Au Pair just asked for more money

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why not ask “your” paralegal to prepare a submission to the OAG to enact the change? Vs. fact-check DCUM (which was cited correctly indeed), which I’m sure in itself breaches a bunch of employment regs

Your ignorance of basic legal procedure makes me think you’re the paralegal. But in case you really are a first year, be careful of how you hold yourself out. You’ll get slapped with a UPL letter by the DC bar if you’re publicly pretending to be admitted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I didn’t hear that. Sorry if I misunderstood, your point said families but husbands benefit, not mothers but... of course all
do. The main point though is that voluntary adoption of the program ideals and the MA ruling would allow us to revive the program in the light of its intent.

You are the one who said mothers. Not parents, mothers.

I’m fully complaint with the MA rules. I’m not remotely afraid of reform. But I don’t even do particularly well matching, despite my low hours and well over stipend pay and above ground bedroom with private bath. Au pairs apparently don’t focus on pay and benefits as much as people seem to think. They have their own idea of what the benefits of the program are, and clearly it’s not about maximizing total compensation. Which makes me wonder how much people are trying to solve a problem that isn’t one at all. Even my au former pairs who got a fat settlement check after the lawsuit thought its premise was silly.

See, now we are talking. I’m starting to like you. Let’s jettison the Trumpian discourse and move on better. Well done on role modeling decent au pair hosting

[Anonymous]

Do you mean a horse and this race? Because, don’t get us started on dog fights... it’s a felony in all the states, unlike apparently paying your childminder a fraction of a minimum wage


Brilliant, thank you! A true humanitarian!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why not ask “your” paralegal to prepare a submission to the OAG to enact the change? Vs. fact-check DCUM (which was cited correctly indeed), which I’m sure in itself breaches a bunch of employment regs

Your ignorance of basic legal procedure makes me think you’re the paralegal. But in case you really are a first year, be careful of how you hold yourself out. You’ll get slapped with a UPL letter by the DC bar if you’re publicly pretending to be admitted.

Yes, I’m a bored One L who’s not out on a Friday night but providing legal aid on dcum. Come on. Let’s uphold each other, especially fellow mothers. Sadly long time out of school, but I’d like to go back and you wouldn’t catch me here on a Friday night

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Do you mean a horse and this race? Because, don’t get us started on dog fights... it’s a felony in all the states, unlike apparently paying your childminder a fraction of a minimum wage

Brilliant, thank you! A true humanitarian!


Hehehe. She OWNED you; it was funny, enjoy it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Link to the 81 page ruling also explaining why families won’t opt out if the have to pay fairly:
https://www.universalhub.com/files/aupair-ruling.pdf
and why you can’t deduct expenses (because they live with you)
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/17-2140P-01A.pdf

But they did quit the program in MA, and tried to do group care (frequently before/after care at school, until covid).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The OP said that she wanted the au pair to "keep the kitchen and family room tidy. Right now, none of those things happen." The au pair is not supposed to do general housework-she is supposed to do childcare and tasks related to that. The au pair could help tidy the child's room for instance, but is not supposed to clean the kitchen nor the family room. When this program was initiated, the au pair was an extra pair of hands for the mother, a mother's helper, and it was all supposed to be part of a cultural exchange. Today it's the norm for both parents to work and the au pair is now expected to function as a nanny, taking care of the children alone. And apparently expected to do general housework too!

Cleaning up after the kids in the kitchen and family room is certainly part of her job. She should be doing lunch in the kitchen, then cleaning up after. And the family room could be making sure the kids’ toys are picked up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have one family in our circle that uses an au pair and it’s so gross. Say whatever you want to justify it, but it’s sourcing a poor brown girl to come live in your house and parent your children, probably put up with your DH’s creep show.

Our neighbors who do this are the laziest, worst parents in the neighborhood. The au pair took their kids trick or treating!

And yes, I’m sure it’s a million times worse now that these girls are effectively locked in the house, can’t socialize with their home country peers, and on top of it all get to now manage home schooling for your kids. Which you WFH moms just LOVE to tell us relentlessly is a full time job. But sure, $200 a week (much of which gets paid back to the agency) should cover it.

You seem to be misinformed. The stipend is federally mandated, and it’s all for the AP. No part of it goes to the agency.

DP but that’s not exactly right. Au pairs pay a hefty agency fee to join the program.

They pay a skin-in-the-game fee prior to coming, so that they won’t flake. It’s a small fraction of the discretionary spending they earn while here.

[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.

“Good” nannies and starting live-in nannies (with no experience) are not synonymous. I’m a live-in nanny, and having actually met many APs and HPs, I think the program has value, when everyone follows the rules.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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!

OP just wants the AP to do what she’s supposed to do!

1. Play with kids.
2. Tidy up after kids.
3. Do their laundry.

Those are all expressly allowed!

[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.

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

No, I’m a live-in nanny who has recommended students finishing their last year of college nanny for 10-15 hours. They have no childcare experience, and they make minimum wage (grossing less than $200). But all parties are satisfied.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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%.

They have to advertise for live out and have the nanny ask to live in or advertise that they are willing to do either, and then they can set two rates and leave it up to the nanny. If they advertise for live-in, they can’t set a rate lower than minimum wage, and they can’t deduct anything from whatever rate they set. Most families just try to set a much lower rate than an experienced nanny will accept, so they get stuck either raising the rate or choosing someone less qualified.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:MA ruling:
Host families can deduct up to $42/week for meals provided to the au pair and take a room deduction of up to $35/week. For an au pair that works the maximum 45 hours in a week, their pay will be no less than $528.65/week (40 hours @ $12.75/hour + 5 hours @ $19.13/hour – $77 for room and board).

And for an AP who works up to 21.8 hours, there is not one penny different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Much less relevant than everything we discussed. You might question the source but here you go:
nypost.com/2017/05/24/the-nannys-worst-nightmare-your-husband/
“ The number one complaint from nannies was over-familiar dads.”

As a nanny, that has never been my complaint, ever. And I’ve worked in a couple families with no custodial mother.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Mandatory reading for the OP’s book club:

Alex Tizon remembers and has remorse for how is many was treated

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/06/lolas-story/524490/

Alex Tizon struggled to write about Lola, the woman who helped raise him. He was 11 before he realized she was his family’s slave

And she wasn’t an AP...