2011 2:15 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"Read the bill. Minor babysitters are exempted. Section 1451 2(C). However, I find no exemption for adult babysitters. -- Bill Champ

Oh, well, that makes it alright then. Pathetic. -- C.I.D.
"

Well, it should be obvious that adult babysitters need "protection", but minors don't. :)

 
At 8/31/2011 2:21 PM, Blogger t11s said...

AB 889 says:

" (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.'"

It is unclear to me if dogsitters fall into this category, unless dogs become legally recognized as "persons".

However, painters, carpenters, gardeners, and many others do clearly fall under the "maintenance of privace households or their premises".

 
At 8/31/2011 2:24 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"The way to avoid this is to hire babysitters for brief periods that don't require the substitute, which means fewer hours for babysitters and less entertainment dollars spent outside of the home."

I'm not sure I understand. Does this mean I should only go out if I can be back within 2 hrs?

Is spending fewer dollars outside the home a good thing for some reason?

 
At 8/31/2011 2:38 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"It is unclear to me if dogsitters fall into this category, unless dogs become legally recognized as "persons"."

The all inclusive phrase "other houshold occupations can probably be used to include dogsitters.

I was more concerned with whether " services related to the care of persons in private households" might include the "comfort workers" I frequently hire through my favorite local escort service. :)

 
At 8/31/2011 6:00 PM, Blogger Ken O. said...

This article is absolutely false. The proposed law exempts completely baby sitters, family members and other types of personal attendants. The person that wrote this article is an out and out liar. Look at the law for yourself:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/asm/ab_0851-0900/ab_889_cfa_20110825_131735_sen_comm.html

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/asm/ab_0851-0900/ab_889_bill_20110712_amended_sen_v94.pdf

 
At 8/31/2011 6:12 PM, Blogger bachcole said...

This is great!! It doesn't cost the taxpayers a cent and it will show the voters what utter, incomprehensible morons liberals and democrats are, especially the politicians of that stripe.

 
At 8/31/2011 8:51 PM, Blogger kleht said...

From the standpoint of the employee, I think the Assembly Bill 889 makes a lot of sense. (But it does take quite some time reading through it). Most employees in the U.S. have such coverage already. Why not domestic employees?

The bill is basically for long-term employees. As such, I think the mininum requirement of 50 hours of work within 90 days is a bit ludicrous. To protect those above 18 years of age, the mininum is really too low.

The current rate works out to about 6.9 hours per week allowed for those over 18 years of age. It would seem that a simple response by the public would be to encourage a change in the minimum hours allowed somewhat higher, say 8 or so hours per week (or 100 hours or so within 90 days).

This would be more reasonable and flexible for those hiring baby sitters for whatever purpose. It would certainly be easier to handle than the present proposals.

And the benefits for long-term domestic hirees would be more reasonable in relation to non-domestic work. Employers needing long-term domestic help would certainly have to become much more knowledgeable about domestic help rights. If their needs are so high as to need long-term help, they will just have to put out more effort. Can't say I feel sorry for them.

Of course, I may have been a bit influenced by "The Help".

I don't think so.

 
At 8/31/2011 9:09 PM, Blogger Meri Jo said...

This bill would affect live-in caregivers for the elderly and infirm. A family who hires a caregiver through a reputable company gets an employee who has workers compensation, disability and health insurance, background checks, drug testing, and is bonded against theft or damage. This bill would triple or quadruple the daily rate charged by the company. Families will either go the the underground economy (pay in cash and lose all the protection provided by a company) or place their family member in a facility because it will be cheaper. A lot of folks will lose their jobs if this passes.

 
At 9/01/2011 1:02 AM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"From the standpoint of the employee, I think the Assembly Bill 889 makes a lot of sense. (But it does take quite some time reading through it). Most employees in the U.S. have such coverage already. Why not domestic employees?"

Makes a lot of sense? Do you understand that if you tax something, either directly, or by over regulating it, you will get less of it? In this case "it" is domestic employment. How are domestic workers "protected" by measures that cost them their jobs?

Do you really think the person I hire to watch my children while my wife and I go out for the evening needs to be relieved after 2 hours? The kids are in bed, and the sitter is most likely watching my TV and enjoying the snacks I left. Why do they need a break from that?

 
At 9/01/2011 10:09 AM, Blogger Dale Napier said...

It appears that the purpose of this law is to drive "employers" to use contract firms to hire for these services. The firms, in turn, are controlled by unions such as SEIU. Since the law requires full benefits, there is nothing more that a union can deliver to the employees, but the union can look forward to dues payments from people who will be required to join, often against their will.

 
At 9/01/2011 10:23 AM, Blogger Dale Napier said...

This law drives up costs for employers and may even drive down income for the workers.

The apparent purpose of this law is to help unions. The easiest way to satisfy these requirements, for an employer, is to hire through an agency. The agency will be required to deliver said benefits. Employees will typically be required to join a union like SEIU that controls the agency. Since the employees will getting full benefits under law without the need of a union, the unions will have a field day collecting dues and delivering nothing to the employees for their trouble.

 
At 9/01/2011 10:58 AM, Blogger AS said...

