California: What to pay mother's helper?

June 27, 2018 7:23 PM

So California laws are strict and it's a bit of a "nanny state." Forgive the pun. I'm confused. CA minimum wage is $10.50 (and higher in certain counties), but mother's helpers are often willing to work for less, especially teenagers.

Am I really required to pay a part-time (less than 30 hrs/week) mother's helper the minimum wage?? Even if she's a teenager? If so, full-time daycare works out to be more affordable. Between all the confusing laws on minimum wage, nanny taxes, etc., I'm tired and I don't even have help yet.

posted by KatNips to Work & Money (36 answers total)

CA minimum wage is $10.50 (and higher in certain counties), but mother's helpers are often willing to work for less, especially teenagers.

Am I really required to pay a part-time (less than 30 hrs/week) mother's helper the minimum wage?? Even if she's a teenager?

This is why minimum wage exists.
posted by the_blizz at 7:36 PM on June 27, 2018 [97 favorites]

If you want to feel better about paying the California minimum wage, make sure you hire someone 18 or older. You wouldn't want anyone younger than that as a nanny anyway.
posted by BostonTerrier at 7:46 PM on June 27, 2018 [2 favorites]

Yeah, unless these are the most basic and intermittent of errands, I find the idea that you want to pay sub minimum wage under the table for your mothers' care (as you imply) disturbing.

However, your question is pretty vague and we could be jumping to conclusions. How many hours are these people each contributing? What, exactly, are they doing?
posted by ikea_femme at 7:51 PM on June 27, 2018 [14 favorites]

Just to clarify - by mother's helper do you mean someone who plays with your kids while you're in the house so you can do other things, or someone to help your mother?
posted by lab.beetle at 7:57 PM on June 27, 2018 [5 favorites]

I believe the O.P. is using "mother's helper" in this sense.
posted by BostonTerrier at 8:10 PM on June 27, 2018 [5 favorites]

California has a program that pays live-in relatives, teenaged or otherwise, to be in-home health aides. It pays $11 per hour minimum (higher in some counties).

Looks to me like you’re getting a good deal only paying $10.50.
posted by infinitewindow at 8:17 PM on June 27, 2018 [3 favorites]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by mother's helper. Typically a mother's helper is there to do light housework or child care in the presence of a supervising adult. But if your alternative is full time daycare I'm not sure how independent you expect this "helper" to be. Nor do I understand how your math works that 30 hours a week of 10.50 care works out to less than daycare; I absolutely would not leave an infant in a full time care situation that cost less than that.

In short, yes, you should be paying minimum wage for this work if I'm understanding your question correctly.
posted by potrzebie at 8:20 PM on June 27, 2018 [8 favorites]

This might be different if you're in a small town, but in any of the mid sized cities (and certainly ANYWHERE near the bay area) $14-15 is a common babysitter rate. So "even" for a teenage mother's helper, 10 is a reasonable rate, particularly if they're working for you regularly and/or if you have multiple kids and expect housework chores like cleaning. Honestly, in my teens in LA, I was making at least $10-12/hr for occasional nighttime sitting (most of that time spent doing my homework while the kids slept), and that was decades ago.
posted by BlueBlueElectricBlue at 8:22 PM on June 27, 2018 [7 favorites]

There is a learners exception for the first 160 hours of work if they do not have prior experience.

Beyond minimum wage there are a dozen other requirements which apply to household employees including income tax withholding and paid sick leave.
posted by muddgirl at 8:28 PM on June 27, 2018 [3 favorites]

Here in Seattle a sitter makes $20+/hour, so a mother's helper at $10.50/hour sounds like a good deal to me.
posted by k8t at 8:35 PM on June 27, 2018

Like others have said though, a mother's helper is there while a parent is at home. This is not childcare. This is not a replacement for daycare or a nanny.

If you need a brief break, try the ymca that has a few hours of childcare while you're exercising. Or hanging out.
posted by k8t at 8:36 PM on June 27, 2018 [2 favorites]

I haven't priced out what it would be in your market but in Seattle, any household or family help is a minimum of 15+/hour but many experienced folks charge more than 20/hour. If even minimum wage is out of range, maybe look at a per task assistant who is getting your groceries while they also do a few other clients. That might help but also be a lower cost.

