Yeah, you read that right. It appears that babysitters are rather overworked taking care of children on occasion.
And here comes the Democrat controlled California state legislature to the rescue.
As inane as yesterday's post on fitted sheets, another Nanny-State legislator, Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco (Again, of course!)) tries topping that one with Assembly Bill 889.
This would require that babysitters are paid the minimum wage. Given breaks every two hours. And a meal break after five hours. And this would cover domestic workers, caregivers, housekeepers and nannies.
Mr. Ammiano does exclude teenagers and family members from these potential requirements.
Thanks a lot, Mr. Tommy.
So, for instance, you know a college-age person, have used them as a baby sitter before and want them to take care of your children one Saturday night while you have a nice evening. Just the two of you. Well, unless you can have your date night in two hours (I suppose that you can if you go to such places as McDonalds or that fine French fast-food establishment, Jacques de le box!) you will be on the hook to have someone relieve your babysitter so that they can take that break. And if you want to make it dinner and a movie, well after five hours, better have that back-up comeback to the primary babysitter can have that meal break.
Get all of that?
So what will happen to that college student making some extra money if this bill passes? Probably will be SOL for any future jobs.
Now the proponents of the legislation will say that we are exaggerating this kind of result. That in fact this is to protect the "domestic" worker.
No, what it is another attempt to unionize even more domestic workers and force people to hire union members and all the baggage that comes with them.
But if one goes to their website, they do present that as the reason for needing such legislation.
The real problem is that it will take away the abilities of "domestic workers" to set their own guidelines as to the services that they will provide.
Again, no one puts a gun to the head of someone and says you must be a "domestic worker". It is a choice that you make.
Here is what is wrong with the legislation through the eyes of a mom.
Jeanne Sager over at The Stir points out that babysitting is not a regular job. And the following is why babysitters should not be treated the same as "domestic workers":
Your standard babysitter is not on par with a full-time housekeeper. Not only are they not working for you on a consistent basis -- making all that paperwork difficult to put together -- but theirs is a job that can't be planned out to the letter. My main sitter spends all day with my daughter. She eats with her. She plays with her. Sometimes she naps with her. Her "breaks" are on my kid's schedule, just like her meals. That's the nature of childcare.
Get it?! A babysitter is not the same as a housekeeper. A nanny. A caregiver. It is a irregular form of employment. And often the perfect type of job for, as I noted, a college student. There is a quite different relationship between parents and a babysitter. Usually, parents will want to use the same one as often as possible because of the relationship between the children and babysitter. And not every assignment is the same.
But dammit! Mr. Tommy knows better than you, domestic worker, or parents and how they hire and or use a babysitter.
Once again, California sits on a financial landmine. And our vaunted legislators are doing everything in their power to avoid the real tough decisions. But hey, make it harder to get a babysitter, the legislature is on top of that!
No comments:
Post a Comment