Opinions wanted please.....

[Mind_your_head]

(Note: Mods, if I posted this in the wrong place, I won't feel offended/will understand if you move it).

My elderly mother has a "caregiver" who comes in for a few hours every week to give my mom a bath, do her laundry, hem up some pants, cook a breakfast & do to the dishes, WHATEVER my mom asks of her for those hours for that day. (My sis and I do many of those tasks too on the other days, but it's nice/healthy ~ we believe ~ for my mom to have 'contact' and talk with other people outside of our own family.)

The very nice/efficient/capable caregiver "found" this job working for my mother through an 'agency'. So, for every hour this worker comes and does all of these practical things for my mom, the 'agency' (of one) get about 33% of what we pay for the worker's services - JUST BECAUSE THE AGENCY INITIALLY FOUND THIS WORKER THE JOB!

The agency does practically NOTHING anymore, except send the bill and collect and distribute the money to the worker.

I think this whole thing "smells' to high heaven for the worker (and 'us' too b/c we are paying a premium "forever" just b/c this 'agency' found/provided a wonderful worker for my mom initially.

We would have NEVER found this WONDERFUL caregiver on our own - didn't have the connections/contacts. But is it "FAIR" that the 'agent' who put us together should get a 'cut' of the worker's pay FOREVER - as long as my mom lives/requests this workers services?

What say you DU? Because I don't know what to think sometimes/anymore.

TIA,
M_Y_H

[Ian David]

1. Does the agency provide health benefits for their employee?

If not, then the employee isn't getting much in return.

Does the agency provide liability insurance for the client, in the event that the caregiver screws-up?

If not, then they're not giving the client anything of value in return.

If the answers to BOTH of those questions are "NO" then fuck the agency.

If either answer is yes, then you have a real dilemma worthy of further discussion.

[Mind_your_head]

6. The answer is 'no'

which is why I figured "screw the agency".....as others down thread have suggested.

The caregiver is foreign, of course.....eastern European. My mom knows how to speak a 'similar language' ... so they communicate "okay" vis-a-vis english/a shared 'similar language'.

I just don't know how to rectify it all. My mom is being taken advantage of.......as is the caregiver actually doing the work.

[Ian David]

7. If the agency gives no benefits to the worker, nor to the client, then fuck them.

Let the caregiver and the client work out a deal without them.

[glowing]

2. There's normally a way out of the contract after the caregiver gives a certain amt of time.

But you state its only a few hrs a week.. She probably does caregiving to other people as well.

Also, because these companies employ a lot of people, they sometimes have benefits the employee can buy from them.. and if she loses a caregiver spot, she can be found a new home faster than circling help wanted ads. They are the people who put people together. They also have employees that need to be paid for finding people for jobs and jobs for people. The system seems unfair, but that's what bonuses are for.. slip her something for Christmas.

[Dissent Is Patriotic]

3. Is this caregiver a "home health aide"?

If so, yes, this is a disgusting racket. For some time in New York State HHA's were fighting against this pimpery and hoping to get better wages...it didn't really work out for them.

I always think it's a shame when the people who take care of the people we love are treated this way. It's disgusting.

[Canuckistanian]

4. Tell the 'agency' to screw themselves

Tell them you've found a caregiver that suits your needs and you won't be needing them any more.

Then hire the caregiver directly.

Oh, and tell the caregiver that you'll provide legal services should the 'agency' decide to retaliate.

Which they won't.

[sandnsea]

5. Does the agency pay for insurance and overhead

Process insurance claims so the caregiver gets paid. Etc Etc. Most employees only get half of what is charged, or less.

[Mind_your_head]

8. This isn't through insurance. It's all private

....and even when it's PRIVATE people still get ripped off....both recipient and caregiver.

"something to think about"..... :think:

[sandnsea]

13. Who carries the insurance

if the caregiver kills your mother. Or steals you blind. Or burns your house down.

Who pays the phone bill that you called to find the caregiver.

Etc. Etc.

[mia]

9. Where does this caregiver work on other days?

Goes the agency send her to other places?

[Mind_your_head]

12. She goes to other 'private' clients ......

a few hours here a few hours there......

This caregiver would almost never be connected to these clients without the 'agency'.

But, again my question is (almost philosophical)......Is it "right" for the people who run these 'agencies' to collect as much as 33% of a worker's wages (forever/as long as the client lives) just because you were 'the agent' in hooking them together?

[customerserviceguy]

10. All I can say is

proceed very carefully. It's possible that this person has some sort of immigration status that is related to the agency, and yes, they do exploit the foreign worker to suck a little off the top. But I would venture to say that the caregiver is awfully glad to be here, and you wouldn't want to jeopardize that, it would result in nothing but pain for everybody.

I'm presuming that the caregiver is OK with this. American history is full of stories of people coming over here as indentured servants, and ending up with a better life in the process. Do remember that this agency also has expenses, even if they are not providing health benefits, they still have to pay an employer's share of Social Security, and probably something for unemployment insurance and worker's comp as well. They probably have situations where they bring workers over, some of those workers disappear into the ranks of the undocumented, and they have the expenses connected with travel and finding replacements.

