Town Square

Post a New Topic

Another "Brilliant" Democrat Bill to Become CA Law...Re: Babysitters

Original post made by FormerDemocrat ButNeverAgain, Amador Estates, on Aug 31, 2011

This is asinine - and about to become the law in the state of California:

Assembly Bill 889 (authored by Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco, will require these protections for all "domestic employees," including nannies, housekeepers and caregivers.

The bill has already passed the Assembly and is quickly moving through the Senate with blanket support from the Democrat members that control both houses of the Legislature - and without the support of a single Republican member. Assuming the bill will easily clear its last couple of legislative hurdles, AB 889 will soon be on its way to the Governor's desk.

Under AB 889, household "employers" (aka "parents") who hire a babysitter on a Friday night will be legally obligated to pay at least minimum wage to any sitter over the age of 18 (unless it is a family member), provide a substitute caregiver every two hours to cover rest and meal breaks, in addition to workers' compensation coverage, overtime pay, and a meticulously calculated timecard/paycheck.

Failure to abide by any of these provisions may result in a legal cause of action against the employer including cumulative penalties, attorneys' fees, legal costs and expenses associated with hiring expert witnesses, an unprecedented measure of legal recourse provided no other class of workers - from agricultural laborers to garment manufacturers. (On the bright side, language requiring an hour of paid vacation time for every 30 hours worked was amended out of the bill in the Senate.)

The Feds have already cracked down on evil garage sales. Municipalities have outlawed lemonade stands. And now, we can imagine empowering that 18 year old girl who babysits your kids to sue you if you don't pay minimum wage, overtime, or vacation.

The never ending stupidity of government at every level never ceases to amaze us.

(Source: Web Link)

Comments (47)

 +   Like this comment
Posted by Need part-time legis !
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Aug 31, 2011 at 9:34 am

Obviously, we need to go back to a part-time legis, like we had in the 50s & 60s. These idiots are not responsible enough to be left alone with that much time on their hands....they get into trouble and do bad things...worse than children.
Natch, everybody will need to get sitters under 18. Provide relief every 2 hours! ! Insane idea..insane idiots. Grandstanding to a constituency equally idiotic to elect such expensive idiots who do more damage to CA than good.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Susan
a resident of Val Vista
on Aug 31, 2011 at 9:35 am

Plagiarist. All you've done is quote without quotation marks an opinion plopper by a right-wing loon. Nice try. Too intellectually feeble to write your own words?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Need part-time legis !
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Aug 31, 2011 at 9:38 am

And, returning to a part-time legis would sweetly alter our underwater, over-priced, excessive public pensions ! ! Forever more, smaller token public pensions for a more efficient streamlined legislature.
Less time to crank out the current abundance of crap.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Susan
a resident of Val Vista
on Aug 31, 2011 at 9:46 am

Then again, if you write like the intellectually challenged "Need part-time legis!" I can understand why you'd choose to plagiarize.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by STEVE
a resident of Parkside
on Aug 31, 2011 at 9:52 am

Susan-aside from your name calling, are we to assume you support this ridiculous legislation? Care to write something original in defense of another piece of nanny state drivel?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Susan
a resident of Val Vista
on Aug 31, 2011 at 9:57 am

Haven't had time to read the bill, STEEEEEVE. This mornng my time has been taken up exposing the many forms of idiocy that dominate this thread and others. I'm certan YOOOOOUUUU know what I mean. Well, actually, you probably don't.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by steve
a resident of Parkside
on Aug 31, 2011 at 10:21 am

Well, sue, when you take a break from looking for a babysitting job I'd be happy to read the bill to you. I wish I had a link to show you provide you with the details, but I'm sure the document doesn't have pretty pictures and illustrations that you're used to seeing in the literature you usually spill your cereal on. Bye, bye, babe.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Boner
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Aug 31, 2011 at 10:42 am

Here is the bill as disgusting as it is.





Web Link








 +   Like this comment
Posted by honestly
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Aug 31, 2011 at 12:16 pm

This is the exact opposite of inspiring job creation. Plus it adds red tape and legal liabilities . . . so typical. Vote these people out!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sam
a resident of Oak Hill
on Aug 31, 2011 at 12:49 pm

As for the babysitter bill, since it only applies to people over the age of 18 it has no effect on anyone's ability to hire the typical teenager down the street on a Friday night to babysit. The motivation of this bill probably came about because some people were hiring full- or part-time nannys to babysit and do house chores for them, but who were avoiding paying minimum wage or workers comp by claiming that the nanny wasn't really a nanny entitled to minimum wage but was really a mere "babysitter". This bill sounds like it's intended to prevent that kind of abuse.