Drop in or co-op daycare might be better if you need a break but not full time care. If you need occasional help, sites like urbansitter.com or care.com are great for finding people and knowing their rates up front.
posted by toomanycurls at 8:41 PM on June 27, 2018 [3 favorites]

Household worker taxes are tough to do. Breedlove is a company that is popular that you outsource it to.
posted by k8t at 8:42 PM on June 27, 2018

Childcare is incredibly underpaid in the US, unfortunately. This is ironic and unfortunate considering that childcare is also a huge expense to parents. I live in a small-town and even here $10.50 would be low for a teen babysitter and/or parent's helper. Even if you are present, the bottom line is that you will be trusting this person with your child and they deserve to be paid fairly at the very minimum. If you feel the rate is too steep then, yes, absolutely go with full-time daycare. There are many pros to having your child in daycare, from the structured learning environment to social interaction. The benefit of having someone in your home is the convenience for you. Perhaps something in between like a nanny share might be a happy alternative?
posted by smorgasbord at 8:43 PM on June 27, 2018 [11 favorites]

My son is fifteen and, besides delivering papers, he just got his first real job working in a supermarket, stacking cans.

If his employer said that he should not be paid minimum wage because he's a teenager, there would be hell to pay. In fact, I counseled him that, even though he should do the best job that he possibly can, which means showing up on time and working an honest day, since it's minimum wage he should take the easiest possible job he can find. That's why he targeted stocking cans rather than dealing with the till for minimum wage.

Pay less than minimum wage, and you get what you pay for. It's your kids, after all.

We also made choices and made sacrifices so that there was always one parent at home and we did not have to deal with childcare costs.

(Delivering papers, he also was efficient enough to earn more than minimum wage)
posted by JamesBay at 8:57 PM on June 27, 2018 [5 favorites]

You have a legal obligation to pay your employee the mandated minimum wage in your area. Full stop. Nothing confusing about that. And I can’t think of any reason why someone should get paid less for watching a kid than they would for running a cash register. Don’t we have discussions on a practically daily basis about what a travesty it is that people aren’t fairly paid for their labor and how caregiving in particular is so fraught with exploitation? Yeah, we do, so don’t exploit workers or violate labor law. That would not be okay.
posted by Autumnheart at 9:02 PM on June 27, 2018 [32 favorites]

Yes, minimum wage applies to teens. All the other labor laws also. If you're talking about paying someone under the table then all bets are off, but that is illegal and also ethically dubious. I'd be fine paying someone under the table to mow my lawn or maybe for some minor, one-off handyman type work—I've done that kind of work myself—but for domestic assistance, on an ongoing (if part-time) basis? That's an employee or a contractor, and they deserve the relevant protections under the law.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 9:06 PM on June 27, 2018 [1 favorite]

Oh and yeah, I could see it costing more for someone who comes to your house and works for you one-on-one than for an organization where you go to them and give them your kid to manage as part of a group. The first situation involves more intimacy, a higher level of service, and more emotional labor than the second, as well as lacking any economies of scale.
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 9:10 PM on June 27, 2018 [3 favorites]

Look at it this way: You want to find someone you can trust and who will be able to help you on a consistent and long term basis, correct? If you pay a fair, competitive wage, your helper will be more likely to stick with you long term. Anyone who works for you at the rate you're hoping to pay will move on as soon as they realize that they can't support themselves on less than $10 per hour, or if something better (i.e. literally any job since you're paying below the minimum wage) comes along.
posted by kitty teeth at 10:12 PM on June 27, 2018 [3 favorites]

I think folks are misinterpreting what you were asking. By mother's helper, I assume you mean a teenager (12-15-year-old) who hangs out with your kids (3-6-year-old) and plays while you are home doing laundry, checking e-mail, cooking dinner. Is that right? If so, the answer is still - $10/hour is cheap! You have to pay people the minimum wage - even teenagers working part-time. Even if you aren't looking at this from a legal perspective - people expect to be paid minimum wage. And even if a 13-year-old isn't going to call you on it, you better believe their parents will! If the cost is too much, consider a nanny share. Whether you decide to pay taxes or do it under the table is up to you.
posted by Toddles at 11:09 PM on June 27, 2018 [8 favorites]

On the legal side: Yes, you're expected - required - to pay at least minimum wage to anyone you hire to do any tasks at all, including "help tend the child while you're still in the house."

