On 8 Jan 2004 10:37:49 -0800, Banty wrote:

On the other hand, I used to hire a couple of young babysitters (10 year old
kids who live on my block) to watch my son for an hour or two, provided that
their parents were in the house too, in case of emergencies (this being
understood with the parents). When the father of one found that I paid a 22
year old babysitter, who sometimes does overnights, more than his 10 year old,
he got mad and sent his son for 'the difference'. I sent him back. Dad called.
I told his Dad that, by design of the babysitting job, his boy takes on
considerably less responsibility than the 22 year old - I'm not relying on the
10 year old for responsible action in emergencies; he's not on tap to feed my
son; he doesn't have to get him ready for school. So, that was the end of his
son babysitting. IOW, "no deal".

It sounds like you are relying on the 10 yr old to get their parents
in an emergency, which would be pretty responsible. The dad didn't
have any right to request more money for past work as it was paid at
the negotiated rate, but he did have the right (and probably the
obligation) to ask that the future rate be the rate of the 22 yr old
since that was what you were willing to pay for hourly services of
equivalent responsibility (safety of your child and all).

Essentially the parents are responsible for your child and simply
delegating the actual watching to their children.
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.