Comments on: Calif. bill proposes work rules, meal breaks for babysitters

By: Go for it, Sacramento

Go for it, Sacramento — Thu, 08 Sep 2011 20:05:31 +0000

[…] do regulate babysitting much harder, urges Coyote [earlier; see […]

By: Ron Miller

Ron Miller — Fri, 02 Sep 2011 17:45:49 +0000

Am I the only one who is worried how this is going to affect Arnold?

By: H

Fri, 02 Sep 2011 16:16:58 +0000

Shouldn’t employers also be required to provide paid maternity leave for their nannies/au-pairs?

By: Mannie

Mannie — Thu, 01 Sep 2011 21:48:47 +0000

Drive the service employees out of the private sector, and into unionized government shops. The government will protect you and care for you.

Pass the cake.

By: Mark Biggar

Mark Biggar — Thu, 01 Sep 2011 15:57:53 +0000

The eventual outcome of this bill will be that the only practical way to hire any such worker will be by contracting through a (probably unionized) service company that will be the actual employer of record for the worker likely at a significantly much higher price due to overhead, etc. I wonder how much Merry-Maids paid their lobbyists to push this one.

By: James

James — Thu, 01 Sep 2011 15:01:32 +0000

Crucially, the bill (as currently ammended) does not include what everyone thinks you mean by babysitter: “Any person under 18 years of age who is employed as a babysitter for a minor child of the domestic work employer.” It also doesn’t cover relatives. I think it’s still probably too expansive, but providing some basic break requirements to 40-hour a week nannies, the true target of this bill, is not that ridiculous.

By: GregS

GregS — Thu, 01 Sep 2011 14:45:49 +0000

Re food allergies: I doubt that the law would be interpreted as requiring you to allow domestic help to bring into your home food that someone in the family is allergic to. Actually I think the real risk is the opposite: that the homeowner may end up being forbidden to bring in food that the domestic help is allergic to, because that would be a ‘reasonable accommodation’ of the help’s disability.

By: Walter Olson

Walter Olson — Thu, 01 Sep 2011 13:55:55 +0000

>Shouldn’t this read ‘It’s not like people who are struggling just to get by hire domestic employees.’

No, it shouldn’t read that. Babysitting (and casual hiring for elder care) is a service much used by working families struggling to get by, especially if they are trying to work two jobs or multiple shifts.

By: Frank

Frank — Thu, 01 Sep 2011 13:44:37 +0000

“It’s not like people aren’t already struggling enough just to get by, California is going to make it not worth anyone’s time to hire domestic employees ”

Shouldn’t this read ‘It’s not like people who are struggling just to get by hire domestic employees.’

By: Difster

Difster — Thu, 01 Sep 2011 12:26:28 +0000

This is unbelievably moronic.

It’s not like people aren’t already struggling enough just to get by, California is going to make it not worth anyone’s time to hire domestic employees so as not to run afoul of these regulations and get their butts sued off!

I think if this passes, I’ll become a domestic employee for some rich people and sue like crazy when they don’t follow the letter of the law.