New York Legislature Thinks Only the Rich Should Have Nannies
The State Senate this week passed a bill that would require paid holidays, sick days and vacation days for domestic workers, along with overtime wages. It would require 14 days’ notice, or termination pay, before firing a domestic worker.
Full article on new standards for domestic workers.
That’s because the members of the New York legislature probably are rich themselves.
According to the economics of labor, workers’ salaries are roughly equal to their productivity. If wages are lower than workers are paid, then firms will compete for the labor and bid up the wages. When politicians attempt to boost the benefits for a given profession, the cost of employing that profession rises, without a corresponding increase in productivity. The end result is to fewer domestic workers will be hired if this bill is signed into law.
Just another example of the kind of governance that keeps New York State residents hitching up those outbound U-Hauls.
This is just extending existing wage a hour laws to domestic workers. Why should anyone believe that domestic workers aren’t entitled to the same protections as pretty much every other employee?
So, New York will soon begin to resemble France? It seems to me that all of this stuff is going to make it more complicated to hire domestic labor and will generally tend to increase costs and (as Devon predicted) decrease the number of jobs.
so, Virginia, are you willing to give up your vacation days and sick days and holidays and overtime (if you’re an hourly employee) to make your life an example of being less like France, or do you think that domestic workers are equal to you and are entitled to the same protections?
Artk, I would argue that mandating paid holidays, sick days and vacation days for domestic workers is not necessarily protecting them. We can assume these mandates reduce productivity since they are requirements to pay domestic workers for days not worked. If the law reduces productivity, in the long run wages would fall to compensate. If we assume the mandate requires, say, 25 paid days off (holidays, sick days and vacation days), the work year might be reduced from 250 to 225 days. As a result, the pay would (theoretically) fall by 10% and 225 days of productive work would be averaged across 250 days. If workers wanted 25 days off, they would be better off. However, if workers are unwilling to trade 25 days worth of wages in return for 25 days off work, then they would be worse off.
artk: labor restrictions almost never protect labor. They are almost always the result of some special interest trying to price competitors out of the market. In this case I suspect that the people pushing the legislation are commercial day care centers and commercial maid service companies trying to raise the cost of hiring their competitors. I would be really surprised if a real nanny ever showed up to lobby for this bill.
And if they did make it to Albany I suyspect that real nannies would tell the law makers to get lost.