Did you raise your cleaning lady?

shyshira

Wed, Jan 17 2018, 12:30 pm

tryinghard wrote:

Nobody on your side of this debate seems to be willing to address the following: Other than a full-time housekeeper, someone who works hourly in a domestic setting, (possibly even "a few days a week" as was posted upthread, and was denigrated because this is "almost full-time) is not an employee - they are a service provider or an independent contractor - and neither of those have any relevance to minimum wage.

As far as I'm concerned this isn't a debate.

If someone is taking a position that minimum wage rules don't apply to their payments to a domestic worker because that person isn't an employee as defined by the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) (and relevant caselaw), and/or New York's labor laws - then they are taking a legal position that is available to them. I suspect they would lose in court if that position was challenged - but its a legal position. I'd be interested to read if law firms are comfortable providing opinions to their clients reflective of this position.

The blanket statement 'min wage rules' don't apply because the person who cleans for me is paid cash, or 'min wage rules' don't apply to domestic workers - have no legal merit. Nor does "I really believe that in the case of too much labor, minimum wage rules don't apply", or any argument about how horrible immigration is, and how its creating too much tax, and immigrants get too much free stuff - so as a result I'm not obliged to pay minimum wage.

I understand the frustration. I understand people deciding not to pay minimum wage for a whole bunch of reasons. It comes down to basically saying "I'm not doing this min wage thing - my 'help' is playing the system, I'm worse off as a taxpayer for it - so no I'm just not going to do it. Even better put - if this government is allowing 'these people' to get away with under-reporting income to avoid taxation, and take advantage of 'programs' Why on earth why I follow this government laws regarding wages.

What I'm struggling with is people beliefs that all these justifications make what they are doing legal. It doesn't. Hence as someone else put it 'the wild west' system.

I personally haven't made any moral judgments here, I know other posters have.

Do what you want to do. Justify it however you want - but don't convince yourself that you are following a law when you are not.

33055

Wed, Jan 17 2018, 12:47 pm

shyshira wrote:

As far as I'm concerned this isn't a debate.

If someone is taking a position that minimum wage rules don't apply to their payments to a domestic worker because that person isn't an employee as defined by the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) (and relevant caselaw), and/or New York's labor laws - then they are taking a legal position that is available to them. I suspect thy would lose in court if that position was challenged - but its a legal position. I'd be interested to read if law firms are comfortable providing opinions to their clients reflective of this position.

The blanket statement 'min wage rules' don't apply because the person who cleans for me is paid cash, or 'min wage rules' don't apply to domestic workers - have no legal merit. Nor does "I really believe that in the case of too much labor, minimum wage rules don't apply", or any argument about how horrible immigration is, and how its creating too much tax, and immigrants get too much free stuff - so as a result I'm not obliged to pay minimum wage.

I understand the frustration. I understand people deciding not to pay minimum wage for a whole bunch of reasons. It comes down to basically saying "I'm not doing this min wage thing - my 'help' is playing the system, I'm worse off as a taxpayer for it - so no I'm just not going to do it. Even better put - if this government is allowing 'these people' to get away with under-reporting income to avoid taxation, and take advantage of 'programs' Why on earth why I follow this government laws regarding wages.

What I'm struggling with is people beliefs that all these justifications make what they are doing legal. It doesn't. Hence as someone else put it 'the wild west' system.

I personally haven't made any moral judgments here, I know other posters have.

Do what you want to do. Justify it however you want - but don't convince yourself that you are following a law when you are not.

No one here is stupid enough to be convinced they are following the minimum wage law when they aren't paying minimum wage. They believe they are doing an off the books transaction so to speak.

You can walk into many stores here and if you present right, they will offer to allow you a discount for cash. Since the store owner is not paying sales or income tax, the customer get a price break.

The domestic help situation here has a similar dynamic. They get paid in cash. Since they aren't reporting their income, nor are they paying their income taxes, nor are they complying with documentation, there is a similar off the books transaction.

BTW, I think the rate of the off the books transaction is very similar or better to net rate of an on the books minimum wage employee.

shyshira

Wed, Jan 17 2018, 12:57 pm

Squishy wrote:

Squishy when you wrote "I honestly don't think the minimum wage rate applies because of the supply" I took you literally. My bad.

There are two sets of laws here. The labor laws to which minimum wage is relevant, aren't tax laws.

