The majority of domestic workers aren't employed by one single employee. Any new legislation should also try to address the plight of a house cleaner or gardener who is juggling multiple clients. Create a program that allows multiple employers to fund a single employee's sick leave or health insurance. Just because the employee isn't relying on a single income stream doesn't make their position any more secure.
15
@S. Hayes That's a great idea. I have used housekeepers and would certainly support pooling funds.
Of course domestic workers deserve rights, contracts and labor protections. But let's get real - it's not going to happen while illegal alien labor makes up the backbone of the domestic labor force. Workers in the country illegally typically don't know and / or do not report labor violations for the obvious reasons (language barriers, fear of removal) and this would not change with additional legislation. And as long as there is a core domestic workforce that is outside of the laws working in the shadow economy, they will set the floor and the norm for pay and conditions.
37
@Big Cow. Exactly. What I don't get is the left seems not only ok with this, but actually encourages it. Shameful.
3
@Big Cow
Easy fix: grant them citizenship.
2
@childofsol. Yeah. Citizenship for everybody who sneaks in. . That should slow down the flood.
5
Does anyone seriously think that if you make nannies labor more expensive it won't just be taken out directly from the bottom line. Where i live a good nanny commands a $25 an hour wage, pretty on par with other jobs in the area. That is typically paid under the table. If you start adding on FICO taxes, insurance costs, paid leave, it will all just come out of the wages or the nanny would lose her job.
It's not like nannies are being employed by huge corporations. They are employed by households with two working parents. Those are not the 0.1%. Also many nannies are in the US illegally. Try to bring them onto the books and their job is gone.
If you think you are doing nannies a favor with this poiicy, you're not. You're just destroying the only jobs standing between them and poverty.
14
@Dave I disagree. If people didn't get away with paying slave wages they would push the government to support childcare with taxes instead of endless wars and obscene tax breaks for the elites
4
Great idea! This bill will help end the classism we so blithely ignore. All workers deserve the same rights and privileges as their employers. Cleaning a toilet or a baby's bottom is as worthy a job as any. I once lived in a country where folks respect the men and women who clean homes and care for children. By law, when I moved away, I was obligated to pay my cleaner and nanny compensation equal to about 3 months of their pay. Paid vacations, absolutely. They were paid when I traveled and did not need their services. Why should the folks who committed their working hours to me be punished if I decided to spend a month abroad? All sick days paid, too. Then again, we enjoyed universal health care, a guarantee of never being thrown into the street and every citizen has a pension.
Get down on your knees and start doing the scrubbing, hauling, hand-holding and shlepping then tell me whether or not your labors have value. I'm betting you'll join the chorus for equality and respect for all. Don't want to pay? Do the work yourself.
24
@Nina wow what country was this? Sweden?
1
There are a surprising number of cheap Americans among those that hire nannies and other housekeeping help, and I say this as an American. Years ago in my capacity as a community volunteer I facilitated a child care arrangement for an older female client trying to make her way back into the work force. She had years of experience raising children and loved them; the perfect person for part time child care work. Unfortunately despite my best efforts, I found that the mothers wanted her to watch kids (always more than one and usually included an infant), shop and do housework for $10 an hour. I advised her to decline these offers. Another common request was that they be on call! Other similar experiences were disheartening - people are willing to pay more for pet sitters than a qualified loving person to watch their kids. Why do people think nannies and housekeepers should work for dirt wages?
21
This is important. Nannies and other domestic workers deserve clearly outlined contracts, salaries/wages and responsibilities. Moreover, the AuPair programs in the US need to be revamped and included in these proposals. These women are being paid <$200 per week to care for up to 4 children for 45hrs/week, including early mornings, overnights, holidays and weekends. They are supposedly in a "cultural exchange" program but are often treated horribly, and not supported in taking classes (the purpose of their stay) because they interfere with childcare. Many high-income professional families utilize them for their flexibility, but they offer far less than minimum wage for 24/7 coverage.
9
I don't think anyone should be outside the system of federal labor protections. The author mentions that farm workers, as well as domestic workers, were excluded from the New Deal labor protection acts. Have they been covered by subsequent legislation?
Many state employees were "opted-out" of Security Security and Medicare by states that now claim they can't pay for the pensions and medical care they promised. Those workers should be brought in to the federal systems.
And, to avoid, employers cheating employing of benefits and other protects by paying them "off the books," we should go to a system of payments made only electronically to accounts associated with social security numbers or the equivalent. Eliminate paper money and provide coins worth no more than $10—at most—for petty transactions. (That last suggestion will require that we solve the problem of undocumented workers. Do that whatever way you want, but do it. Having a pool of workers who cannot call in the government when they are cheated makes it easier for employers to cheat all employees.)
6
These workers are part of our shadow economy due, in large part, to the lack of reliable, universal child-care programs that many countries in Europe and elsewhere enjoy.
For the families that really want and can afford "in-house" child-care, let them pay the full price of hiring these people, including their benefits and protections.
For the majority of Americans, let's work on providing high-quality, universal pre-K (and even universal nurseries) so that parents can earn for their families without having to worry about the care of their youngsters as well.
21
@TD
Vote for the candidate who has a feasible plan for child care and pre-kindergarten schools. My daughter pays $20 per hour for a baby sitter for her two kids, ages 2 and 4. There is not much left from her paycheck after she pays for childcare.