On the social side: this is well beyond what many low-income families can afford, which means that parental-help childcare gets done by volunteer-relatives or not at all.

I never once hired a babysitter to tend my children; I couldn't afford it. They got no exposure to older kids in the local community; they have no idea how hiring a sitter or helper would work, if they should wish to do so later; they have no concept of any kind of home care as a paid activity - they've never seen it be paid for. On the flip side, no local teen got movie money from me; they didn't get practice tending children who weren't their siblings (because nobody else in my community can afford minimum wage employees, either); they didn't get practice with job skills like "show up on time" and "follow instructions not created by an institution" in a setting where failure was a nuisance instead of an instant-firing offense.

I don't think this is a good situation, and I am disappointed that so many MeFites seem to think that "of course it's a job; pay full wages or go without" is a reasonable approach to what used to be an aspect of community participation. This is a case where neoliberalism has assigned a pricetag to relationships that might be better served with a more flexible approach, and everyone loses out because of it.
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 11:26 PM on June 27, 2018 [21 favorites]

California used to exempt teenagers who basically babysat or did elderly care, but even under those guidelines a "mothers helper" is expected to do more domestic service skills which would not have been exempt.
posted by muddgirl at 11:38 PM on June 27, 2018

Babysitting is exempt from the minimum wage laws per the Federal DOL. However, as many have noted above that is kind of a moot point as there aren't many places a good babysitter won't get more than minimum anyway. So it matters if this is a more of a regular caregiver, which probably wouldn't fall under the babysitter exemption, or a teenager for a couple of hours a day to help out, which might not require minimum wage legally, but probably will due to market conditions. You might want to call the CA Dept. of Labor to clarify where the line is between babysitting and in-home care.
posted by COD at 4:57 AM on June 28, 2018 [2 favorites]

I'm not familiar with "mother's helpers" but if similar to babysitting, the legality and common practice of this varies between regions. You'll need to look into the legality in your area first, then see if the market will support what you're offering. Keep in mind that they are watching your precious child(ren), and the people who are willing to accept lower pay than others may be less in demand for good reasons.

FWIW I never got anywhere near the minimum wage at the time when I babysat 15-20 years ago, and that was legal in my area, and nobody was willing to pay more (pretty low income area though). I also don't think it's inherently exploitative to pay less than minimum wage for odd jobs like babysitting that nobody would be attempting to make a living doing, and that wouldn't interfere with getting a "real job". I was happy to earn a few extra bucks while doing homework and watching tv (I would NOT have done cleaning/chores though without a large increase in pay).

That said, you mentioned up to 30h/week and that's well into the range of a "real job" that needs to be paid accordingly.
posted by randomnity at 6:56 AM on June 28, 2018 [3 favorites]

But, I'm already regretting my post a little because it seems like you might be looking for something closer to a nanny than a babysitter.

To be clear, a nanny is a highly-skilled, important job and needs to be paid accordingly (above minimum wage). Yes, even if they're a teenager, and even if they're part time.
posted by randomnity at 7:00 AM on June 28, 2018

I didn't see this opinion above. I did see many questions on exactly what service you are asking - there is a big difference between paying a 17 year old to watch your child, mealtimes, bath time, mostly unsupervised and paying a 12 year old neighbor to play with and entertain your child. I think situations closer to the latter would merit less than minimum wage. I wonder if the above posts insisting that all work is minimum wage work for all ages are people who have young kids starting out doing services for the neighbors. I'd be happy if my 12 year old was helping out a neighbor for less than $10/hour if she wanted and was highly supervised. Similarly, I don't expect my teenager to negotiate minimal wage equivalent for taking in and out the neighbor's garbage cans or when I pay a neighbor child to feed the pet while we are gone on vacation (maybe the rate does work out to minimum wage, I'm not sure).

