There’s a law in the U.S. at least that there’s no such thing as voluntary unpaid overtime work. The reason is that some employers will always pressure employees to do unpaid work. There’s a power imbalance and it can be impossible for employees to say No to employer requests, or at least very difficult. By making it an ironclad federal law, the employee has an out, and most employers also know not even to try it.
The same goes for THS rules. If there isn’t a rule about things that MOST sitters would want to refuse – and having a third party in the house is at the top of that list – then HOs would put pressure on sitters to comply, and could easily not even disclose it until the sitter arrived at the house (if it were permitted by the rules).
I hope that clarifies the importance of having this rule in place.
But there is no employer/employee dynamic here. I have nothing to lose by declining a sit that doesn’t work for me and HOs might try to entice me to agree to a sit, but they don’t have anything to pressure me with. It’s a mutually beneficial exchange and we are both kept on our best behavior by the review system.
Allowing HOs to post sits with a third party doesn’t seem problematic to me as long as it’s all upfront (of course hiding any sort of relevant info about the sit is a major no-no). If that’s not for you, you don’t apply, same as any other undesirable sit.
THS does not want to assume liability for issues, disputes, injuries, or damages that may arise between the sitter and a third party.
If the homeowner has a lodger or another person staying in the home during the sit, the liability and risk issues become more complicated for TrustedHousesitters.
A lodger changes the arrangement and can create concerns about privacy, harassment, theft, or personal safety.
Disputes may also arise between the sitter and the lodger over shared spaces, pets, noise, cleaning, boundaries, or access to rooms, which THS would not want to mediate or assume responsibility for.
There are also liability concerns if the lodger injures the sitter, damages the sitter’s belongings, interferes with pet care, or if allegations are made by either side.
Because of these risks, it is not surprising that THS prohibits third parties staying in the home in its Terms of Service.
I think you are an extremely rare sitter that is OK with having someone else in the house. I would wager that 90+% of sitters wouldn’t like it, based on all the topics that have been started here by someone for whom this was sprung on them, plus other concerns related to privacy and safety, especially for women sitters. So there’s no reason for THS to change this fundamental policy when only a small percentage of sitters would welcome that change.
And allowing 3rd parties to be living in the sit house would also open up acres of legal liability for THS. If you don’t know why, I’ll explain, but it should be obvious! (Edited: I notice Silversitters spoke to this while I was composing this reply. They covered the issues even better than I would have!)
I would also think that if there are any issues regarding such sit, THS would not intervene or assist the sitter since both parties knowingly and willingly violated THS terms and conditions. THS insurance would probably be null and void in such situations.
Spot on. It would be a nightmare so many reasons. THS would be nuts to change this policy, just for their own liability, and I think they are smart enough to know it.
And for those who are dismissive of these concerns, I’ll add…what if something happened to the house, its contents, or the pet(s) during this sit, and the sitter and tenant/roommate/family member pointed fingers at each other as being to blame? Who would the HO believe? How could they know who was telling the truth?
IF you think they’d believe the sitter over their family member/tenant/roommate…think again. It would be a huge risk for the sitter.
perhaps as you suggested, in categories. They could still have several categories of importance, and under each a review is written. I like that idea better as well.
I understand all the potential issues and why THS won’t green light third party sits, but I think of it like jaywalking. There are obvious reasons why it’s against the law, but it’s also clear that if you do so smartly you won’t get in trouble for it. THS does not need to accept liability for third party sits, but could still allow them to be listed. Sitters and HOs can do their own vetting of the situation and make up their own minds if it’s worth risks.
That’s the point — by allowing them to be listed, they would effectively be accepting a degree of legal liability in the eyes of the law. If something goes wrong between third party and sitter THS could then be sued, which is a risk they don’t want to take.
And if they start letting people list sits with third parties the entire mutual exchange model falls apart! You’ll have to trawl through sits with all sorts of “extra humans” which no one wants. Terrible idea @lotus - you escaped relatively unharmed so that’s fine but no, no, no to sharing properties and pets and responsibilities and everything else it presents. Thats for another platform entirely! #notachance
Which is exactly what you did in spite of THS T&Cs. In your own words, you “jaywalked smartly” and voluntarily so What’s the need to “make jaywalking legal”? Lots of possible accidents. No, thanks.
Omg this person needs to be kicked off TrustedHousesitters immediately! If that would happen to us we would be so upset and I’m just assuming you don’t realize What a violation of TH rules that is. That they have been getting away with this for that long is really disheartening. I hope this ends with you! You have nothing to feel bad about, all the wrongdoing was on their side.
Look at it this way, under the current de facto system (as shown by my experience) you can spend time carefully reading a profile, deciding if it’s a good sit for you, thoughtfully crafting an application, arranging a time to talk with the owners, only to find out halfway through the conversation that the sit has a third party and doesn’t work for you. Wouldn’t it be better to be able to see that initially and just scroll past? Finding a sit that matches your needs and wants is always going to take a lot of trawling, that’s just part of the process.
*Blows 45 years of dust off old Uni textbooks and roots out old Mr Cicero.. Who was himself quoting his forebears* : “… quin etiam leges latronum esse dicuntur, quibus pareant, quas observent.”
M. Tullius aside, why would there need to be a proverb illustrating that thieves aren’t honourable? Wouldn’t it be like saying pet sitters like animals…?
Aw cummon! That’s not fair! I wasn’t arguing that thieves are honourable, only nit-picking the quote. But OK, this isn’t on-topic any more, so I’ll shove Cicero back onto the ancient shelf and shuffle off back to Ovid… Who, let me mention, is a LOT hotter!
Even if THS did change their rules to allow 3rd parties on a sit, dishonest hosts would likely still not mention that this in their listings. They know that the majority of sitters would never apply if this information was in the listing. By concealing the presence of a 3rd party until the video call, they are banking on some sitters being uncomfortable turning down the sit either during or after the video call, or too invested by this point to turn down the sit.
There are other platforms available if you want to share space with a stranger.
IS there another app that is THS but with third parties allowed? I haven’t heard about it.
As to your concern, I think nearly everyone who can think more than one step ahead would realize trying to conceal a potential deal breaker until the last minute is unlikely to work, can’t last long (sitter reviews) and will likely get you kicked off the app, so not a good move.
