Landing Gear

Then let me make it clearer that I am expressing my disagreement with this way of thinking, to maintain continuity of the thread, and not with you.

I have a J.D. but I don't prepare my tax returns myself. I hire a CPA firm. So your point is?

You could say that about many things, no?

I don't have to see any of the paper work to be pretty certain that is not what happened. What did happen is most likely the following: parents hired a nanny and then started the "opaque process." That's like getting on one of the new "pay in advance" buses and then looking to pay the fare.

They got the fine for allowing someone to work without insurance. Read this again. They got the penalty waived because the period that person worked without workers comp was short, there were no claims, and they came into compliance.


Not my point. I mentioned that because I try and avoid getting sued. Call it risk management if you want. Most people don't ask for insurance certificates because they either don't know or don't care.

magiciansampras

Good, clarity is golden.

My point is that this process is needlessly complex and opaque.

Obviously. So what?

That may very well be what happened. Or perhaps someone told them they didn't need the insurance. Or maybe someone told them that they would take care of the insurance. Or maybe no one told them that they needed the insurance. Or maybe the nanny wasn't working full time at first and then transitioned into a full-time role. My point is that "trying to comply" can encompass many different scenarios.

I agree.

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.

magiciansampras

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.

Landing Gear

I'm at a loss for what you want or what point you are trying to make. The law is not to employ someone without having insurance in place. That's it.

magiciansampras

Wirelessly posted (Blackberry: Mozilla/5.0 (BlackBerry; U; BlackBerry 9800; en-US) AppleWebKit/534.8+ (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/6.0.0.600 Mobile Safari/534.8+)

The point is that I think it is BS that the OP got a 4000 fine for trying to comply.

Landing Gear

No, he got the fine because he didn't comply--he hired someone without having workers compensation insurance in place.

That's all there is to it.

magiciansampras

Wirelessly posted (Blackberry: Mozilla/5.0 (BlackBerry; U; BlackBerry 9800; en-US) AppleWebKit/534.8+ (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/6.0.0.600 Mobile Safari/534.8+)

I thought you agreed that trying to comply is relevant?

We don't disagree on why the fine was levied: a law was broken. We apparently disagree on the merits of fining individuals who are clearly trying to comply (as evidenced by the hiring of GTM, paying the taxes, and so forth).

You are looking at this legally; I am looking at it politically. I think it makes little sense to fine the people who are trying to do the right thing, it just leads to less compliance. They should be focused on prosecuting folks who do not make an attempt to do this above board. That would be a far more rational approach. The $4000 fines just encourage people to not try at all.

Landing Gear

Let me break this down.

"You are looking at this legally; I am looking at it politically." That's exactly right. Here's another example: If your taxes are not paid by April 15, it doesn't matter if you tried to pay them, you failed to comply.

Google "strict liability."

magiciansampras

The legal question is boring and uninteresting. The OP broke the law. Easy enough.

What do you make of the political question? Does it make good sense for the state to go after parents who are trying to comply and have taken steps to do so? Do you feel that this is a good use of the state's time and resources? Do you agree that such enforcement likely makes compliance, perhaps counter-intuitively, even lower?

Landing Gear

Maybe the law is "boring and uninteresting" to you but it's how I make my living. Enjoy the rest of this beautiful day.

magiciansampras

Most lawyers I know admit that the law is boring and uninteresting.

But that prevents you from discussing the politics of the situation?

Truly bizarre. Nevertheless, enjoy the weather. Not sure what the apparent hostility is all about.

KPhill

Wow, not sure what to say to all the comments above. But the good news is that notwithstanding that I appear to have broken the law, although certainly not wilfully/willfully in this case (thank you for the benefit of the doubt here M.Sampras), the GTM service was able to prevail upon the State of NY Workers Comp Board to show mercy!

And now that my paranoia is through the roof, I will make sure that the disability is also still in place.

Re the GTM setup fee (which may not be disclosed on the website per LandingGear?), I went back and looked at my amex. The actual fee was $755 not $800.

And for the record, speaking for a (now) law abiding (I think/hope) NY couple with two JD degrees between us (both non-practicing), I agree that the actual breaking of the law for 23 days is much less interesting than the public policy discussion. How could it not be - either you have the insurance or you don't, i.e. "strict liability" as someone said?

KPhill

Not to be annoying here but to be clear, you were the OP, but I was the one who broke the law. Unless this is a veiled confession.

And I agree that sending out $4k notices to nanny employers who are at least trying to comply with the various laws and regs seems (from a public policy standpoint, Landing Gear) to be a bit counterproductive.

magiciansampras

Oops, my bad, you indeed are the one that broke the law.

I forgot I had started this thread (because back then I was interested in the norms regarding nanny pay, not the overzealous nature of the state in prosecuting parents who are trying to comply.

^

And let me be clear: I don't think breaking the law is a good thing. There should be punishment for it (under most circumstances). But here it seems like the punishment you faced didn't fit he crime and, worse, it's things like this that make that 70-80% non-compliance number that high.