7
There was not a mention of paying social security contributions here. I always paid 100 % of the required contribution because it was so hard for the employee to come up with their expected 50%. I felt it was something that I could and should do. The talks were often difficult. Several became hysterical at the prospect." No one else keeps these records. I'm not sure this is good for me. Now I'll have to pay taxes." I had to insist with some of them: "I'm going to stay transparent with the government rules. And you will be grateful in your old age that you are in the system". Many of these women had no idea of what they were foregoing by being under the table. An organization that looks out for and advocates for them is overdue. But I agree with others that a 30 days notice with paid severance very much depends upon performance. There are those who would ride that particular horse into lengthy periods of regular time off. There are many others who actually deserve a pension-which they very seldom get. Retirement benefits are a difficult issue for these workers but should start with being in the Social Security system as a minimum.
32
You may be misinformed or poorly assume something. If the person who works for you gave you a SS number yet in reality does not have a Social Security card/account in his or her name then the 15 percent FICA paid into an account would go to benefit whomever your ‘employee’ was impersonating.
4
@Suburban Cowboy
Both my long term housekeeper and nanny were citizens. You are right about the falseSSI # issue of course. But that was not a situation I faced.
3
This why the liberal Democrats of the NY metro region support and encourage undocumented immigrants. They work cheap. And so those wealthy Americans, earning $100,000 and up, don't have to pay the wages legal residents demand to clean their homes, take care of their children, cook their restaurant meals, etc, etc. Ask anyone over 65 who did these jobs decades ago and who does them now. We know poor Americans couldn't compete with the wages the undocumented work for.
3
In the USA a common thought is you get what you pay for. What does it say that well-off Americans will not pay well for the care given to their own children? What does it say that they abuse those who care for their own children?
9
Most of this is great and long overdue. I wonder about the part about "fair notice" of hours changes, though. If you're caring for children, they're inherently somewhat unpredictable. A six-year-old isn't going to ask if it's fair notice before they get sick and have to stay home from school. For that matter, when the parents are employees with potentially unpredictable schedules themselves, giving notice in advance of schedule changes may not be possible.
1
I am all for protections for workers. No one should be exploited.
5
I can hear the right wing now, same song and dance as any other time society tries to improve conditions for anyone:
That will make it expensive so they won’t get hired at all so the socialist left is actually hurting them, you’re supposed to start out suffering in poverty in a low paying undignified job so you will have incentive to better yourself, and besides it’s better than it was where you came from or you wouldn’t be here, if you don’t like it go back.
6
Maybe NYT OpEd could provide some templates from other developed European or Asian countries regarding their enacted labor laws for unskilled illiterate labor paid on the black market?
4
@SamRan
Look at the Philippines. They know how to do it properly.
Most domestic workers are not "white". What chance does this bill have with our current senate and president ?
9
@Cassandra
They are in my community. Easily half of the population of "domestic workers" are white maybe more.
1
First, the law is simply a vehicle for Kamala Harris to show her left wing bona fides when there is no chance that it will be passed. More importantly, the article fails to determine the impact on total jobs that a law like this would have. How many women and men will forced out of the workforce as childcare or home care costs increase forcing a spouse to stay home?
I'm surprised that the Nytimes has not come forth with a "reporters living wage bill". What ratio should the reports make in comparison to CEO Mark Thompson who made ~$6M last year? I'd like to know the ratio of women, men, gays, bi, etc, blacks, latinos, asians, christians, jewish, muslims, atheists, Democrats, Republicans, Indpendents, reporters there are what is the target for each group.
10
There is a difference between employing a person to work on a factory floor or a minimum wage job like a shipping clerk at Amazon.com and employing someone, a stranger, to work in your home where you and your family are most vulnerable. In my greater community, in my state, domestic workers are not primarily foreign born immigrants, legal or otherwise. It's a job for people who often can't get a job anywhere else and there is generally a reason for it. They are mostly black and white Americans, in equal numbers, perhaps a few from other ethnic backgrounds. A few are quite professional and conscientious but many, the majority that worked for me, are opportunistic thieves struggling to make a living, and some are mentally unstable and potentially dangerous if provoked, hence their inability to get a decent job elsewhere. This sounds quite disparaging to the goals and objectives of the author of this article but that has been my personal experience in the eight years that I employed domestic workers in my home to care for my aged mother. I would have been glad to hire a foreigner because they are generally more trustworthy, honest and hard working. Maybe.
These people are in your home, often when you are away and not supervising. Your family members are extremely vulnerable. If you thought it necessary to fire someone it would be risky, dangerous, foolish to give an unstable personality advance notice of your intentions. It's not an ordinary job.
2
For the six years that we had a live-in nanny, everything was "on the books", plus we paid health insurance, contributed to an IRA, and provided PTO. Hours were strictly regulated.
It was expensive and cumbersome, but you get what you pay for. And as liberal Democrats, anything less would have been hypocritical.
21
@Riley2 -- For eight years we barely approximated what you provided: all on the books, paid or withheld taxes, disability, etc. The nanny wasn't live-in; we had no space. We didn't contribute to an IRA or pay for health insurance; the thought never occurred to us, which just goes to show how the system is skewed against these devoted workers. We did cash out unused PTO when we no longer needed her care, and now years later we keep in touch with her. It was surprisingly easy to work with both the state (setting aside the requirement of filing four times a year) and the federal governments. Sure, it was expensive. It was also entirely worth it for everybody involved.
3
In NYC, it's appalling how many nannies are paid "off-the-books" compared to other cities.
It's often used as a justification to pay the nanny more, but more often than not, it's just an excuse for parents not to pay the taxes themselves.
By being paid OTB, nannies are often trapped in their work arrangement - they usually have no contract, no insurance and no unemployment benefits.
