Originally Posted by
Landing Gear
No, that's exactly what happened. I'll break down your alternatives:
1. "Or perhaps someone told them they didn't need the insurance." That's an excuse for allowing someone to work without insurance.
2. "Or maybe someone told them that they would take care of the insurance." That's an excuse for allowing someone to work without insurance.
3. "Or maybe no one told them that they needed the insurance." That's an excuse for allowing someone to work without insurance.
4. "Or maybe the nanny wasn't working full time at first and then transitioned into a full-time role." That's an excuse for allowing someone to work without insurance.
How many different ways are there for saying the maxim "look before you leap?" Ask questions before doing something you know nothing about like hiring a household employee.
The Byzantine (from a tech standpoint) FlyerTalk software is annoying to no end so let me simply say that you can call something "complex and opaque" which may or may not be true but that does not excuse people from failing to comply with the law. Otherwise, I think I'll try this if I get a recycling ticket.
The question was regarding *attempts* to comply with the law. It is obvious that something went wrong; the relevant question is why. Attempting to comply and willfully avoiding compliance are two very different things, as you acknowledged. Recall your statement: "I most emphatically do not agree that people who employ workers, whether child care or otherwise and
knowingly and willfully do not comply with the laws regarding taxes and insurance should get any better treatment than any other employers." We both agree. The relevant question, however, is what a good effort attempt at compliance looks like.