There is no conflict to say - I'm not going to deal with the headache and cost of doing all the required payroll deductions for my domestic help (because neither I nor my help is interested in it, so I'll take a risk on that front and pay 'under the table') - but I do pay minimum wage, because that is what the labor laws require of me.

The comparisons to not collecting sales tax, or paying cash so a business doesn't report the income all all examples of tax evasion - and are comparable to not withholding income taxes from employees. This has nothing to do with labor law.

Last edited by shyshira on Wed, Jan 17 2018, 3:13 pm; edited 1 time in total

amother

Seagreen

Wed, Jan 17 2018, 1:54 pm

octopus wrote:

You said minimum wage is 13.50? no I don't pay 13.50 an hour. And if I was an employer that paid by the hour, I would be docking her pay left and right. If this is so important to you why are you anonymous exactly? Who the heck am I talking to? You could just be some poster that riles people up. Do you have reading comprehension issues? Even the law makes a differentiation between employers (how many you employ etc.). And the law refers to businesses. I am not a business. And I don't have a continuous service on a daily basis. Honestly, I don't get you. I post under my sn and I'm not afraid to voice my opinions even when not popular. I don't have patience for people that are wimps and I probably wouldn't have been so nasty if I knew who I was talking to.

https://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/c.....b.htm

Domestic service workers provide services of a household nature in or about a private home. (See Fact Sheet #79: Private Homes and Domestic Service Employment Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for information about what qualifies as a private home.) Domestic service workers include companions, babysitters, cooks, waiters, maids, housekeepers, nannies, nurses, caretakers, handymen, gardeners, home health aides, personal care aides, and family chauffeurs.

Persons employed in domestic service in private homes are covered by the FLSA; they must be paid at least the federal minimum wage for all hours worked and overtime pay at time and a half the regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek, unless they are subject to an exemption.

(and yes - that was an obnoxious comment that I made - I shouldn't have posted it.)

amother

Lavender

Wed, Jan 17 2018, 2:54 pm

Notsobusy wrote:

None of this makes them indecent people. They are desperate, trying to escape the crushing poverty in their home country, many of them work very hard to be able to send money home to their families while surviving on very little.

Having babies out of wedlock while against our religion, isn't considered indecent in the rest of the world. Not paying taxes, illegal businesses, lying to get free services, some of them are probably don't know better, some come from countries where there aren't local laws to follow, and most are trying to survive and support their families while making minimum wage if they're lucky. It's wrong and illegal, but it doesn't make them bad people.

It's not our job to save the world. In a world of finite resources, we can't help everybody. It's like the economics of health care where insurances will refuse a chemo drug because it's very expensive. As it is the US give way too much money and provides health care to any person who walks through our emergency rooms for example. Foreigners take advantage because they know they won't be turned away. Other countries would not cover Americans or other foreigners if they were to walk in to an ER there. Why should you and I be paying their expenses?

33055

Wed, Jan 17 2018, 3:29 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

Are you comfortable allowing people to die because they cannot afford medical treatment?

Are you comfortable, under your own nym, telling people on this group who use government-subsidized health care, that if they cannot afford medical care for their kids, their kids should be allowed to die?

I'm not comfortable with either of those things. I'm willing to pay a bit more in taxes if it saves lives. Even if they exploit the system. Even if they're working under the table or cheating or keep having kids they can't afford or whatever the complaint.

I am not willing to allow Americans to die because they don't have health insurance. I am not willing to allow kids or adults to die because they aren't insured. That's not a little bit more taxes either.

I have come to the conclusion we need universal healthcare because so many people are gaming Medicaid. Medicaid in turn is gaming hospitals and Drs who push the costs on private insurers.

The Mayo Clinic has said Medicaid has reached a critical mass. With 50% of their patients in Medicaid, Medicaid patients go to the back of the line and have to wait their turn.

At the same time, I don't feel we have an obligation to give free unlimited medical and dental to illegal immigrants.

33055

Wed, Jan 17 2018, 3:54 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

So, if you were visiting Israel, and (chas v'shalom) had a stroke, if you couldn't afford the tens of thousands of dollars it would cost to care for you, you think it would be appropriate to let you die. Or if your child (chas v'shalom) broke her leg in Israel, and you couldn't afford the $17,000 to $35,000 it cost for surgical treatment, if required, you'd be OK with them telling you to take the next plane home.

