Wednesday, June 9, 2010

Protecting, or hurting, nannies?

EXCERPTS:

"To be a Times contributor, you apparently have to write like Mara Gay, who penned these lines for a front page article last week:

New York may soon become the first state to offer employment protection for nannies. The state Senate passed a bill of rights for domestic workers this week, a measure that would require employers to offer New York’s approximately 200,000 household workers paid holidays, overtime pay and sick days. Supporters say the step will provide needed relief to thousands of women — and some men — who are helping to raise the children of wealthier New Yorkers without any legal workplace rights beyond the federal minimum wage.

Now, you see, if I had been writing this article, it might have opened more like this:

New York state may soon become the first state to restrict employment opportunities for nannies. The state Senate passed a bill this week that would prohibit New York’s approximately 200,000 household workers from accepting any position that does not include paid holidays, overtime pay and sick days. Opponents say the step will bring unnecessary hardship to thousands of women—and some men—who have found employment because of labor markets that operate freely, except for constraints imposed by the federal minimum wage.

A more neutral observer might have noted that this bill, if passed, will be good for some of those nannies who retain their jobs, bad for the many nannies who will be driven out of the business, and extremely good for people like Ai-jen Poo, director of the National Domestic Workers Alliance, who will represent the winners and can conveniently ignore the losers.