Au Pair just asked for more money

[Anonymous]

BASIC RIGHT IN A CIVILIZED SOCIETY!
The nanny claims that when she rang Mrs Story about the job, she was told: “Sorry, I can only offer you £5 an hour, that’s all I can afford and you’ll only get £2.50 an hour for the first two weeks while we train you up.”
Italian-born Maham claims she initially told Mrs Story that she couldn’t work below the minimum wage of £5.80 an hour.
But Mrs Story allegedly replied: “That’s fine I’ll just give you more hours, but the rate is still £5.”
TUC spokesperson last night warned: “Anyone seeking elected office should be expected to obey democratically agreed laws. Some politicians no doubt think that the minimum wage can be dismissed as red tape but it is a basic right in a civilised society.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, as a fellow host mom the dynamics have changed a lot and many au pairs - now scarce and in demand - are understandably leveraging the new dynamic.

That said, I think if you can afford to pay her more, do so, make her show you she is stepping it up. I think the PP at 5:55 is spot on, but I would phrase it more positively.

Trump froze au pair visas for the pandemic. Biden might lift that but I doubt he’ll do it in the first 90 days while we’re staying at 500,000 Americ as is dead. The au pair deserves more money especially if the kid(s) are home 24/7.

A normal nanny, even with board, would be 2x this for multiple kids.

Depends on the number of hours. Starting live-ins frequently make minimum wage, and if they’re working doing less than 25 hours per week, they could easily gross less than $200.

Good nannies made $25./hour plus benefits, plus holiday bonus, plus overtime - this was almost 20 years ago. There is good reason women pay for au pairs - and the grandmothers brag in bridge class, like their daughter who has an au pair has "made it" - no, your daughter is just cheap, and can't afford a real nanny.

Then, there are the families who think $10./hour plus a uniform for a nanny is "normal" in the U.S. - no, no it's not.

An au pair is bargain for the mom, and the mom, only. It's almost free child care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, poor her, 2BD apt in Milan. Compared to a basement room in a big house in an anonymous DMV suburb. Such a dumb American thing to say; that’s why we are the but of jokes everywhere. Everyone lives in apartments in Milan Rome Paris. You should be so lucky to have a chance at a 2BD in one of these places, middle aged suburban housewife.

She is happier saving money here compared to being unemployed and living in a 2 bedroom apartment with her parents and sibling.

Are children overseas happy making your crappy clothes too? Despicable human being.

[Anonymous]

What is shocking about the OP and her friends is not just all that is wrong with how the program has been warped over the years, but the behaviors in their direct control thar speak to them as people directly:
(1) unwillingness to negotiate while knowing you are paying someone $4.46/hr BUT
(2) willingness to pay more if au pair does more hours and illegal work AND
(3) willingness to write out a script that has a goal to intimidate a person dependent on you and weaker than you
Shame!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, as a fellow host mom the dynamics have changed a lot and many au pairs - now scarce and in demand - are understandably leveraging the new dynamic.

That said, I think if you can afford to pay her more, do so, make her show you she is stepping it up. I think the PP at 5:55 is spot on, but I would phrase it more positively.

Trump froze au pair visas for the pandemic. Biden might lift that but I doubt he’ll do it in the first 90 days while we’re staying at 500,000 Americ as is dead. The au pair deserves more money especially if the kid(s) are home 24/7.

A normal nanny, even with board, would be 2x this for multiple kids.

Depends on the number of hours. Starting live-ins frequently make minimum wage, and if they’re working doing less than 25 hours per week, they could easily gross less than $200.

Good nannies made $25./hour plus benefits, plus holiday bonus, plus overtime - this was almost 20 years ago. There is good reason women pay for au pairs - and the grandmothers brag in bridge class, like their daughter who has an au pair has "made it" - no, your daughter is just cheap, and can't afford a real nanny.

Then, there are the families who think $10./hour plus a uniform for a nanny is "normal" in the U.S. - no, no it's not.

An au pair is bargain for the mom, and the mom, only. It's almost free child care.

Yes! Is the PP before you a human trafficker? I cannot square anything else otherwise with what they think they should pay a live in nanny? Read the Anne Bakilana case — this is the FBI territory of that’s what you do: bring someone in pay them then deduct for room and board until they have $200 a week

[Anonymous]

The minimum wage is a basic right in a civilized society. I'm shocked at people who consider themselves progressive and liberal, who are nonetheless willing to exploit vulnerable young women from other countries. Disgusting!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stop filling in the conversation for her. Make her do the heavy lifting:

“You shared that you would like more money. Say more about that. Exactly how much? We’re already exceeding the guidelines of the agency. What’s your reasoning for more?”

Make her do the work of answering.

You can respond with something like “I’m really struggling with this request since I’m not seeing the bare minimum. You rarely play with the kids. There’s no effort to clean up or help out with things like laundry. I’d be happy to revisit this conversation in a month.”

“You shared that you would like more money. Say more about that. Exactly how much? We’re already exceeding the guidelines of the agency. What’s your reasoning for more?”