BTW, as I've pointed out, repeatedly, the US does not provide free health care (except for emergencies) to undocumented aliens, although it does to documented aliens. There are non-federal clinics that do, but that's different.

There are clinics in my backyard that provide free unlimited medical and dental care. We have medical tourism. Those looking to game the system figure it out long before honest people do.

You came up with emergency examples. We treat everyone who goes to emergency rooms. You want your toenails trimmed, go to the emergency room. You don't want to pay for a primary care physician, go to the emergency room. You are guaranteed free treatment. Maybe if people have to provide their credit cards, some of this nonsense stops.

What is wrong with Isreal asking for credit information before treating?

When I skiied in France, you had to purchase insurance in advance or have $200 on you to pay for an ambulance if needed.

SixOfWands

Wed, Jan 17 2018, 4:22 pm

Squishy wrote:

You've mentioned clinics before, but they're not federally funded. They may be state or locally funded, but I've never researched it, so I'm not going to offer an opinion.

The toenail scenario you posit is a myth. EMTLA requires emergency rooms to offer EMERGENCY care regardless of ability to pay. It does not require that emergency rooms provide NON-emergency care. Moreover, it doesn't even require private hospitals to do anything more than stabilize Medicaid patients before transferring them to public hospitals.

Oh, and they do bill you. But if you're indigent, there's not a whole lot they can do.

And there's nothing wrong with doctors and hospitals requesting payment. My problem comes in refusing to treat emergencies for he indigent.

simcha2

Wed, Jan 17 2018, 4:24 pm

amother wrote:

I actually do think it's our job as frum Jews to look after the most vulnerable in society. I think there is a reason why the Torah repeatedly tells us to look after the almana and orphan. I think when we are told to look after the ger amongst us it is not only talking about a convert but also a ger toshav. (Yes,I know we are not in Israel), but I think Hashem wants us to look after and care for those that need it. There is a reason why neviim is full of rebukes for caring about the korbanos bit nut the poor.

I believe that after 120 Hakodesh Baruch Hu will not ask me about the length of my sheital but will ask why if I did everything for his creations.

33055

Wed, Jan 17 2018, 5:05 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

I looked up one of these clinics that accepts every illegal regardless of ability to pay, and it is at least partially federally funded. They all know to lie and say they have no money for co-pays. You can look it up further for complete funding - Refuah. There are 4 of these clinics in my county alone.

The toenail story came to me directly from the treating doctor. I guess it was cheaper to cut the toenails than to transfer them to a public hospital. My mother used to get a Dr to come to the house and cut her toenails. Frankly, she was driving then and could have gone to the office or for a pedicure. There sure is a lot of waste in the system.

And who pays for the non-emergency care in the public hospitals?

Again, I have no issue with taking care of our indignant people. But people who come here illegally or for medical tourism should not be given the same medical care. It only invites more people to take advantage of tax-payers and our poor citizens.

anon for this

Thu, Jan 18 2018, 6:48 am

Squishy wrote:

Honestly, I am surprised no one googled this. I can't post the underlying PDF file.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-g.....port/

I agree that we shouldn't allow people guilty of serious crimes to remain in this country, let alone give them a path to citizenship. So it's a good thing no one, especially DACA supporters, is advocating for this.

However, major issues with the breitbart article are obvious even on a cursory scan. The article claims that since data show that since DACA-aged illegal immigrants in Arizona were more likely to be convicted of serious crimes than were legal residents, that the DACA program will bring criminals to the US. One issue is that the data is from Arizona and it's not clear that the data would be true across the country. In fact, larger studies covering the entire US population indicate that illegal immigrants are not more likely than legal residents to commit serious crimes, or are less likely to do so. Source: https://www.cato.org/blog/immi.....-says

Also, the article says that since "DACA-aged" illegal immigrants are more likely to be convicted of serious crimes, DACA is a flawed program that will harm the country. But the criminals described in that article wouldn't be eligible for DACA in any case. Anyone who has been convicted of a felony or serious misdemeanor, or three misdemeanors of any kind, isn't eligible for DACA. Neither is anyone deemed to pose a threat to national security or public safety, which would include gang members.

Also, unlike the poorly educated cohort described in the article, DACA recipients must be attending high school, have a high school diploma or GED, or be honorably discharged from the Coast Guard or armed services. Some DACA recipients are currently in the military as well. In fact, 72% of DACA recipients are in higher education. (Source: http://www.newsweek.com/dreame.....57201)

In short, the group described in the report has little in common with DACA recipients. I'm not sure if breitbart cited that report because they didn't understand the obvious differences between the groups, or because they thought their readers wouldn't understand.

