The California Assembly, faced with such difficult tasks as prison overcrowding, the second-highest unemployment rate in the nation, one of the worst business climates in the nation, and a broken education financing policy (article forthcoming), apparently has prioritized the issue of overworked babysitters, courtesy of a bill introduced by Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco). 
From the OC Register:
A bill pending in the state Senate would require breaks for that babysitter. These include a 10-minute break for every two hours worked and a 30-minute meal break after five hours on the job.
. . . .
The bill, called the Domestic Workers Bill of Rights Act, would require that people who hire domestic workers not only pay them minimum wage (currently $8 an hour), but also pay overtime and provide workers’ compensation. Employers would also have to keep time records and issue paychecks.
At one point there was a provision for paid vacation time for full-time employees, but that has been scrapped.
AB 889, dubbed the Babysitter’s Bill, is supposed to close loopholes in the state’s current labor laws. Under existing law, people hiring domestic workers are exempted from the requirement to provide workers’ compensation if their employees do not work full-time. This new law would remove the exemption.
The Assembly already passed the bill and is expected to easily win approval in the Democrat-controlled Senate.
Senator Doug LaMalfa reacts, and Adam Summers at Reason Foundation rounds out some of the remaining common sense objections. Here are some of the most vexing concerns after reading the text of the bill:
- Parents will have to hire two babysitters in order that each can receive 10-minute breaks every two hours and a 30-minute lunch every five hours, as required by law.
- Parents will have to pay each babysitter the state minimum wage, currently $8 per hour, plus overtime.
- Parents must provide worker’s compensation insurance.
- Parents will need to provide detailed paystubs including “an accurate itemized statement in writing showing (1) gross wages earned, (2) total hours worked by the employee…, (3) the number of piece-rate units earned and any applicable piece rate if the employee is paid on a piece-rate basis, (4) all deductions …, (5) net wages earned, (6) the inclusive dates of the period for which the employee is paid, (7) the name of the employee and his or her social security number …, (8) the name and address of the legal entity that is the employer, and (9) all applicable hourly rates in effect during the pay period and the corresponding number of hours worked at each hourly rate by the employee.” This statement must list all deductions, which “shall be recorded in ink or other indelible form, properly dated, showing the month, day, and year, and a copy of the statement or a record of the deductions shall be kept on file by the employer for at least three years at the place of employment or at a central location within the State of California.” Parents likely will be forced to consult professional tax and/or legal services concerning the complete and accurate reporting of “all deductions,” how to prepare the statement in the proper format, and what a “piece-rate unit” is.
- Parents who “knowingly and intentionally” fail to comply with any of the above will be liable for attorneys’ fees and costs, plus a minimum $50 for the first violation and $100 for each subsequent violation.
- Parents who fail to respond within 21 days to a demand to inspect any of the information above are subject to a $750 fine.
- Live-in nannies must be given eight hours of uninterrupted sleep a night; there is a rebuttable presumption the nanny did not receive the amount of sleep required by law.
- Live-in nannies must be given 12 consecutive hours of free time each day (including eight for uninterrupted sleep, above).
- Parents must give babysitters written notice of the provisions of Labor Code 3550, making the notice available in both English and Spanish.
Those are just the highlights.
The new law means dollar signs to established nanny service providers. Such providers will be better able to absorb the administrative and legal costs of developing workplace policies and accounting guidelines, preparing legal and accounting forms, and drafting standard agreements in order to allay parents’ fears about compliance with their myriad legal obligations just to hire a babysitter. This is likely why the CEO of eNannySource.com, Steve Lampert, has admonished parents to “calm down” and “Don’t get upset about it. Don’t get hysterical about it. You’ll be able to work it out very well with your caregiver.” Mr. Lampert offers no explanation why parents shouldn’t worry, of course. That’s what the new law will force parents to pay him for.