It boggles my mind how many extremely wealthy (and ostensibly pro-labor) New Yorkers don't think twice about the exploitation of labor in their own homes.
11
Whenever the government quotes the 'jobs' number, I wonder what the federal definition of a job is.
Does a federal 'job' support a family of four? Wages and benefits. Does it even support a single person?
3
I have found that the way people think about, refer to and treat “nannies,” house cleaners and similar homecare workers is a good measure of their character. I can’t begin to count how many supposedly liberal, politically woke people I have known (including relatives), or just met briefly, who think it’s fine to underpay and overwork these employees. Even crow about it. The most offensive to me is when a wealthy parent (any parent, really, but it is most galling among the affluent) hires the cheapest available caretaker for a child, pays her nearly nothing, and expects that “nanny” to also clean the house and do the laundry. It’s shockingly common.
24
This bill is unlikely to actually improve the lives of nannies, house cleaners, etc. The vast majority either work for an agency or are paid under the table. Domestic workers at companies, for example MollyMaid, have working conditions similar to other low-wage occupations: the wages are low, but the hours, pay, etc are already formalized. Domestic workers being paid under the table are already breaking the law, so I fail to see how this would change that.
I do genuinely feel bad for domestic workers who are exploited by their employers, but it's really hard to fix that while so many of them are being paid under the table.
I also don't want to just blame the domestic workers. It's hard for people with no skills, especially recent immigrants with limited education and English skills, to find jobs in America. That's also hard to fix.
8
@Jacob It's easy to fix the latter problem. Decrease the supply of recent immigrants with limited skills or education so that those who hire them are compelled to instead hire those who will advocate for their rights.
1
Does this agreement apply only if the employer is paying taxes on his/her domestic worker?
How does this work if the employer is not paying taxes?
Kelly
2
@Kelly, You mean if the employer is already breaking the law?
6
@carol goldstein Yes, exactly. I mean, if a woman is paid "under the table" by the employer, then technically the employer and employee are breaking the law, right?
I am sincere in this question.
We lived in Brooklyn and now DC area and there are many nannies hired but very very few are paid "on the books" with taxes taken out.
How does one have some kind of employee rights under this type of arrangement?
If it only applies to those workers for whom taxes are being paid, then this will cover less than one percent of domestic workers.
Maybe this will increase sympathy for employers. Everything about having employees is a hassle, and everyone thinks that employees are being exploited at every turn. You don't get any thanks for employing someone.
Yeah. More help for employers. That will fix exploitation, income inequality, and a whole host of ills. Typical GOP idiocy: let's make the rich richer. That's how we got here.
3
Well let's not forget Uber and the gig work in this worker protection. C'mon it's well past the time that Uber should be paying social security for their workers. No company should hide behind part-time work or gig work to avoid paying social security taxes.
7
@Debra Those of us who have worked in the gig economy over the years pay those taxes at the end of the year, when we do our income taxes. Some of us who have had larger incomes in the gig economy have paid estimated quarterly SS taxes, and like me, are able to collect that investment in retirement.
1
@Entera. There is a corporate match to those taxes, and this is what Uber and others avoid paying. It places the burden of paying the corporate side of the responsibility in the "consultant". While one can offset with commuting expenses, etc., and thus avoid the corporate side of the tax altogether, o we the long term, there is less money in social security for that worker and in general.
4
@Debra I disagree. First, those that work as contractors or consultants pay social security and into Medicare. So, the government is getting theirs. Second, Uber and Lyft and the likes are based on a business plan that succeeds only because they do not have all of those employees. That is their basis for existing. The attraction for the part time worker is flexibility. They are not employees and therefore cannot be told when where or how to work. Many use this model to supplement their income, have flexible hours for child care, or both. And by law, they are required to pay their own social security and Medicare.
As long as Republicans have control of either the House or Senate this will never happen. Workers rights are anathema to Republicans.
23
@Chris - Go to CA and see how many progressive have multiple illegals they exploit. If you think this is a partisan issue, you are living in a different world.
7
Sorry, Tim, but politically this is a partisan issue. Republicans are and have always in your lifetime been against ANY form of worker's rights, compensation, health, or safety. The fact that so many workers still vote for them, and bought into Trump's populist lies, is what is wrong with our country.
8
Well, so much for the domestic labor industry. Goodbye!
1
First thing I would do is put anyone hiring an illegal in jail. Orange jumpsuit. We need to go after the people who exploit the most vulnerable even if they are rich and progressive.
6
@Tim
LOL! It's a two for one whammy. The employer is in jail not earning any wages and his family is without income. The illegal and her family are unemployed and without income. Brilliant! You forgot to mention the call to ICE...
1
@Button I don't care if the employer is in jail. He or she is a criminal.
Everybody should know that dmestic workers and farm workers were excluded from the Fair Labor Standards Act (1938), which guaranteed a minimum wage and overtime, because for passage, FDR needed the support of southerners in Congress who would never vote for giving their (black) domestic and farm workers the same rights that they were willing to give white workers.
9
It is ingrained in the American mentality that you're a fool if you pay any more than you have to - regardless of the moral implications. In other words, it would be un-American to pay domestic workers fairly. Problems like this will persist until we have a paradigm shift in human thought - both here and around the world.
In the near future, we will program the human mind in the computer based on a "survival" algorithm, which will provide irrefutable proof as to how we trick the mind with our ridiculous beliefs about what is supposed to survive - producing minds programmed de facto for destruction. These minds see the survival of a particular belief as more important than the survival of us all. When we understand all this, we will begin the long trek back to reason and sanity.