Also, you quoted the breitbart article incorrectly. You wrote that illegal immigrants are "250 times more likely" to commit serious crimes. The breitbart article says "250% more likely". 250% = 2.5 times more likely, not 250 times.

unexpected

Thu, Jan 18 2018, 7:25 am

SixOfWands wrote:

My grandmother did actually have a stroke in Israel, and while she did need to provide a credit card, the airline actually took care of the bill because her plane ticket had travelers insurance on it. There are myriad ways for travelers to have insurance so that (in case of emergency) your medical expenses will be covered overseas. However, if you are smuggling yourself in to a country, none of those options apply.
In regards to free healthcare, except for emergencies is exactly the point. Even strep throat is an emergency when you have no access to regular medical care. Non emergent medicine almost always becomes an emergency if you don't take care of it. And somehow that becomes our problem...

33055

Thu, Jan 18 2018, 9:14 am

anon for this wrote:

There is nothing wrong with extrapolating data in the absence of a complete survey of all the immigrants criminals.

I would like to see any underlying claim rather than a bald assertion from Newsweek that 72% are in higher education.

That number is ridiculous and obviously fake. Since 21% of dreamers are HS dropouts far in excess of the 5.9% overall, are you trying to say that almost all the rest of the Dreamers unlike Americans are in higher education? I can't find any support for Newsweek's claim. The best number I found is 10,000 are in higher education. Overall at private 4 year colleges 62.5 % graduate, so there is no way to believe the college graduation rate is so much higher when their HS dropout rate is already excessive.

The dreamers will cost 26BILLION while bringing in less than .9 BILLION to our treasury. This is what our Congressional budget analysts say this will cost our country in increasing our deficit. This sure doesn't sound like a to say productive group of 72% college graduates.

https://www.google.com/amp/www......html

Any time you have a survey, you extrapolate data. Illegal immigrant crime is underreported to begin with. Then because of misguided liberals, it is under charged so they don't get deported. There is also a tendency to make up being a victim because you can get a U Visa. I know of two victims of this scam in Monsey. This cost the families a lot of money and anxiety.

Your Cato blog admits its data is flawed. Asking people to self report criminal activity and immigrant status is going to not be accurate. It says that census workers make up answers if the participants don't cooperate. That's a flawed methodology. The respondents lie and won't admit illegal status for fear of deportation.

Here is a different report .

https://www.heritage.org/immig.....ivity

This is directly from a government report.

"The first report (GAO-05-337R) found that criminal aliens (both legal and illegal) make up 27 percent of all federal prisoners. Yet according to the Center for Immigration Studies, non-citizens are only about nine percent of the nation’s adult population. Thus, judging by the numbers in federal prisons alone, non-citizens commit federal crimes at three times the rate of citizens.

The findings in the second report (GAO-05-646R) are even more disturbing. This report looked at the criminal histories of 55,322 aliens that “entered the country illegally and were still illegally in the country at the time of their incarceration in federal or state prison or local jail during fiscal year 2003.” Those 55,322 illegal aliens had been arrested 459,614 times, an average of 8.3 arrests per illegal alien, and had committed almost 700,000 criminal offenses, an average of roughly 12.7 offenses per illegal alien.

Out of all of the arrests, 12 percent were for violent crimes such as murder, robbery, assault and relations-related crimes; 15 percent were for burglary, larceny, theft and property damage; 24 percent were for drug offenses; and the remaining offenses were for DUI, fraud, forgery, counterfeiting, weapons, immigration, and obstruction of justice.

The 2011 GAO report wasn’t much different. It looked at 251,000 criminal aliens in federal, state, and local prisons and jails. Those aliens were arrested nearly 1.7 million times for close to three million criminal offenses. Sixty-eight percent of those in federal prison and 66 percent of those in state prisons were from Mexico. Their offenses ranged from homicide and kidnapping to drugs, burglary, and larceny."

What also fails to be taken into account is the illegal aliens take away jobs from natives. For rosy 72% higher educated aliens more like the 2% college graduates reported. We should take care of our own first. I would love to see three 25 Billion the dreamers will cost the US go to solutions to help our disenfranchised.