Not sure why Steve and some of the others here are so upset about that. Seems like some people are just never happy unless they have something to be angry about. It's a condition that seems to affect many extreme conservatives. Coincidently, this is the same group of people who are most likely to try to weasel out of paying their nanny a minimum wage by claiming that she is really just a "babysitter".


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Aug 31, 2011 at 1:15 pm

A warning, as soon as you see terms like extreme conservatives or right-wing loon or idiocy, it's likely all the same person posting. The names change, but not the "style." (Sam/Susan/Jake/Caesar/Nate . . . )


 +   Like this comment
Posted by What a laugher!
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Aug 31, 2011 at 1:32 pm

Here's Kath the sleuth, along with her twin silly, Stace, investigating the names people use on these sites. They never ask about the echoing steeeeves, or the women's shoe salesman (I'm blanking on his name), or boner, or chris, or mooseturd, or unclehomrr. Nope, they raise the "identity" flag only after someone offers a clear and insightful argument that differs from their own.

I made the same mistake, Kath. I once accused Sam of being one of the echoing steeeves (he was having a bad night, I think). From what I gather, Sam is something of a fiscal conservative with socially liberal views. I once called him brilliant, meant it, and mean it still. Ah, but then we started arguing about torture ... a subject on which I trust he has revised his thinking.

But there it is. Sam offers a keen and well-reasoned perspective, and here comes the bully Kath pouncing on him because he sounds like other intelligent posters with whom she's in disagreement. Wow.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Aug 31, 2011 at 1:44 pm

So Nate, Jake, What a laugher! my apologies to Sam. Same warning about the rest.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Jake
a resident of Jensen Tract
on Aug 31, 2011 at 1:53 pm

What am _I_ being brought into this for? Is someone losing it here?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Aug 31, 2011 at 1:54 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

I thoroughly enjoyed Nate's personal attack of Sam of Oak Hill on that torture thread. It shows very well that Nate is too blinded by seeing the world in black and white (sort of like steve) to engage in meaningful and civil dialogue.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Aug 31, 2011 at 1:57 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

BTW, Nate either doesn't remember or chooses to not acknowledge those times I've not agreed with steve. Nate also doesn't know when I hit the "Report Objectionable Content" button on posts of some who I would agree with yet their dialog is less than civil. Doesn't fit Nate's fictional narrative...


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Nate Silver
a resident of another community
on Aug 31, 2011 at 2:05 pm

I strongly urge any readers who might be interested to check out that thread of a couple months back on torture. I recall no personal attacks whatsoever. I do vividly recall some rather spirited dialogue between two interlocutors who I think respected each other's positions. The only ad hominem on thread was Stacey's passing quip about the dialogue being one of the most ironic ever. She apparently had nothing else to offer. So, Stacey is here either being deluded or lying in this regard.

Yes, yes, yes, Stacey, you don't have to remind us of your numerous efforts to censor others. We get what you're all about. No further convincing necessary.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Need part-time legis !
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Aug 31, 2011 at 2:06 pm

I certainly won't let a 'public pension comment censor' try to trash the only sensible and logical solution to a legislature that does more harm than good. No local PW thread guard need bother defending costly CA PUBLIC union excesses,which every CA taxpayer would be better off without ! ! Allow me to reiterate.
Considering the cost of the excessive benefits and pensions provided to these pathetic legislators, a return to a part-time legislature will bring in a much brighter, wiser, better-educated group. Nothing could be worse than the dregs we are currently suffering. They do more harm than good with the crap they write. We use to do very well with a part-time legislature, like many other states. With too much time, the slackers just write crap to placate their not-too-bright constituents. The state and future generations would be better off without the junk they crank out. And think of the billions taxpayers could save if we weren't burdened with those who would otherwise be unemployable.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Becky
a resident of Beratlis Place
on Aug 31, 2011 at 2:12 pm

Part-time legislators. Now THERE'S an idea for ya!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sam
a resident of Oak Hill
on Aug 31, 2011 at 2:20 pm

Seems like no matter what the starting topic is we always end up at the same place. But that's OK. The important thing is that we're all having a lot of fun getting there.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Just Stop It! (junk legislation)
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Aug 31, 2011 at 2:24 pm

Bill Lockyer says it best: California Treasurer Spanks Legislature

He sums up the opinions of many in this troubling but entertaining two minute video