On the bright side, the bill only applies to babysitters 18 years of age or older, and does not apply to family members. Moreover, the bill apparently is primarily directed at caregivers for the disabled and elderly; parents who rely on babysitters are just collateral damage. To that extent, however, mom Jeanne Sager is concerned:
Not only do you have to do the impossible of tracking down a responsible college kid to hang with your tot on a Friday night so you can actually sit down for one meal where you don’t have to cut up someone else’s food. Now you have to find TWO of them. And the second one will have to agree to just show up every two hours for 15 minutes at minimum wage. AND you’re going to have to explain to your 3-year-old why Miss Madison has to get up from the rousing game of SpongeBob Memory to go outside and take a break while this other guy comes in … for 15 minutes.
This sort of “nanny” law is nothing new. In a previous thread, a commenter shared a story about new regulations requiring that goat herders be provided “separate sleeping unit[s]” and “a comfortable bed” (whatever that means), and that wall surfaces in cooking areas be made of “easy-to-clean material” (whatever that means). I have little doubt Jesse Ewiak’s indignant response to that story will be the template liberal response to AB 889: “Shockingly, yes, even goat herders [and babysitters] should be treated well where they work. And the government has the power to make the owners of goat ranches [and parents of small children] comply.” I’m willing to stipulate that goat herders and babysitters “should be treated well where they work” (again, whatever that means). But this is not the relevant question in political governance. The relevant question is, when should the law enforce these normative duties? Typically, that question is answered something along the lines of: “When there is a demonstrated pattern of abuse.” Is there such a pattern when it comes to goat herding? I had not seen evidence of it. Nor, apparently, had Mr. Ewiak, though that did not stop him from defending the new regulations. But why should anyone do so in absence of that crucial evidence? This lack of evidence is why I was confused at the urgency to whip up new goat herding rules, and even more confused at anyone’s willingness to defend those rules.
I would be similarly curious to know why anyone unequipped with evidence of a pattern of abuse against babysitters would volunteer to defend AB 889.
Tim Kowal is an attorney practicing in Orange County, California, Vice President of the 
Tom Van Dyke, businessman, musician, bon vivant and game-show champ (
{ 14 comments… read them below or add one }
Ace, Kowal. I demur on the goat-herder thing, for specific, not sentimental reasons. I do think they exploit the immigrants, legal, in this case. Dunno if they were exploited, but it didn’t sound unreasonable. If you can’t exploit a goatherder out in the outback, you can’t exploit anyone.
But babysitters, as paid substitute parents, do not get a break. What, the baby drowned in bathtub while I was having a smoke and that was his lookout, not mine?
Our state of California has disconnected from reality. And there is nothing we can do to save it. I voted for Jerry Brown over the idiot Republican, fer crissakes, and frankly, it was one of the best votes I ever cast.
Governor Moonbeam is all that stands between us and the abyss, and that’s the fact, Jack.
[I've always been a Moonbeam fan, BTW, even back in my most righty-ist days. The dude has a righteous spark. But that's another story.]
Sometimes Moonbeam seems inspired. His judicial appointments are sickening, though. And he tanked on the prison guards union.
He was a first-rate hands-on mayor of Oakland. Unfortunately, that involved changing the city government from strong-city-manager to strong-mayor, and his successor was the waste of space Ron Dellums.
The purpose of this law is a back-door crackdown on “babysitting collectives”, where an unemployed woman will be paid cash-in-hand to run a de facto day-care center. They get around the regulations on day-cares by pretending that it’s all just personal relationships; like these twelve women just happened to meet, and through the grace of God become good friends, and–how convenient!–one of them has spare time and plenty of room and it’s just so nice of her to “watch” the kids for us…
This is what happens when too many far leftwing extremists congregate in one place!Seriously people do you not know you are the laughingstock of the whole country?I think maybe there are a couple thousand too many pot shops per capita in cali wakeup,drink some coffee.
Obviously this was written by people who have no experience with being a responsible parent/caregiver in today’s work environment.
