Is babysitting even legal with the shelter in place order?

Childcare is explicitly listed as an essential service :/

In SF it's actually a bit more nuanced than that:

https://sf.gov/stay-home-except-essential-needs "Are nannies permitted to be used? What about other in-home child care? In some instances. If the nanny provides medical/health care for the child, then yes. If the nanny lives with you, then yes. Otherwise, nannies not necessary for medical care are not permitted. Also, parents required to work away from home for essential services may need in-home child care, which is permitted."

The actual text of the law seems to contradict this though. From: https://www.sfdph.org/dph/alerts/files/HealthOrderC19-07-%20...

f. For the purposes of this Order, “Essential Businesses” means: xviii. Home-based care for seniors, adults, or children;

h. For the purposes of this Order, “Essential Travel” includes travel for any of the following purposes. ii. Travel to care for elderly, minors, dependents, persons with disabilities, or other vulnerable persons.

The Santa Clara(?) one that I read had some other specifics about daycare. IIRC the kids have to be in groups of 12 or fewer that aren't mixed around from day to day, and anyone in contact with one group can't be in contact with any other groups.

I have been following this and the wording here appears to have changed in the last couple of days. The wording you quoted has been removed.

I just checked in on this and noticed that it seemed like the FAQ language changed as well. I can't find the old wording anymore, and the new wording has done a 180

That kind of defeats the purpose of "shelter in place", doesn't it? With so many asymptomatic carriers and children being germ magnets, those babysitters are going to become a very effective vector for spreading the virus.

Not everyone is capable of going without babysitters though. I see nothing wrong with it for exceptional cases.

Then you either have people whose situation worsens due to coronavirus illness or people whose situation worsens since they can't earn money and instead need to focus on child care. Pick your poison.

I'll pick the one that isn't self-replicating and rapidly spreading undetected.

In fact, we've already cancelled our babysitter's visits. She's a nurse-in-training, so she understands.

The latter doesn’t put the entire population at risk.

I assume that this is exactly why Facebook gives that money to its people. The fewer childcare workers are required to help around while also spreading the virus, the better.

I think the Bay Area order mandates small and unchanging groups of kids.

>If you do not do that, you need to cut hours, which reduce your income.

Are Facebook employees paid by the hour?

They have a lot of contractors, who are. And there is (used to be) a caste like energy on how contractors were viewed as opposed to actual FTEs.

As far as I can tell, contractors aren't included in this initiative.

As far as I can tell, they are included.

Well, when you only work 50% they surely will pay you less. And that is what parents face. When eliminating private life, maybe you can work 75%.

So instead of reducing hours without cutting pay, or even just finding ways to give parents more flexibility in their work arrangements, we increase the demand and thereby the cost of those services so those employed in less cushy/flexible industries have no recourse.

True. But that would imply less work done for them. Not their interest.

$1,000 pays for maybe two days of childcare at home. I don't see $1,000 making much difference for them if their interest is to free up resources for working at home.

>Because working from home with kids unable to leave house produces extra expenses for child care

Why on earth would you need childcare if you work from home? Oh such hard work at FB.

Let me rephrase your comment for you: "I don't have kids."

In Bay Area, you’re no longer allowed to have a baby-sitter who doesn’t live with you while current covid-19 measures are in place.

This is untrue - please don't spread misinformation. The order explicitly lists "Home-based care for seniors, adults, or children" as a permitted essential business.

In SF it's actually a bit more nuanced, and in most situations nannies are not allowed:

https://sf.gov/stay-home-except-essential-needs "Are nannies permitted to be used? What about other in-home child care? In some instances. If the nanny provides medical/health care for the child, then yes. If the nanny lives with you, then yes. Otherwise, nannies not necessary for medical care are not permitted. Also, parents required to work away from home for essential services may need in-home child care, which is permitted."

That's not the actual text of the law. The actual text says:

f. For the purposes of this Order, “Essential Businesses” means: xviii. Home-based care for seniors, adults, or children;

h. For the purposes of this Order, “Essential Travel” includes travel for any of the following purposes. ii. Travel to care for elderly, minors, dependents, persons with disabilities, or other vulnerable persons.

It says nothing about limitations to this based on need for medical care only.

Each county issued the same order. The page you cite is explanatory, but not part of an official order. Any of it that is enforceable in SF is also enforceable in the other counties.

That’s not my understanding. Child care professionals are considered ‘essential’.

See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22609375