Web Link


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Zelda Mae
a resident of Dublin
on Aug 31, 2011 at 2:24 pm

A barrel of sillies is so much more fun than a barrel of monkies.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Aug 31, 2011 at 2:26 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

Nate,

I didn't say anything about it being ironic. Seems like we're either talking about different threads or you're making stuff up again.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Aug 31, 2011 at 2:31 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

Oh, THAT thread. Yea, that's still ironic.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Aug 31, 2011 at 2:35 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

See, Nate, your problem is that you stepped into this place thinking it was a certain way because of a few posts by unverified and anonymous posters during a tax election campaign at a historic time in the history of the US and you make the mistake of thinking that everyone here is like that. So then you shut your ears and think that's the way we're supposed to talk here and you partake in it yourself? Some of us are trying to bring you back to the ground and reclaim a more civil discourse here in light of the PW's lack of resources to set a more civil tone. You're not helping much.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Nate Silver
a resident of another community
on Aug 31, 2011 at 3:00 pm

Baloney sausage, Stace. Where the conversation becomes uncivil, PW editors step in. In my opinion, they pull the trigger a little bit too soon; but it's their paper. What I think the editors recognize, and you don't, is that there's a huge difference between calling someone an A** and calling someone's argument assinine. Now, it just so happens, that you have contributed more than your fair share of assinine statements/claims/arguments. I'm an expert on these matters, as I've never succumbed to having uttered/written an assinine thing in my life. The reason why that worn-out censorship button of yours may not be working is because the PW editors don't share your view of what constitutes lack of civil dialogue. They may even think, as I do, that your view is silly.

One thing I'm certain of, and I always try to be consistent in this regard. If I'm seriously addressing someone's validity claims, I critically or rhetorically or facetiously address the claims themselves. In the course of so addressing those claims, I may supplement my argument/criticism/sarcasm with terms my interlocutors may find unflattering. But I'm not attempting to convince them (you), and I don't care whether they (you) find them convincing or not. I'm simply addressing what I believe to be a silly claim.

Who I am, or where my text goes (how you personally interpret it), really is irrelevant. Once sent, the text belongs to the readers, and it's theirs to do with what they so desire. (In this regard, I express solidarity with the postmodernist, deconstructionist, Jacques Derrida, who has argued -- not entirely tongue in cheek -- that there is no such thing as an author; there only are texts.) This ad hominem business doesn't bother me one bit. It does seem to bother you. Why? Well, I think you know where I stand on this matter of you and your quick-to-censor attitudes.

p.s. I actually think the PW editors are running a pretty clean site. There is all kinds of potential for abusive language, threats, incitements to violence; but these are relatively absent from this site. Kudos to the editors!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by FormerDemocrat
a resident of Amador Estates
on Aug 31, 2011 at 3:03 pm

I can see who also will be included in this bill.
Dog sitters and dog walkers.

License them all and police them.
"Control control control and freedom be damned" ... the mantra of the Democrats. "More power to the government and government officials over private citizens" is the goal of Democrats.




 +   Like this comment
Posted by Nate Silver
a resident of another community
on Aug 31, 2011 at 3:20 pm

See what I mean, Stace? Take the above -- written by FormerDemocrat (which is likely steeeeeve trying to be cute, but who cares).

What grabs my attention is not the identity of the poster, but the claims themselves -- and here specifically how hilarious they are.

God save us all from those who would police the dog sitters!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Aug 31, 2011 at 3:30 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

Nate,

You're not fooling anyone.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Aug 31, 2011 at 4:21 pm

Oooops Nate, you forgot to change your name on this thread to Nathaniel B. Silver.

"I'm an expert on these matters, as I've never succumbed to having uttered/written an assinine thing in my life." You disprove your assertion just by writing your assertion.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Janna
a resident of Dublin
on Aug 31, 2011 at 5:15 pm

Janna is a registered user.

The word in the title should be "Democratic" but you knew that. Only makes you sound ignorant.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Nate Silver
a resident of another community
on Aug 31, 2011 at 6:06 pm

Kathleen Ruegsegger quotes me: "I'm an expert on these matters, as I've never succumbed to having uttered/written an assinine thing in my life." Kathleen Reugsegger then goes on to state: "You disprove your assertion just by writing your assertion."