See RevolutionOfReason.com
4
@RLB, it’s much more than an “ingrained...mentality” that you must pay as little as possible or else you are a “fool.” It’s based in class distinctions and an “ingrained” disdain for those what used to be called the servant class. As an example, years ago I had a (ridiculously snobbish) building contractor working for me, who charged $40 an hour (the going rate here is now about $55-60) for his time outside of a set contract. We got talking about housecleaning (I clean my own home) and he said he paid a couple to clean his house so that (I remember this line clearly) he “didn’t have to scrub toilets.” I asked what he paid them (it was two people working together, remember) for what would have been about a half-day’s work. He said he paid $40, which means about $5 per hour, per worker, if they got the job done in four hours. And he thought that was fair. Because he was too good to clean toilets.
1
The wealthy seem to be running against societal norms lately, in the media at least.
Wealthy individuals who thought they were special include Lillian Hellman a tax cheat, Jeffrey Epstein a sexual predator, Harold Simmons who poisoned Texas with nuclear waste, Donald Trump a business fraudster and con man, and a long list of other wealthy criminals who have behaved as if they're special.
Rousseau said we should eat the rich. Perhaps he had a point.
6
@Ken Solin: Nice comment here! Trouble is with eating the rich--we'd no doubt get food poisoning.
3
Those who don't speak English must first learn our language. But even then it does not legally matter because, just like all human beings, they are protected by all the rights the Constitution provides.
They do learn the language if and when they can. A stay at home recent immigrant grandma who watches her daughter’s kids has very little opportunity to learn English. It’s hard to learn a new language, especially if you don’t hear it much in your surroundings or if you’re a senior or close to it. My grandparents spoke broken but serviceable English. They came to the US as older teens but lived in urban ghettoes where English wasn’t necessary. Nonetheless my grandmother went to night school where she learned how to read and write English. She was not literate in her several native languages. You write as if it’s merely a question of wishing to learn and voila. Nothing is ever that simple.
4
@Julie Zuckman’s
No, Ms Zuckman, nothing is that simple. That's why, for example, Israel requires you to learn Hebrew if you decide to live there. They have well established organizations that teach you the language because acculturation is required there and in most countries. If they are just here because they believe the living conditions are better, what kind of a citizen will they make? What kind of example does that set? Are they loyal to the United States or to the country they come from? You have to swear allegiance to the US in order to become a citizen. Is that a bad thing nowadays? Or is tossing out the rules what we now expect, just like Trump has done. As for living in a ghetto, that is not how we live anymore. Even in NYC, the ghettos of days past just no longer exist. If you can't speak English then you will have to rely on others to take care of you. Not a very productive life and it is a drain on society.
1
I agree that D. Trump is a racist. Furthermore, D. Trump controls his essentially white working class base by carrying out racist actions that are thinly veiled communications to this base that he, D. Trump, and his ilk, will continue to pay the white working class base sub-standard working class incomes.
By doing this, he is also communicating to his base that if they do not support him, D. Trump and is ilk will bring in "the Other" to work for even lower wages; this leading to the white working class getting even lower incomes.
The reason D. Trump and his ilk do this is to insure that they, themselves, who they believe have the right to this, rake-in inordinate unnecessary amounts of money and wealth for themselves while most others of all skin shades suffer.
How sad it is that the white working class which supports D. Trump believes that this is the truth about way things are.
1
If they are here illegally they should not be covered. If they are covered it would act as just another pull factor for illegal aliens. We have enough pull factors already which Congress, esp. the House, refuses to end.
1
Add eVerify with immediate deportation proceedings for fraud anyone who does not pass muster, and I am all in.
2
You present two problems. The employer who knows or highly suspects he is hiring a person here without papers and the immigrant desperate to provide for family. I know which one I would like to see punished.
2
I can't imagine being able to afford childcare to allow me to go back to work. When the logical financial choice is to not work and remain poor then we have a big problem. The only people I know, in rural Oregon, who are working families have grandparents or other family to help. How about if we just keep schools open in the summer for free? Then the childcare workers can work for a school with all the protections that entails.
4
I agree with the need for protections, but I don't know how this can succeed without greater enforcement of the treatment of these workers as actual 'employees' (i.e. paid on the books). If people aren't reporting their wages how are they going to claim these benefits?
2
A friend owns a small Home Health Agency. Because of the side effects of the high dosages of the three AEDs I am taking I pay for 10-hours of attendant care service each month to help with chores and errands.
While we have a great working relationship, should I cancel with less than 2 days notice I make sure she gets paid a half days wages if there's another assignment available. If not, she's paid as scheduled.
6
What about American families first with protections and basic benefits for moms, dads, and grandparents who would choose to do the care and supervision of the next generation if they can afford it. Health coverage for American families with children is essential. Foreign workers are an asset if they have valid visas. The fine for hiring illegals should be significant.
6
@Deena Press There is actually a parallel effort going on to increase support and benefits for caregivers, like you mention. It's called Universal Family Care. On top of providing for paid leave, it would make this kind of non-medical care (child care, respite care, home care) available and affordable. Given the huge demographic shift, and how the ratio of family caregivers to people needing support will take a nosedive over the coming years, we need both. There's a huge shortage of people doing these jobs. It's a yes/and situation.
2
I'm a college educated millennial that left the country during the economic downturn because the United States could not offer me steady employment. However, due to a natural disaster, I returned to the US in 2011. The only work I could find was in home health care due to the economy and it is an abusive industry. I worked through a few agencies in a couple different cities. One agency was stealing money from employee paychecks. I had to live on credit to survive (now I have terrible credit card debt due to interest due to working hours that I was not paid for). I finally had to threaten my boss with the labor board and she almost ran over me with her car she was so mad. I had another assignment with a different agency where the client had a violent stalker. The agency refused to believe me when I reported the stalking. No one cared if the stalker broke into the house and killed both of us. If there were protections for domestic workers, these kinds of situations would not happen.