I am a very responsible household employer and hardworking person who pays our babysitter well over minimum wage, $15/hr, pays all employer associated taxes and accounting fees(which tacks on another $2/hr in costs which I would rather pay my nanny but I can't), pays 3 weeks paid vacation, holidays off, and sick days, AND I do everything by the book. We even contribute towards health insurance. I am NOT rich. My husband and I pinch pennies and worked hard to get to where we are and have alot of student loans, but we CHOSE to pay our babysitter a living wage because we respect her and care for her. However, this bill is ludacrious. She will be unemployed because of this bill, because we are too afraid of the legal ramifications. We cannot provide another babysitter to her give a break during the day. She takes care of two children, and she is not expected to do any hosuehold chores except those directly related to the kids. There is NO WAY a household employer can provide another employee to come in and pay for all the employee taxes and give their nanny a break. I can tell you my nanny is NOT overworked and loves her job, and WE DO pay her overtime. But this will just drive more illegal household employers who don't do things by the book. BYW, it costs an extra $300/year for me to comply with accounting costs for filing forms with the state of california compared to Missouri, where I had also previously hired a household employee. This country punishes law abiding citizens. BTW, Warren Buffet wants to raise taxes. I am one of those whose family makes 250,000/year. We are NOT rich. I pay over 100,000 in taxes, and I EARNED IT. I went to school for years and had alot of loans. Our families weren't rich. My husband and I worked 80hr/week for 5 years to get to where we are. This nation punishes hard working people, gives to corporations, give tax benefits (which we don't get thanks to AMT) to rich and special interests, and punishes us for being law abiding.

 
At 9/01/2011 4:57 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

AS

Your nanny sound like a lucky woman - at least until now.

You didn't mention how long you have been in California, but it seems you haven't yet discovered the underground economy that will provide you with almost anything your heart desires, including a nanny, who will work for for a cash wage of much less than $15/hr, with no additional employer costs of any kind. In effect, a contract worker, minus the 1099.

This nanny, if you wish, will also do household chores, so you can get rid of that expensive housecleaning service.

She can also make arrangements to do your grocery shopping, pick up the kids from school, mow your lawn, and wash your cars.

Check it out. Ask your neighbors for recommendations.

Oh! And, I almost forgot. She's an excellent cook. She can make you delicious, ethnic dishes you may have at best only read about in magazines when you lived in Missouri.

You are absolutely correct that this country punishes law abiding citizens in many ways. Your insistence on "doing the right thing" is costing you dearly.

 
At 9/01/2011 7:24 PM, Blogger Richard Rider, Chair, San Diego Tax Fighters said...

Ya GOTTA love the "thinking" of the legislators on this. It fosters the use of child labor in place of adults.

Parents will hire kids as babysitters until they reach age 18, at which time they will fire the now-adult employee and go hire another child. Almost NO ONE will legally hire an adult babysitter.

Pure genius!

 
At 9/01/2011 7:27 PM, Blogger Richard Rider, Chair, San Diego Tax Fighters said...

These are the same state legislators that are now passing a law to in essence ban Walmart Superstores in the Golden State. Yup, the most successful welfare assistance program in America will be VERBOTEN in California.

Now, Imagine a state legislature with HUNDREDS of such laws are now working their way through the Democrat-controlled full-tme legislative process. And THAT, my friends, is California.

 
At 9/01/2011 10:13 PM, Blogger Ron H. said...

"These are the same state legislators that are now passing a law to in essence ban Walmart Superstores in the Golden State. Yup, the most successful welfare assistance program in America will be VERBOTEN in California."

Makes perfect sense. If existing stores and unions can't compete with Walmart, they can buy a few state legislators to compete for them.

 
At 9/02/2011 4:45 PM, Blogger Public Citizen said...

Well lets just stand back and watch this blow up in the faces of all the limousine Liberals.
Won't take very long for the "hired help" to figure out that they have a new income source from selling their story of how horribly they are being treated by their wealthy [and famous] employers.
To Ron H. the answer is simple the twisted minds of all the Union Bosses are behind this.
To American Delight What Mexico? By their own admission 70%+ of the country is controlled by the drug cartels. Besides, they couldn't afford the cost of the improvements much less the bare land value.

 
At 9/03/2011 9:22 AM, Blogger Unknown said...

Business owners, you are welcome here in Dallas Texas we have no state income tax. You can run your demestic or international business from here and you can pay your babysitter any way you want. Welcome to the Perry state, job creators, fire your CA employees and rehire them back here in Texas (we have CA employees moving here all the time). See you soon.

 
At 9/07/2011 5:02 PM, Blogger big.fisher said...

Ken O.'s post (on 8-31-11) is incorrect, and he needs to read the law again. In Sec.1451(2)(B) it excludes certain family members, and in 1451(2)(C) it excludes babysitters under the age of 18. However, in Sec. 3351(a) it says Domestic Employees specifically includes minors and aliens--potentially nullifying the exclusion of babysitters under age 18. Proceed at your own risk!

 
At 9/09/2011 2:18 AM, Blogger David Chavez said...

All you have to do is have the baby sitter fill out a "independent contractor agreement" and there you go. I work on a daily basis to overturn these rediculous laws pass by stupid politicians voted in by stupid, freeloader voters. I do have to say, Jerry Brown seems like has turned over a new leaf. I was very skepitical about him getting elected as governor of CA, but time after time, he has vetoed bill passed by the legislature in regards to make it harder to put propositions on the ballet that go against these rediculious bills. I believe that Jerry Brown wants the voters to vote on all new bills, instead of these stupit legislatures to do it.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home