Kathleen Reugsegger must have stayed home with her cuts and pastes the day God was passing out to everyone a sense of humor.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Aug 31, 2011 at 6:34 pm

Nate, My parents gave me a wonderful sense of humor. Please don't pretend you were writing in jest. Also amused by the last paragraph given that the first paragraph is cuts and pastes. Oxygen getting thinner?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Part-time legis !
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Aug 31, 2011 at 9:34 pm

Hey Just Stop It, Thank you very much...that is a valuable WebLink clip.....sums it up very well. Lockyer has been part of the problem for decades, but apparently he wants to get on the 'fix-it' bankwagon. Definitely worth the moment to view the clip.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Part-time legis !
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 4, 2011 at 1:19 pm

And....beware Mom and Dad, judging from the idiots at NLRB ruling against a PRIVATE group of voluntary, in and out members, you too, may next find youselves hostage to a group of babysitters, represented by their blood-suckers.
You mark this day, the x*x*x* socialists will be coming after you next. Union leaders always eager to skim off more hostages.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Della
a resident of Del Prado
on Sep 4, 2011 at 1:33 pm

In and Out is my favorite restaurant too! No to the hostage takers!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Sep 4, 2011 at 2:21 pm

Della, is that you again Nate/Kate/Bettina? Just want to be sure it's clear who's on deck.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Nate
a resident of another community
on Sep 4, 2011 at 2:34 pm

KR, is that you FormerDemocrat, Part-time legis!, boner, Stacey, steve, tango, honestly ... ?

I guess when one's own self-identity is the most important component of posting here, and one's own claims are so easily refuted by others, the only thing you have left to harp on is another poster's "real" identity.

With each passing day, the intellectual emptiness of the KR poster shows through.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Sep 4, 2011 at 2:36 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

Nate,

I'm still waiting for that basic evidence supporting your claim regarding part-time legislatures being more susceptible to bribes.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Part-time legis !
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 4, 2011 at 2:55 pm

Stacey, that jumped out at me too, while reading his last post....he doesn't understand, his mentality and style (or lack of) is SO obvious.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger
a resident of Vintage Hills Elementary School
on Sep 4, 2011 at 3:17 pm

PW can show I'm only me out here and that you aren't. Post as one anonymous name so everyone can follow all your comments as they truly represent only one person. "Identity in the form of continuity of personality is an extremely important characteristic of the individual." Kenneth L Pike

There is no intellectual emptiness in standing up as an individual. You might like it if you try.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Sep 4, 2011 at 3:27 pm

Stacey is a registered user.

I'm not trying to defend part-time legislatures. I'm just asking to be educated on the pros and cons of them from those who are claiming to know they are more susceptible to bribes.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Transferred
a resident of Danbury Park
on Sep 4, 2011 at 3:52 pm

I just got transferred out here and can tell you that this state is more messed up than I heard before I came out here. Shoot, I have only been here 6 months and ready to go back, cost of living high, homes high, smog and pollution high, taxes high, bridge toll high, quality of teachers low, roads terrible. This state just simply sucks and I do not know how our politicans can live with themselves for what they have done to this state.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Transferred too
a resident of Danbury Park
on Sep 4, 2011 at 7:49 pm

Shucks, this state has nothing on Texas. I mean, heck, where's the pollution? Where's the sidewalk taco stands? Where's the wal-marts on every other street corner? Where's all the tutorial companies to compensate for the bad education? Yeup, I'm going back to Texas. Either that or back to Mississipp. Yew'all don't know how ta live.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Whatever
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 5, 2011 at 2:51 pm

Well, considering minimum wage is below the cost most sitters charge for the average 2.5 children($10/hr). I think, as usual, the point is to respond to the abuses a FEW people have done on nannies etc. I am pretty sure that those who use a sitter for an evening out will be "overlooked". Yes, this state is messed up, to a large extent it is a microcosm of our country - greed, power and corruption in business and politics. Everyone of them suffering from entitlement issues.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Part-time legis !
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Sep 5, 2011 at 3:06 pm

Yes Whatever, the PUBLIC unions sense of 'entitlement' is mind-boggling, unjustified, unreasonsble, and most of all....UNJsustainable ! ! They think of themselves as CEOs, and refuse to acknowledge that in the real world, THEY would be unemployed ! !


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Tuscany Slim
a resident of Las Positas
on Sep 5, 2011 at 10:50 pm

Imagine -- workers thinking themselves as CEOs! The gall! And on labor day, which probably should be re-named Capital Day or Job-Creator Day.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: *

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Vote YES on Measures 45, 46, & 47, NO on 48
By Roz Rogoff | 30 comments | 2,167 views

Prop 47: not perfect, just preferable.
By Tom Cushing | 2 comments | 863 views

The Vranesh situation heads to court
By Tim Hunt | 7 comments | 676 views