Many people reading this may have the wrong idea about domestic workers. In reality, all kinds of people end up in domestic labor, not just immigrants or the uneducated due to life situations. And someone's socio-economic, gender, sexuality or racial background shouldn't matter anyway. Everyone deserves protection from abusive employers and fair and ethical treatment on the job.
24
I'm a college educated millennial that left the country during the economic downturn because the United States could not offer me steady employment. However, due to a natural disaster, I returned to the US in 2011. The only work I could find was in home health care due to the economy and it is an abusive industry. I worked through a few agencies in a couple different cities. One agency was stealing money from employee paychecks. I had to live on credit to survive (now I have terrible credit card debt due to interest due to working hours that I was not paid for). I finally had to threaten my boss with the labor board and she almost ran over me with her car she was so mad. I had another assignment with a different agency where the client had a violent stalker. The agency refused to believe me when I reported the stalking. No one cared if the stalker broke into the house and killed both of us. If there were protections for domestic workers, these kinds of situations would not happen.
Many people reading this may have the wrong idea about domestic workers. In reality, all kinds of people end up in domestic labor, not just immigrants or the uneducated due to life situations. And someone's socio-economic, gender, sexuality or racial background shouldn't matter anyway. Everyone deserves protection from abusive employers and fair and ethical treatment on the job.
5
A count of the nannies and house cleaners in California would reveal a high percentage of women who are here illegally and have no social security number, not even a stolen one. A good guess would be 75-80%. If and when they apply for a "fair" wage, they will put ICE on notice. Even if the law is passed, they will still receive lower salaries. They can easily be replaced by another woman who is here illegally. We always hear the argument that US citizens won't do that kind of work. They can be picky because they have another source of income called welfare. Is it right? No. Will the law help? Only US citizens.
9
@Daphne I've worked with lots of undocumented people over the years, on construction and remodel jobs. They ALL have social security cards with fake names, etc., pay the regular SS deductions, and will probably never be able to collect that money that is still in that general fund. Same for the nannies of my wealthy clients, their housekeeping staff, etc.
4
Domestic workers absolutely deserve these rights, but at the same time domestic workers need to exercise agency. That means understanding that employment is a two-way relationship - quitting is always an option, that every one of us has a duty to ourselves to spend some time looking for better arrangements, and that no matter how little you make you need to save something towards a rainy day. Anyone who arranges their life to live hand-to-mouth will always be at a disadvantage in negotiations for better conditions.
These are things that everyone in private employment must do, no matter what rung of the ladder you find yourself on.
1
Reading the comments I can see most people are completely out of touch with the economy. First let me just say that most people are ecstatic if their income covers their expenses. Most of us just pray our savings help tide us over until we can retire and move to a place that has a much lower cost of living. Where I live, housecleaning, being a nanny is the better gig. IF you have a good employer. Even if you don't, the local prevailing wage is based on showing up and continuing to show up. That's it, no fancy skills need set you apart. At my 'regular' job I show up, work hard, perfect my skills and still don't make enough to cover monthly expenses, but I am grateful to have the job. My friends that have the money to employ a nanny pay way more than the $14 an hour I make. None of us have healthcare included. This is the economy I know, am I missing something?
13
@coco Why do you stay at your job if you can make way
more money working as a nanny?
2
@coco Often when I read the NYT and any labor issue comes up I can't help but wonder if I'm on another planet from the editorial writers. I know that most hourly workers don't have the time, money or energy to read the Times but it really is rather elitist. Their editorial about middle class financial woes didn't feature one family that made less than $100,000. I guess that means we're low class Coco. I don't like it either.
3
Imagine providing board in your home with your children to someone you don’t want there and not being able to hire someone else. Please tell me that that’s not what Senator Harris is proposing.
10
You're fired! Now you get to live with us for 30 days. So dumb that only people in government could think of it.
2
there's always something so appropriately inappropriate when those who have discuss and decide the fate of those who have not. maybe some day...oops, better keep that to myself in case there's a new pending law being discussed about one's dreams.
2
Van we take a guess at what percentage of these people are here illegally and working illegally? And they deserve federal protections?
6
@Mike Do you even understand equal protection under the law? Imagine you, a US citizen, NOT having the protection of the law while staying in another country. This is a basic principle of modern governance.
Illegal working status is not relevant to these protections.
9
@Mike - Yes, they are the most vulnerable. I would put their employers in jail. Go around rich progressive neighborhoods with ICE and put the rich progressive exploiters in orange jumpsuits.
2
@Jan Vanderstoel If you were an illegal and tried to work in another country they would deport you so fast that you wouldn't have time to catch your breath.
Most countries in Europe are especially good at knowing who is a citizen and who is not. That is why they have ID cards and yet we refused to have ID cards in this country so we can know who is and who is not a citizen.
3
What is wrong with us? EVERYBODY deserves a living wage, benefits and a safe work environment. There was a time when these principles were a bedrock of the labor movement and the Democratic Party in this country. In this paper, every day, I see letters basically saying "we need more illegals and low wage workers so we can exploit them in lousy jobs we don't want to do". And these are from "progressives" and democrats. This is not only short sighted, but despicable and a slap in the face of working people. I expect this from the right. The Democratic Party had better get back to its roots if it wants to be relevant again.