At best, figuring out local custom is going to be a big factor, I think, combined with what exactly service you are wanting. Locally here, minimum wage is 7.25, babysitters and college-age nannies with cars are $10/hour, maybe plus a bit or a tip for the babysitter. Mother's helpers from upper/middle class neighbor's kids are going to be less than $10 and less than $7.25. Obvs, this is not CA.

Note: A mother's helper is not comparable to daycare in my definition.
posted by RoadScholar at 7:19 AM on June 28, 2018 [3 favorites]

In my neck of the woods, mother's helpers would not do 30 hours a week. This is more in the 5-10 hour a week territory. And again, this is the neighbor's 12 year old playing peekaboo with the baby while you fold laundry.
posted by k8t at 7:34 AM on June 28, 2018 [5 favorites]

Best answer: I think this is more complicated than people are making it out to be. A babysitter or “mother’s helper” is almost certainly an employee. You set their hours and tell them what to do; they’re an employee as far as the state and federal governments are concerned.

This means that not only are you obligated to pay minimum wage, you are also obligated to follow all tax laws pertaining to employment. This means withholding taxes, paying payroll taxes, issuing a w2.

These are your legal obligations, but I honestly think there’s s gray area here. The number of employers who follow all tax laws for occasional babysitters is vanishingly small. On the other hand, if you’re talking 30 hours/week, you’re getting into big deal tax avoidance territory. There’s software to help you meet your legal obligations in this case. There are also special requirements in California when hiring a minor, such as obtaining explicit written permission from their parents and school and, in some cases, limits on hours.

As for wage, you are allowed to pay a “learners” wage for the first 160 hours an employee works. This is $8.925 in California. At 30 hours/week, you would need to start paying the full minimum wage after fewer than six weeks.

Babysitting is exempt from the minimum wage laws per the Federal DOL.

It is not exempt from California minimum wage laws, and the federal exemption applies only to the first 90 days of employment.
posted by mr_roboto at 7:36 AM on June 28, 2018 [2 favorites]

If a 10 or 12 year old comes to your house once every three months to play with your children for an hour or two so while you do something else so the pre-teen has the feeling of a job, by all means, pay them a few bucks. If you are arranging anything regular, then please pay minimum wage. You describe this as less than 30 hours a week. To me this is a regular job, regardless if you are in the same house or not. Please pay your employee minimum wage (at least).
posted by jazh at 8:15 AM on June 28, 2018 [4 favorites]

In my neck of the woods it would be impossible to hire a babysitter for less the $15 an hour, and $18 to $20 is more common, unless the babysitter is in the 14 year old range. And the legal minimum wage is much, much less. The competition for good babysitters is fierce.

For anyone you employ on a regular basis, please consider what the market in your location is. Chat with other parents, or your neighbors. You will have to pay at least that rate. Instead of one person (more like a true "employee") you might find that two or three teenagers would be willing to help on different days, potentially giving you fallback if one of them is busy.

Aside from your resistance to the expense of paying minimum wage, if you offer less than the prevailing minimum wage, why would anyone want to work for you?
posted by citygirl at 9:58 AM on June 28, 2018 [2 favorites]

10.50 is super cheap for childcare. I made $10 an hour babysitting as a 14 year old in 1999 when some neighborhood parents had like a wedding or somesuch to attend.

A daycare is typically more affordable than and individual in your house dedicated to you. IF you think about it as a numbers game it makes sense as they can have fewer than 1 worker for each child.

Minimum wage applies to underage teens. I also had a minimum wage job when i was 16, but i preferred booking sitting jobs on the weekends because it paid better. Also "less than 30 hours a week" is technically part time, but sure doesn't free up their schedule that much to pursue a second minimum wage paying part time job.

You need to pony up at least minimum wage, but more likely double that to get *and retain for the child's stability* quality 1:1 childcare.

