Advice for a live-in couple

[Spocky]

I just had a long casual conversation with a client. He is semi-retiring next year and wants to settle somewhere in the Vernon-Falkland-Armstrong triangle. He needs a live-in couple with very specific requirements. Since this is at least a year away, I'm not trying to send out feelers or put up a classified ad, just wanted to get back to him with a rough estimate of how realistic it will be to find a couple that fits his requirements.

The tasks can be conducted by either or both of the parties, so there is no "this has to be done by the man, that has to be done by the woman." However, they have to be young and fit enough to get the jobs done so no seniors. Here we go:

Housekeeping incl. cleaning, vacuuming, dishes, laundry, etc.
Some grocery & general everyday goods shopping
Cooking (not every meal, but he and his wife have particular tastes)
Basic car washing and detailing
Chauffeuring, possibly in semi-uniform with the silly cap
Basic gardening & lawn mowing
Basic DIY handyman stuff
& everything else that makes a big house go round

In return he is offering a large new very nice 2 bedroom completely separate apt. on site. Both must be bonded up the wazoo (as he doesn't want to wake up one morning and wonder where the Rolex went) and pass a full background check as they have a small child.

So my question is: Do you think that a couple like this could be found, and what would be the approximate expected salary over and above the provision of the apt. with all utilities included?

[Static]

Check out Craigslist-Vancouver. There is usually a few listings that will give you a general idea. (This is an extreme case) I recently saw one looking for a houseman who can be a butler and some cooking/cleaning, but they must travel on their private jet and yaught. If I remember correctly, the salary was $90k plus benefits and 4 weeks holiday to start.

I think alot will depend on how much time they are needed for.

[gordon_as]

My wife and I will do it for much less than 90K . I'm Serious , sounds like all the stuff I enjoy doing. The wage would not have to be very high if you factor in the provided accommodation.
I don't think he will have any trouble finding someone , the problem is making sure you find the RIGHT prople.

[kgcayenne]

I'm not overly optimistic there will be a willing young couple.

[Captain Awesome]

Wow, you gotta be pretty rich to have two people cater on you and pay them $100,000/year.

[Spocky]

I'm pretty sure that this is a full time, 40 hour week gig for both of them. Also he's a pretty easy going dude, not the stereotypical stiff upper lip tweedy rich snob. I'm pretty sure that he doesn't want a butler couple but just regular people who can get the tasks done. It's just that if you've got the bucks why do your own housework when you can get someone else to do it. I'd be more than happy to never clean a toilet or trim my hedges again if I could afford it. And I have no idea what he has in mind for salary, that's why I'm asking. I figure the apt. with all utes included has to be worth at least $20K and likely more, but I'm just guessing. Plus the couple would be free to do whatever they want on their off hours, it's not like they are going to be entering indentured servitude. It's just a job.

As for gordon_as, PM me your contact details and when the time comes I'll put you in touch with him. As I stated previously this is all premature right now as it's no less than a year away.

But yeah, must be nice...

[kgcayenne]

I was thinking of a few numbers, and rent/mortgage on a 2 br condo could be anywhere between $8-10/hourly equivalent (based on 40h work week); deductions would also need to be taken off, and WCB premiums paid. I had an in-home babysitter for a while and WCB was a requirement, so I'm pretty sure this fellow has to be set up for that. If the vehicle(s) are available for personal use, that too is counted by CRA as a wage equivalent based on the purchase/lease costs.

With housing alone covered, $10-15 each person would be fair. Looking after a household isn't rocket science and doesn't require a degree or anything. Plenty of couples look after their homes & personal needs rather well AND work 40+ hours a week.

I'd be more concerned about the 'extras' like incidental extra child minding outside of the 40 hrs, or scheduling challenges when the employer is entertaining or having house guests on long weekends etc. If this couple were significantly restricted from having a life of their own, that's easily worth another few $/hr in compensation.

[Spocky]

Thanks for the breakdown, kgcayenne. Very informative. So you figure that if we say approx. $12/hr/person as a wage only that should be fair? Sounds reasonable to me.

As for the hours I can't see him being unreasonable and I think if the 40 hours were spread over six days (so that he wouldn't have to go for more than a full day without having, say, his dishes done) I think that would be ok for all involved. Of course there would be overtime paid if there was a "once in a blue moon" situation where more than 40 hours were required.