23
Be careful when you infer what is not implied. About the Democratic Party, it better not self destruct with so many pet projects that won’t win and perhaps create a platform at the convention. The primary process is broken and serves the extremes of both parties. I believe a change would be welcome. This game is is a case of too much democracy. We have to remember the country and the government is of the people not of the policies.
Your comment indicates how vulnerable the party is with pet policies. They don’t matter without the power. This is the difference between a Senator and a President (or governor). Senators can say what they want. Presidents have to lead.
5
@Wayne. Ours isn't doing much of a job at leading. Rather, he divides and misinforms.
3
@Al To provide a childcare worker or domestic worker with a living wage the employer has to make double or triple a living wage. I know this is impossible for me, probably many others. Watching children, or "babysitting" as it used to be called is something teenagers used to do for extra money. Minimum wage here is about $13 per hour. So I would have to make $26/hr. to get minimum for myself. Guess I need another degree. I can't afford that either, still paying student loans...see where this is going?
1
Without getting too much into the weeds, it is hard to see how this will benefit workers or employers, but it will benefit labor leaders and organizers and lawyers who love conflict. I would suspect that more employers suffer from incompetent or dishonest workers than workers who suffer from abusive employers.
5
Sounds reasonable, on one condition.
All domestic workers must be in the U.S. legally. If any of them are caught working illegally, they are immediately sent back to their home countries, with no right to appeal. And anyone who hires a worker illegally faces a $100K fine and at least 30 days in jail.
Something tells me that the wealthy, especially liberals, will "resist".
15
@John One condition? O goodie! Then 45 will be in jail for a long time. Better tweet this comment to him, let's see if he is willing to wear an orange jumpsuit and write the checks for the undocumented workers he hires for his resorts and hotels. We wacky liberals, who are willing to call out the hypocrisy of conservatives, will resist you and your heartless, feckless attitudes about people of color and their struggles to build a better life in the greatest country on earth. There but for fortune, my friend.
6
@Nina
“people of color”? Do you think that only “people of color” are here illegally? There are plenty of illegal workers who are white as well. It’s almost racist to suggest otherwise.
It appears that you believe that less fortunate people from around the globe have an automatic right to come to the U.S. to pursue their dreams. In other words, open borders. At least own the term.
Can we agree on the need for immediate mandatory E-Verify, including for individuals hiring nannies, housekeepers, landscapers, etc.? (Of course, California has passed a law against mandatory E-Verify, so that would have to be changed immediately.)
2
What will happen to the undocumented workers who so often fill these positions? They should include a guest worker visa program in this bill.
4
@Deborah Goodwin
Let's call it what is really is in current format:
A guest worker expired American Express program.
Don't be surprised that a lot of domestic workers don't want to pay any taxes at all -- including Social Security. About one-quarter of US households survive on $30K or less. Especially when there are young children, the elderly, or disabled members of the household, every dollar counts toward bare basics. So yes, this bill is long overdue. Domestic & farm workers weren't covered by the National Labor Relations Act. But now that domestics will be, we will need the federal staff to enforce the new standard. Without enforcement, this well intentioned law means little.
7
@Tom O'Brien Here's a funny--it is not only the domestics that don't want to pay SS--the hotel and golf club owners that employ them don't want to either. Wink, wink, nod, nod.
21
@Chris Right you are Chris!
1
Everybody who works in this country should be: here legally, paid fairly, pay taxes and have a safe work environment.
33
The whole system of full time housekeepers (what used to be called 'maids') and/or nannies is a house of cards built on non-living wages for most of those so employed. Clearly the simple solution is to have a decent, livable national minimum wage covering all workers and acknowledge that many middle and even upper middle income households will not be willing to pay such a wage and will have to follow the Swedish model described in yesterday's NYT of being their own housekeeper.
Sadly, not going to happen here.
6
Actually I believe they will suck it up and pay the market rate and follow the employer legalities. They just go along with the current broken system. But they will just as simply conform to the new rules too.
The team of three women who clean my house every other week did not want me to pay into Social Security and also rejected my offer of a paid vacation. Every year I give them a Christmas bonus and have never been thanked for it. They are paid well and I raise their compensation annually without being asked. I find all this puzzling since I want to do the right thing by them, but it seems our definitions of what’s right are different. I wonder what they would say about this proposed legislation. To my mind our relationship is the same as the one with our lawn-care/snow removal service. They are a service, not our employees. Full time staff is another matter and definitely deserves fairer and accountable labor rules.
22
@Julie Zuckman’s Many domestic workers do not want to pay into Social Security, they want "off the books". This situation was not addressed.
17
I pay by check so there is a paper trail. I’ve offered cash but they say that’s not necessary. And my cleaners are US citizens although born elsewhere, but for 20 years before them I had white, American-born cleaners. Also one gay college educated Frenchman who was here illegally so he worked as a cleaner. He was finally able to marry his partner and get a green card. As another person said, don’t assume about who does domestic work.
4
This seems like an area where a contract or regulation would be very difficult and expensive to enforce - wage theft and sexual harassment are already quite illegal and everyone is now aware of this. Unlike the employers, the workers in this situation cannot afford lawyers. I am guessing (and hoping) that workers do not want to give a slice of their limited earnings to Ms. Poo's group in exchange for the promise of legal services or lobbying. I am not sure taxpayers would really want to do so, either.
If someone hires help to take stress out of their own life, odds are they do not want some complex legal machinery, or a "trusted community organization" hanging over their heads. Today's "trusted community organization" can easily become tomorrow's scam.