1- It will drive ‘nannies/babysitting’ even more underground than it already is. Thus depriving the state of revenue. Also allowing more child endangering and unreported abuse. Who is going to turn in the bad baby sitter and thus themselves for fines and punishment?
2- Families who depend on inexpensive baby sitting to have a second job, go to college, or have a night on the town will simply stop. Decrease college enrollment, decreased household income, decreased discretionary spending (70% of our GDP). Anybody else thinking economy yet?
3- With lost income, baby sitters will cut their spending. Households forced out of a second income will cut spending. Colleges with decreased enrollment will raise fees. Businesses who lose business will cease to exist, increase prices, or cut employment. Increased unemployment.
All of this is just ‘collateral damage’ because the person I hire to responsibly care for someone that I care for non-stop needs a smoke break? Way to go Gov’t! Just another reason you guys need a pay cut!
Remember that we’re talking about an administration that considered it entirely desirable to drive Amazon out of the state pour encourager les autres.
Honestly, the government has no business stepping into what is deemed as private contract work between a babysitter/ and whom they are working for (parents and etc). Lasse Fair- government keep out. Payments are to be up to the babysitter setting their own fees. We don’t know what the family is making as far as their own wages. Financial payment solutions need to be of a private matter between the family and babysitter/nanny. Sorry to burst bubbles. In fact I find this to be an infringement and unconstitutional/against the law.
I kind of like Coyote’s take on this.
I totally meant to link to this.
We here at Care4hire.com try not to get entangled in political debates of the day. However, the State of California is considering passing legislation that affects childcare providers, and we think the bill merits our (and your) attention.
Under AB 889, household employers (i.e., parents) who hire a babysitter would be legally obligated to pay at least minimum wage to any sitter over the age of 18 (unless the sitter is a family member); provide a substitute caregiver every two hours to cover rest and meal breaks; and provide workers’ compensation insurance coverage, overtime pay, and a precise timecard and paycheck.
We support the minimum wage provision of this legislative bill. Many families are already paying at least that much . . . even without the legislation.
The provision of rest and meal breaks (and the resultant substitute caregivers) sounds good. Surely all employees should have rest and meal breaks. However, it is impractical if not utterly unworkable in the context of a babysitter’s work. Are parents supposed to come home from their own job every two hours to spell off the baby sitter? In the alternative, if parents were to hire a substitute caregiver, what babysitter would accept a job in which s/he works only a few minutes every two hours? This provision of AB889 would virtually bring legal employment of babysitters to a screeching halt in California.
We do not support the workers’ compensation insurance coverage provision of this legislative bill. Anecdotally, it would appear that babysitters do not have a high incidence of “workplace” injuries that would be OSHA-recordable. For minor scrapes, etc., bandages and antibiotic cream usually address the issue. On those… http://tinyurl.com/3w9a2a9
As a babysitter I think that this law should happen. I work my butt off babysitting and I’m lucky to make $3.00 an hour and I’m not talking working 8hrs a day, I work somedays up to 16hrs for a measly $40 a day, its not enough to live on and the only reason I keep the job is beacause of the economy I have had no luck finding a real job since I lost my job back in 09.
I can certainly imagine scenarios in which a lone babysitter has to tend to several very little ones requiring constant attention for 8 hours or more at a stretch. But I think we can also all imagine scenarios in which a babysitter is hired simply to periodically check on a child who is basically good on his own and needs an adult mostly just to reach the buttons on the microwave to heat up his mac ‘n cheese dinner. Point being, flexibility is needed in this arena, and that’s just what laws like this eradicate.
Absolutely right, I do agree with your post. It is informative &useful article for us. I am a student and have nearsightedness and looking for eye specialist. I heard about so many doctors. So totally confused now. My friend said Allegany Optical Hagerstown is the best for eye care. Anyone have any idea about them. Please let me know. I will be thankful to you.
{ 7 trackbacks }