“I’m really struggling with this request since I’m not seeing the bare minimum. You rarely play with the kids. There’s no effort to clean up or help out with things like laundry. I’d be happy to revisit this conversation in a month.”

Exactly $15/hr and no deduction for room and board. My reasoning is that it is illegal. Haven’t you read the new federal judge judgment that I’m sure DC Attorney General would agree with it? I thought you’d at least google before firing up the dcum!

Well, sorry you are struggling but the agencies have just lost in the Supreme Court. And making me do your laundry is illegal too. So, we can revisit in a month, but please note I will be requiring interest on my back wages. You are paying me $5 extra per week. Well done. So you now owe me only $670 more per week. Wait, that’s too much? You would hire a real cleaner and a real nanny for that? But I thought you said you were excited to give me a cultural experience.

I really enjoyed the cultural experience of watching you play out this super cringey script your dumb friend on dcum advised you to do. I hope you get a lawyer next. A proper one, not a housewife claiming to be one on dcum.

It only applies to MA. Most MA HP left the program and opted for group care (or nothing, if kids were old enough).

However, it was hourly, so the families that stayed seem to need 10-25 hours.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:$200 a week is all people pay full time au pairs?

Plus room, board, a phone and often a car.

How much did you have left over at the end of the month when all these were paid for when you were 20?

How much do you really think the pleasure of living at work and sharing fruit snacks with your kids is worth?

[Anonymous]

I think someone should whistleblow and start the authorities on an investigation of DMV families with live in au pairs and nannies. Starting with this board. The stuff I’ve heard here is no joke and is criminal! You cannot deduct room and board for a live in employee, check the law! I hope you all pay up in a class action. That’ll teach you to pay the living wage and treat people properly

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, as a fellow host mom the dynamics have changed a lot and many au pairs - now scarce and in demand - are understandably leveraging the new dynamic.

That said, I think if you can afford to pay her more, do so, make her show you she is stepping it up. I think the PP at 5:55 is spot on, but I would phrase it more positively.

Trump froze au pair visas for the pandemic. Biden might lift that but I doubt he’ll do it in the first 90 days while we’re staying at 500,000 Americ as is dead. The au pair deserves more money especially if the kid(s) are home 24/7.

A normal nanny, even with board, would be 2x this for multiple kids.

Depends on the number of hours. Starting live-ins frequently make minimum wage, and if they’re working doing less than 25 hours per week, they could easily gross less than $200.

Good nannies made $25./hour plus benefits, plus holiday bonus, plus overtime - this was almost 20 years ago. There is good reason women pay for au pairs - and the grandmothers brag in bridge class, like their daughter who has an au pair has "made it" - no, your daughter is just cheap, and can't afford a real nanny.

Then, there are the families who think $10./hour plus a uniform for a nanny is "normal" in the U.S. - no, no it's not.

An au pair is bargain for the mom, and the mom, only. It's almost free child care.

It's all relative. A nanny would never be grateful for a live-in job for $10/hr that was only 25-35 hours a week but a split schedule. Au pairs think they're getting a great deal, and are grateful for the money and perks. I'd rather have a happy au pair than an impossible to please nanny, who knows some nanny out there is getting $100k with private jet trips to Aspen. We have had wonderful experiences with au pairs. We could easily afford a nanny, but they've been much more reliable and less entitled than nannies, so we stick with them.

Also, even if I accepted your premise that only parents are getting a good deal, it's just as much a good deal for fathers. Check your misogyny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Stop filling in the conversation for her. Make her do the heavy lifting:

“You shared that you would like more money. Say more about that. Exactly how much? We’re already exceeding the guidelines of the agency. What’s your reasoning for more?”

Make her do the work of answering.

You can respond with something like “I’m really struggling with this request since I’m not seeing the bare minimum. You rarely play with the kids. There’s no effort to clean up or help out with things like laundry. I’d be happy to revisit this conversation in a month.”

“You shared that you would like more money. Say more about that. Exactly how much? We’re already exceeding the guidelines of the agency. What’s your reasoning for more?”

“I’m really struggling with this request since I’m not seeing the bare minimum. You rarely play with the kids. There’s no effort to clean up or help out with things like laundry. I’d be happy to revisit this conversation in a month.”

Exactly $15/hr and no deduction for room and board. My reasoning is that it is illegal. Haven’t you read the new federal judge judgment that I’m sure DC Attorney General would agree with it? I thought you’d at least google before firing up the dcum!

Well, sorry you are struggling but the agencies have just lost in the Supreme Court. And making me do your laundry is illegal too. So, we can revisit in a month, but please note I will be requiring interest on my back wages. You are paying me $5 extra per week. Well done. So you now owe me only $670 more per week. Wait, that’s too much? You would hire a real cleaner and a real nanny for that? But I thought you said you were excited to give me a cultural experience.

I really enjoyed the cultural experience of watching you play out this super cringey script your dumb friend on dcum advised you to do. I hope you get a lawyer next. A proper one, not a housewife claiming to be one on dcum.