I've worked as a temporary, and while the agency was getting a nice cut, I still got a chance to be employed, so it was worth something to me. Remember, if the US economy is going to suck, the Eastern European economy is going to be even worse, your mother's caregiver has a chance to escape the poverty of that homeland and live decently here.

[Mind_your_head]

15. Yeah, as long as the caregiver is "okay" with this raw deal,

it's okay with you?

Have I got that right?

[customerserviceguy]

18. Were you coming here looking for ways to look at this situation

or were you coming here looking for justification to try to go around the caretaker's contract to stop "the man" from ripping him/her off?

Most every one of us who has a job works for a firm that charges customers and clients more than we get paid for performing those services, or adding value to the products we make. Just because it's pretty clear in this situation that your mother gets charged $2X per hour and the caretaker gets $x per hour, doesn't make it any worse than a situation where a large company charges $1 million dollars for a machine, and pays out $100,000 for materials and $400,000 in wages.

I started this off with a caution to just be careful, maybe I'm wrong and the caretaker really would be happier back in some shithole Eastern European economy where at least nobody's ripping them off as transparently as it looks like to you.

[catnhatnh]

11. Not to be too contrary...

but you seemed happy to pay for just an adequate helper. It seems the agency by far exceeded your hopes and delivered a valuable gem. It IS a dilemma but I think if you examine it you have received more than what you demanded for what you were willing to pay. My thought is that you could enhance the aides income/benefits outside your agreement or contact the agency and agree to some manner of "buyout" to more directly deal with the aide.What would be wrong would be to try to hold your cost and yet direct more of the total to a worker who agreed knowingly to a contract and who has received their due from it...otherwise you will just be trying to break a contract that was fairly made and accepted by both you and your helper. It's your karma so tread gently.

[JuniperLea]

14. That's how employment agencies work...

Even for office temps. And if you hire them, you have to pay a fee... something like 15 - 20% of their yearly salary, in order to hire them. Agencies can cause you real problems if you try to hire their people without going through the proper procedure... just sayin'... in case you're thinkin'...

[TahitiNut]

16. This is (imho) an abuse that amplified in the 80s with Sen. Moynihan's addendum to a COBRA bill.

(See Section 1706 of the Tax Reform Act of 1986.)

Under the apologetic of protecting migrant agricultural workers (and preventing some tax cheats), it's been the single most aggravating barrier to various service workers (computer programmers in particular) starting a freelance 'business' of any I know of. Up until Moynihan's amendment, the IRS (and other agencies) used an established set of reasonableness considerations to determine whether an individual was to be considered an 'employee' or a 'contractor.' Among the tests were whether the individual had multiple clients, whether the individual performed work for the same client for more than 18 months in any 24, whether the individual was supervising the work of others or making 'mamagement' decisions, whether the manner in which the work is performed is under the control of the client, and other reasonableness tests. If the individual is a contractor, they're responsible for both shares of FICA, their own benefits, etc. If, on the other hand, the person is ACTUALLY being used like any employee, the client becomes responsible for FICA, unemployment taxes, and other restrictions, particularly in non-RTW ("right to work") states.

The change in the law exposed companies to penalties if they were found to be falsely calling people 'Contractors' instead of 'employees.' Companies then massively tightened up on using individual contractors and moved to 'body shops' ... establishing 'approved vendors' and such ... under the protective provision that IF a formal employment relationship existed between the individual and the 'body shop' then it was clear that the client DID NOT have that employment relationship with the individual.

I (and most others) saw it as a 'gift' to the Temporary Help (Consulting) businesses and a screw-job for freelance programmers. It was NOT accidental that those businesses, no longer having to compete with freelance programmers, raised their portion of the fees charged to the client from an average of about 15% to 30% and more ... sometimes WAY more. They became "the only game in town" for folks who didn't want to be tied down working in a single company. It was obscene. The temp companies, who weren't very good at making sure folks had a series of assignments anyway, become even less so ... "employing" the programmers ONLY for the term of the contract and doing virtually NOTHING to 'bridge' them over to the NEXT contract with some other client. Indeed... some 'body shops' didn't even have other clients and they become nothing but 'front' companies that played 'middleman' in the short-term employment relationship ... effectively compensating the individual less than if (s)he were an employee of the client.

[VPStoltz]

17. When my mom started receiving SS she was signed up for Medicaid/Medicare

She lived in Michigan at the time and there was an agency called "Family Independence Agency of Michigan" which did all her paper work, etc.
When she started to need help, they found someone and she would go over there a couple hours a day.
There was no commission or anything like that. The pay wasn't great but the worker was wonderful and called with with "issues" to resolve, etc.
I would think every state has such a organization. Also, there is a group that has been around forever, "The Agency on Aging." Each state has a chapter.
Contact them.