In short, just go with daycare.
posted by WeekendJen at 11:53 AM on June 28, 2018

When I was 16 I was paid $8/hr for baby sitting and $10/hr for demolition/labor work. That was 40 years ago.
posted by InkaLomax at 12:54 PM on June 28, 2018 [4 favorites]

If you do end up employing a nanny for 30 hours a week, take into consideration that that is nearly full-time. It might be hard to find someone willing to work that close to full-time if you're not going to provide benefits (paid vacation, sick leave, possibly healthcare stipend, other bonuses). I would suspect that most people would rather work another 10 hours to get those things.

But in good news, a lot of people that use nannies actually need them for 50 hours a week and have to pay overtime (this is especially true if both parents work the same schedule and have a commute), and perhaps there are nannies that don't want to work 50 hours a week and your 30 (with benefits) might be attractive.
posted by k8t at 1:56 PM on June 28, 2018

It's unclear from your post exactly what you want the mother's helper to do. I do agree that it's a big difference hiring a 12-year-old for 10 hours a week versus hiring a full-time nanny. It's just not the same thing. If it's the 12-year-old, I'd say minimum wage (no less!) is fair. If it's the nanny, personally, I'd pay what the going rate is in the area, and certainly no less than minimum wage. Where I live, nowadays a nanny is upwards of $17/hour. To me that's astronomical, but it's also a luxury.

For reference, I worked as a nanny for three children under 6 in 2010 and was paid $10/hour, 40 hours a week. I think $8/hour was minimum wage at the time, so maybe the parents felt justified in paying me what they did. They probably paid their housecleaner (yup, they could afford one) more than they paid me, and I had a Master's degree with early childhood education and experience. In hindsight, I should have asked for more. For three kids, $10/hour was absolutely unfair but I had to accept this job for Reasons (new grad + economic downturn = no job). In hindsight the parents expected way too much of me for the pay and I felt a sense of resentment toward them as time went on.

The low pay had no effect on how I treated the kids. I went out of my way to get them out of the house, got them little presents on holidays, took them places - but it was because I cared for them, certainly not because the parents paid me enough. Now that I'm about to have a child of my own, I wouldn't trust someone to be that good-natured about the situation. I'd expect them to pop in a DVD or stream YouTube all day for that rate. It's not fair, but you get what you pay for.

So, when considering how much to pay, consider the fact that there's a power differential there. You are the employer. Be fair and don't expect a desperate job-seeker to have the confidence or energy to negotiate with you; they may be in a situation where they feel they can't.
posted by onecircleaday at 2:02 PM on June 28, 2018

You’ve gotten a lot of good feedback, but I also note from your comment history that your child is about 7 or 8 months. In that situation, I would not even begin to consider using anyone younger than a very mature 17/18 if tending to the kid is any part of the expected duties — and I would plan to pay accordingly. There may be scenarios where some would be comfortable paying, say, a 12- or 13-year-old at or even below minimum wage for an extra set of hands while you are still in the vicinity, as you’ve seen in the range of comments above — anything involving care of a baby or toddler isn’t that.
posted by LadyInWaiting at 4:09 PM on June 28, 2018 [1 favorite]

I am a California employment defense attorney, I am not your California employment defense attorney and this is not legal advice or an attorney-client relationship.

Mr. Roboto's got it right, but to be clear there's no "learner's wage" in California like the one he's referring to except maybe as a part of a union collective bargaining agreement. It looks like there may be such a thing under federal law, but the more protective law (California in this case) is what applies. Do not pay your employee less than the state or applicable local minimum wage, there is no "learner's wage" that would apply to your situation. (And Mr. Roboto, this may be what you were saying but it wasn't entirely clear to me so I thought I would clarify in case it was similarly unclear to the OP.)

All of the legal obligations relating to being an employer (taxes, workers comp insurance, unemployment insurance, etc.) are the reason that I personally only hire house cleaners, gardeners, etc. through companies that specifically handle all of those obligations.
posted by wuzandfuzz at 5:24 PM on June 28, 2018 [8 favorites]