Sick pay for self-employed nannies

[pinkdelight]

I thought there'd be a thread on this already, but can't find one, so please could someone tell me if it's normal to pay a nanny when she's off sick when she only does one day a week? I understand that employers pay employees when they're sick, but our nanny is self-employed - does this make a difference? Obviously I'll pay if it's the done thing, but if it's not, I don't want to be a soft touch! Your advice would be much appreciated

It's extremely rare for a nanny to meet the inland revenue criteria for being self-employed, which is probably why you can't find any info on it on MN. I would think that if nanny is self-employed then she doesn't get sick pay from her employer. What does her contract say?

I've written contracts with SSP only for sickness but in reality I have always paid nanny if she was sick.

Thanks Millarkie. The contract was based on a standard one for a non-self-employed nanny so it included sick pay. I queried whether the contract was appropriate for a self-employed arrangement and was assured it was so I signed it. Of course this means that I'll have to abide by the terms, but I still want to know if it's the norm or not. Quite apart from the self-employed issue, a friend who has used nannies a lot reckons that only full-time nannies get sick pay and I shouldn't have to do so for a one-day-a-week service if it's not delivered.

Standard contracts for non-self-employed nannies that I've seen do not pay sick pay - they are SSP (although as i said before, it is not uncommon to pay nanny anyway).
I have never heard of part-time nannys being treated differently to full-time nannys in this aspect.
I would pay her, partly because that is what the contract says and partly because (as long as you believe she is genuinely sick) I would want a happy nanny looking after my kids and not someone who is resentful or worried about paying her rent.

No idea on the self employed bit, but you can't discriminate between full time and part time workers...

I think it is actually against the law for a nanny to be working / paying tax etc as "self employed" so I expect that your contract with her may well be invalid on that basis alone.

Sorry, should have asked before - what is SSP?
Otherwise I take your point about happy nanny. Just have to get used to being an employer I guess, though I don't know if I'll ever get used to the sting of paying £100 for nothing. (I mean, I know it's not for nothing cos I know I have to pay it to retain her, but that doesn't help when her absence means I haven't been able to work and earn the money myself).

I'm suprsed to hear that GustWriter. Aren't all maternity nurses self employed?

ssp is £75.40

www.dwp.gov.uk/lifeevent/benefits/statutory_sick_pay.asp

i think if you employ a nanny and you have ssp in contract then have to pay it, be nice to pay her for the whole day (esp if a one off day ill)

THOUGH GENERALLY SE PEOPLE DONT GET SICK PAY - hubby is se and if has day off doesnt get paid

Yes I think Maternity nurses are self employed because they can work 1 day to several weeks or months, but full time employed nannies are not self employed because they have one (sometimes two) contracts with a long term employer.

you can not be a se nanny - but you can be a se mat nurse/temp nanny

you can not be a se nanny in same family for over 6mths,as then it is not a temp job, and turns to perm legally, and therefor a nanny cant be se there

does that make sense?

That makes sense - thanks.

It does make sense, but the se thing seems all above board and she came through a reputable agency. I think she has lots of different work, hence only one-day stints as nanny for me and a couple of others. She hasn't been with us 6 months, only 3 weeks, but hopefully will make it to 6 months without too much sick leave! Thanks all for your info - looks like I'll have to pay up.

Seeing as she's only just started could you double check with the agency?

ssp doesn't come into play until the 4th working day off thoughy does it?

That means that she isn't entitled to pay if her contract states SSP

Will definitely do that, cheers Lynette.

When she is sick, could she send a subsitute? I would guess not. Therefore I doubt they are self employed.
From the sounds of it, you have an employment contract with this person, not a service agreement. That contract existing to me says she's an employee.
If you intend to have this person work for you on a permanent basis - rather than ad-hoc, then I would advise that you treat her as your employee. Contact HMRC New Employers Helpline - see what they think. I, like others on here, doubt if she meets the requirements for self-employed.
If she worked for 5 different families, each one day a week, that would be 5 separate employments. I would suspect that if it were ad-hoc, HMRC may decide that it could be done as Self Employed... but it's a grey area.

So with regard to sickness, I'd provide SSP and treat her as your employee.

SSP is not payable for the first 3 days of sickness.

So if she only works for you one day...then I don't think she would be entitled.

That's very interesting, Juneybean. Also, a friend has just told me that part-time workers who do less tha 16 hours aren't usually entitled to sick pay, although this doesn't seem to be the experience of people here.

If you TIGER website it will outline the rights of part time workers...

"The employed/self-employed status relates to the work and not to the person."

Ah. That makes sense, thanks.