A worker's best protection is a competitive market for their services and awareness that such a market exists. It is a pain for the employer to hire someone new, so they have an incentive to not torment people that are doing the job reasonably. If the bad employer behavior seems illegal, the remedy is to go to law enforcement - that is their expertise, and they do not bill by the hour. If the bad employer behavior is a broken trust or a bad pattern develops, the remedy seems to be to quit and find someone else to work for.
3
@Alan, then why were we able to do it in the 1930's, specifically excluding blacks and hispanics? It's been done, it's not that hard. It shouldn't be left up to what seems best to an employer, or the level of 'bad' that's arbitrary. All other employees enter into a contract when hired by a company for a schedule/wage, so don't make it seem so mystifying. And NO, a worker's best protection is NOT the market. Maybe read a little bit of history regarding the need for unions?
If there's no contract, there's no law to break, so the police would NOT be a useful tool for grievances. Just quit and find another job? By your logic, bad employers would just cycle through unpaid help, like Trump's family does. Just make an agreement about wages, schedule and details, and stick to it! I do that with rental agreements, lots of things. Sheesh.
9
@Alan Ah, the old "competitive marketplace" canard that solves all problems. No, it won't solve anything here. Seldom does outside of hard goods. Services, never.
7
Broader knowledge, willful compliance coupled with law enforcement now and with new laws would be valuable. However the big effect would come from organizing the workers. The solidarity of the less advantaged is their greatest potential leverage to elevating pay and conditions.
4
Concur completely, a Union to fight for Domestic Worker's rights is what's needed; for now, I understand that, at least some of them, so to be able to claim benefits of under- or unemployment, do not report their earmings as domestic workers, shooting their own foot (so to speak). I also understand the problem becomes insurmountable for those immigrants that are undocumented...while in need to make a living, but with no path to citizenship without a true immigration reform. Complex problems here, but in need of a frank conversation so to protect them and, hopefully, find a path towards social justice.
3
@manfred marcus. No one should be able to work or be hired if they are not legal (or be in the country). Once again the ugly truth of allowing the situation of illegal workers and immigrants to be exploited and the people who hire them to exploit them and us is exposed.
12
That last paragraph says it all: This is the work that makes our work possible. I owe a debt of gratitude to Inez Duncan, who cared for my husband in his dementia, and to Leora Jackson and my present Joanna Lipska who keep me going and free to do my work. Being fair and mutually respectful keeps everything working well.
23
Are you kidding me? I made my nanny sign a non-compete agreement, a non-disclosure clause, and a letter of understanding that states that disputes, if any, must be settled in binding arbitration. I have her under my thumb and I'm keeping her there.
Just kidding. : )
9
No harm is protecting these workers. But let’s not stop there. We need to make sure they report their income the IRS.
26
By law, the household employer is obliged to generate a 1099 form indicating to whom the wages were paid above $2100 annually. That form goes to the worker and the IRS.
12
@Dady The employer generates the 1099 form.
@Dady, Subarban Cowboy and HarlemHobbit,
The form to be filed is a W-2 not a 1099 because the workers are employees, not independent contractors.
3
Will this bill also require the employers to report all wages paid, by W-2 or 1099 forms?
For non live in workers, would a cell phone app to follow the worker's location be enough to verify the worker's hours?
7
@Jim S.
As a retired professional who has been working as a nanny for the past 10 years, I resent the idea of such an app. The relationships I have had with my employers rely on trust.
14
Right, but not all employers or employees follow the existing laws or act ethically. BTW, do you and the employer report your earnings ?
4
@Mimi Harrison Some people just love the idea that Big Brother Is Watching You.
1
Once again MANY (not all) are benefitting themselves and lifestyle on the backs of others, in this case it is the struggle of Domestic Workers. Commenters here who struggled themselves do turn out to be better employers, while those among us who haven't are the worst(those of us who put in time in restaurants are generally kinder to current restaurant workers). In societies, rules and laws exist to tame the few who are implusive, selfish, or just mean. The movement for better conditions and worker rights will help minimize the arbitrary and unfair situations found in the lives of gardeners, cleaners, and childcare workers today. Like ourselves, our help too wish to work hard and take care of themselves and their families, and a fair living wage with worker protections is the place for all of us to be - this law and movement is RIGHT and overdue.
23
Don't know the details of this bill, but I hope it's a step in the right direction because domestic workers definitely need protections against employers who are liable to treat them abysmally.
When I had my first child in NYC in the early 90s and became the employer of a nanny-housekeeper, I was shocked to discover how shabbily many other parents often paid and treated the women they hired to take care of their children and households - and how blithe they were about it. Many people who voted liberal and supported progressive causes became proverbial Simon Legrees when it came to their hired help, expecting them to have little downtime and no private lives or priorities of their own. And many people who made massive amounts of money, and spent lavishly and conspicuously on themselves and their kids, behaved like total tightwads to the women whom they expected to cherish their children and keep their homes.
Those of us lucky enough to be on the upper rungs of the economic ladder are not responsible for the life circumstances that have led women who are usually poor or working class immigrants to seek domestic work. But we are responsible for not taking advantage of these women's circumstances by exploiting and maltreating them for our own selfish ends.
My criticisms here are directed at the well-off, not middle-income parents. In my experience, people who've had to struggle themselves are often - often, not always - better, fairer domestic employers than the rich.
122
@curiousme
Same observation in the 80s. Some women expected their day-sitters to also cook, clean house, and do laundry, even while caring for multiple toddlers. Then they wondered why their sitters were always quitting. Clean up after yourself, fine. But be held to a higher standard than the emoloyer’s own, patently unfair.