Actually I have had an unanswered question for years and it surrounds the vehicle (and ties in to the couple's jobs as potential chauffeurs for my client). If I buy a delivery van and have an employee drive it, is ICBC going to insist in their typical bonehead way that every time he/she dings a car it goes on my insurance? I see NO reason why the driver shouldn't carry insurance rather than the car. Has never made any sense to me.

[LANDM]

Actually I have had an unanswered question for years and it surrounds the vehicle (and ties in to the couple's jobs as potential chauffeurs for my client). If I buy a delivery van and have an employee drive it, is ICBC going to insist in their typical bonehead way that every time he/she dings a car it goes on my insurance? I see NO reason why the driver shouldn't carry insurance rather than the car. Has never made any sense to me.

If it is your van and your employee, then the liability is yours. If you want them to have the liability, contract it out to someone that has their own van. Yes, it costs more but that is the cost of less risk and less investment.

[Spocky]

If it is your van and your employee, then the liability is yours. If you want them to have the liability, contract it out to someone that has their own van. Yes, it costs more but that is the cost of less risk and less investment.

Yeah, that's the way it is, but it still makes no sense to me at all. If I were to get 5 vans and have 5 drivers all of them would go on my insurance? There's something fundamentally in error with this whole concept. There has to be some fleet policies or some other way to get around this, otherwise every owner of a group of company cars would be paying sky high premiums. If Mr. Rich Dude hires a chauffeur and the guy smashes up the limo it's on the owner's insurance. I know that's the way it is, but... that's still crazy.

[underscore]

I see NO reason why the driver shouldn't carry insurance rather than the car. Has never made any sense to me.

Agreed completely, I think Sweden does it that way. You get registration for the vehicles (cheap) and then you get insurance as a person, so the insurance is wholly dependent on who is driving. That insurance also covers you outside of a vehicle (ie if you're hit by a car).

As far as your original question, I'd sort out roughly what the accommodations would rent for on their own, and subtract that from an average salary for these tasks (ie cleaning and handywork).

[Spocky]

Agreed completely, I think Sweden does it that way. You get registration for the vehicles (cheap) and then you get insurance as a person, so the insurance is wholly dependent on who is driving. That insurance also covers you outside of a vehicle (ie if you're hit by a car).

As far as your original question, I'd sort out roughly what the accommodations would rent for on their own, and subtract that from an average salary for these tasks (ie cleaning and handywork).

Yeah, there's gotta be some way of getting around that with a fleet insurance policy since I can't see a taxi fleet or a courier fleet or something along those lines nicking the owner's insurance. It's madness.

As far as I can tell the apt. is a luxo. 2 bed 2 bath, brand new and large on a huge lot. It's essentially a semidetached duplex as the guest house is on the other side of the building and that's probably going to be empty 50 weeks out of 52. So I'd say it would rent for not a penny less than about $1300-$1400. Heck, I'd move there for that kind of rent money... So let's do some math:

Rent $1350
Utes $500
= $1850

160 hrs x 2 people @ $15/hr
= $4800

So $4800 - $1850 = $2950

Therefore if he offered them apt, utes + $3K a month gross that seems like it would be fair, right?

[Captain Awesome]

If I were to get 5 vans and have 5 drivers all of them would go on my insurance? There's something fundamentally in error with this whole concept. There has to be some fleet policies or some other way to get around this, otherwise every owner of a group of company cars would be paying sky high premiums.

It's somewhat complicated, but it works like this (correct me if I'm wrong, somebody). If you own a company, company carries insurance (not you personally) for all vehicles. You can elect designated drivers for the vans, and then their insurance history applies to company insurance (discounts or surcharges), but they have to drive it 51% of the time. If you have 5 or more vehicles, you can have fleet insurance at which point your drivers' history doesn't matter, but your company has history and it's applied to your insurance rates.

[underscore]

That would sound fair to me, especially since I believe they would have to pay lower taxes with that kind of setup. If you want to be exact with the equivalent rent you could likely get a realtor or property manager through to let you know what it's worth rent-wise.

[Hassel99]

Yeah, there's gotta be some way of getting around that with a fleet insurance policy since I can't see a taxi fleet or a courier fleet or something along those lines nicking the owner's insurance. It's madness.

The reason it is the way it is is Vicarious liability. Liability for doing your duties as an employee rests on the employer. Same reason if i serve you a super hot coffee and you burn yourself, you do not sue the server you sue the business. Same thing but replace serve you a super hot coffee with rear-end you with my delivery van.