It only applies to MA. Most MA HP left the program and opted for group care (or nothing, if kids were old enough).

However, it was hourly, so the families that stayed seem to need 10-25 hours.

For now. My first call Monday is the DC Attorney General

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think someone should whistleblow and start the authorities on an investigation of DMV families with live in au pairs and nannies. Starting with this board. The stuff I’ve heard here is no joke and is criminal! You cannot deduct room and board for a live in employee, check the law! I hope you all pay up in a class action. That’ll teach you to pay the living wage and treat people properly

You can deduct it, if living in is their choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, as a fellow host mom the dynamics have changed a lot and many au pairs - now scarce and in demand - are understandably leveraging the new dynamic.

That said, I think if you can afford to pay her more, do so, make her show you she is stepping it up. I think the PP at 5:55 is spot on, but I would phrase it more positively.

Trump froze au pair visas for the pandemic. Biden might lift that but I doubt he’ll do it in the first 90 days while we’re staying at 500,000 Americ as is dead. The au pair deserves more money especially if the kid(s) are home 24/7.

A normal nanny, even with board, would be 2x this for multiple kids.

Depends on the number of hours. Starting live-ins frequently make minimum wage, and if they’re working doing less than 25 hours per week, they could easily gross less than $200.

Good nannies made $25./hour plus benefits, plus holiday bonus, plus overtime - this was almost 20 years ago. There is good reason women pay for au pairs - and the grandmothers brag in bridge class, like their daughter who has an au pair has "made it" - no, your daughter is just cheap, and can't afford a real nanny.

Then, there are the families who think $10./hour plus a uniform for a nanny is "normal" in the U.S. - no, no it's not.

An au pair is bargain for the mom, and the mom, only. It's almost free child care.

It's all relative. A nanny would never be grateful for a live-in job for $10/hr that was only 25-35 hours a week but a split schedule. Au pairs think they're getting a great deal, and are grateful for the money and perks. I'd rather have a happy au pair than an impossible to please nanny, who knows some nanny out there is getting $100k with private jet trips to Aspen. We have had wonderful experiences with au pairs. We could easily afford a nanny, but they've been much more reliable and less entitled than nannies, so we stick with them.

Also, even if I accepted your premise that only parents are getting a good deal, it's just as much a good deal for fathers. Check your misogyny.

We KNOW it’s a great deal for fathers. That’s a no1 complaint of au pairs. Handsy creepy fathers

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think someone should whistleblow and start the authorities on an investigation of DMV families with live in au pairs and nannies. Starting with this board. The stuff I’ve heard here is no joke and is criminal! You cannot deduct room and board for a live in employee, check the law! I hope you all pay up in a class action. That’ll teach you to pay the living wage and treat people properly

You can deduct it, if living in is their choice.

Really?! You can advertise a live in, pretending it’s nanny’s choice, pretend to pay the living wage, then deduct so much that they are left with $200 or less per week. That is EXACTLY what the PP said.

In MA for au pairs they are allowing to deduct 13% max; not 40%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, as a fellow host mom the dynamics have changed a lot and many au pairs - now scarce and in demand - are understandably leveraging the new dynamic.

That said, I think if you can afford to pay her more, do so, make her show you she is stepping it up. I think the PP at 5:55 is spot on, but I would phrase it more positively.

Trump froze au pair visas for the pandemic. Biden might lift that but I doubt he’ll do it in the first 90 days while we’re staying at 500,000 Americ as is dead. The au pair deserves more money especially if the kid(s) are home 24/7.

A normal nanny, even with board, would be 2x this for multiple kids.

Depends on the number of hours. Starting live-ins frequently make minimum wage, and if they’re working doing less than 25 hours per week, they could easily gross less than $200.

Good nannies made $25./hour plus benefits, plus holiday bonus, plus overtime - this was almost 20 years ago. There is good reason women pay for au pairs - and the grandmothers brag in bridge class, like their daughter who has an au pair has "made it" - no, your daughter is just cheap, and can't afford a real nanny.

Then, there are the families who think $10./hour plus a uniform for a nanny is "normal" in the U.S. - no, no it's not.

An au pair is bargain for the mom, and the mom, only. It's almost free child care.

It's all relative. A nanny would never be grateful for a live-in job for $10/hr that was only 25-35 hours a week but a split schedule. Au pairs think they're getting a great deal, and are grateful for the money and perks. I'd rather have a happy au pair than an impossible to please nanny, who knows some nanny out there is getting $100k with private jet trips to Aspen. We have had wonderful experiences with au pairs. We could easily afford a nanny, but they've been much more reliable and less entitled than nannies, so we stick with them.

Also, even if I accepted your premise that only parents are getting a good deal, it's just as much a good deal for fathers. Check your misogyny.

We KNOW it’s a great deal for fathers. That’s a no1 complaint of au pairs. Handsy creepy fathers

It certainly is not. The #1 complaint is going over hours. Have you actually met au pairs or are you just a bitter nanny?