When we calculated my part-time wages minus the sitter’s wages, I was arguably working at a loss — but not if we included my husband’s and my salaries together. It was important for me to keep my hand in professionally. I knew other women who made the same calculus.
We continued to pay our sitter after she stopped working for us — a kind of pension — as did other people we knew.
I applaud this legislation. Questions like how to apply it to workers with multiple employers are solvable. If it shakes up the work-home-economic landscape by abolishing oppressive practices, so be it.
50
@curiousme I agree with you. I don't have children but friend and peers do. We're all at least upper-middle class. It was always striking to me to hear them complain about the challenges of employing skilled nannies and household help when other families were offering health insurance, paid time off, vacation, etc. I thought you have these as part of your benefits packages and would consider changing companies if they took them away. Is it really all that odd to think your employees want similar? It's not at all strange to the the better nannies, cooks, cleaners, etc. would gravitate towards better work benefits.
On another note, elder care workers face the same issues. I always find it odd that people don't treat the people who take care of their family members well. They're willing to pay thousands for the latest piece of tech/ toy. When my family hired some people briefly to help out with sick family members, we could and did pay them well above the going rate. It was worth every penny.
(If this country were rational, we would figure out a way to employ these workers in a nationally-funded care system.)
9
Legislation of this sort constitutionally belongs at the state or local level, but it would result in no work for thousands of domestic workers.
11
I highly doubt that. The suburban housewives of Long Island are not gonna change their ways for a small uptick in expense or a few reasonable rules of behavior and treatment.
7
The bill has no chance of passing. Teachers don't even have contracts that define all their duties. In fact, as a teacher you need to learn to say no to duties that go beyond reasonable expectations, while at the same time taking on tasks that are clearly not part of your regular teaching duties, just to help things along. Teachers don't even take coffee breaks.
Pretty vague and horrible, right? Most jobs that are anything but menial require the employee to be flexible, both in terms of work hours and responsibilities. This bill is not realistic.
19
@Raz
I’m not sure what things are like in Montana, but in every state I’ve worked in, teachers do, in fact, have contracts that spell out our hours, duties and basic working conditions. Were we ever ‘asked’ to go above and beyond? All the time. However, when push came to shove, our union-negotiated contracts gave us the power to push back when necessary.
47
@June
What did I say?
"...contracts that define ALL their duties."
It is impossible to write a master agreement covering all eventualities and ASSIGNMENTS. Do you get to choose what classes you teach?
Also, many schools are not unionized, even universities.
6
@Raz
Where in the article does it say ‘all’ duties? I read ‘clear expectations about pay, duties, schedules and time-off policies. ‘
You’re right, not all workers belong to unions. I would urge those workers to libby their representatives in Congress to pass laws like the one being discussed in the article.
10
This is an important step for domestic workers. It seems most of the comments are coming from the employer side. We want people to care for our children or parents,yet don't want to give them a living wage. I would hope that the worker who was fired on the spot,spread her employer's name, so other people know what they're like to work for and they will have to face the consequences. Try imagining doing the work these people do and are often treated with less than respect. Pass the bill!
54
@Stephanie Wood
And if you were using typical off-site daycare you would have had to call an agency and pay a steep rate for a babysitter - who was a stranger to your children. Instead you paid more that week, she made more, and you both had to work an evening of your very short weekend.
4
The portion of the bill requiring 30 days notice of termination for a live-in nanny is untenable. After someone is terminated, you do not want them remaining in your home. This is the reason security escorts fired employees out of the building immediately after termination. Perhaps a few nights in a hotel is a better solution, if termination is not for an egregious offense. Not all nannies are saints working for next to nothing and going the extra mile, sorry to say.
35
You make a good point, but it takes more than ‘a few nights’ to find new living arrangements. How about a month?
14
You missed the point. The bill provides for housing and severance. It does not require the household employee remain in the home.
14
The first step in the law is to give grants to the "charities" that advocate for domestic workers.
How much is Ai-jen Poo currently being paid as director of the National Domestic Workers Alliance and a director of Caring Across Generations? How much will her compensation increase from each of the organizations once they get federal grants to advance their advocacy?
Does the legislation include the requirement that household workers as well as their employers be penalized if they fail to report all wages as well as withhold taxes and pay Social Security and Medicare? Or are their penalties for employers but none for workers for income tax evasion?
What about workers who have multiple employers. How many hours does the worker have to work for a specific employer before he is obligated to provide seven sick days?
20
@ebmem
Oh that is a great point - no doubt she is making Buckets more wages working for nonprofit advocacy group compared to say a staff Vice President at Amazon. Obviously you have never worked for one.
1
@Stephanie Wood: Medicare pays for 6 days of hospice care in a hospice nursing home. You CAN have care at home, but it won't be "24/7" but as you say -- a nurse who comes for a few hours a few times a week.
Which you want is very personal and there is no one right answer for every family.
@ebmem
Get 'em. Highlight the corruption, highlight the hypocrisy.
So how would this work if your housecleaner works for multiple owners and is essentially an independent contractor? Seems like it would be more complicated than a live-in employee.
21
I support this totally. And along with this there should be severe penalties for homemakers who employ illegal workers. E-verify should include companies, but also apply to those who would avoid hiring citizens for yard or garden work in their homes, or for elder or child care, because they can employee illegal workers at greatly reduced rates. Landscape companies are notorious for employing illegal workers so they can profit from low labor costs.
28
Most domestic workers who work independently set their own wages or rates and can refuse a job if it does not suit them.
In Los Angeles it is very difficult to find a nanny/housekeeper for less than $17 per hour. It is not a high wage by any means in this city.
12