Au Pair just asked for more money
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Have you read this entire report? The situations that AP's have endured have been serious enough that some of them have hired attorneys and won lawsuits against their HF's. https://fairlaborrecruitment.files.wordpress.com/2018/08/shortchanged.pdf |
Anonymous
They are not family, they are your employee. |
Anonymous
| The vacation with the au pair along often isn’t so fun for either party. The family can’t relax the au pair doesn’t love the location. |
Anonymous
It sounds like a bad situation all around. Doesn’t sound like the OP is a good fit for a host mother. And sounds like the AP has a ton of choices in today’s market. For me, two things would be important: (1) that OP does not try to intimidate her AP as was suggested and embraced on p1 (it was very ugly, I’ll-advised, and a case like that is described in Shortchanged) and (2) that the AP knows her rights and choices in the market. The rest could be left to the marketplace until some sort of legislation closes these loopholes and cleans up the Agencies’ act. If the marketplace works as it should, the AP will find a much better home fast, and the OP, who seems to have very little interest in the cultural aspects of the program or integrating this AP into her family, learns the hard way about the AP or the nanny market. The tragedy of course is that there aren’t affordable childcare options and that women have been leaving the workforce in record numbers during Covid-19. But that’s not a problem that we should be solving at any group’s expense, but rather addressing the root problems of the American decline. Hopefully, from January, we’ll have a chance. Given that our (woman!) Vice President sponsored the domestic worker protection bill, I’m heartened by the direction I think this is going. |
Anonymous
They’re an exchange student who babysits. I was an exchange student and I treat my au pairs the way I was treated as one. Including vacation invites. |
Anonymous
Why can’t the family relax??? I’ve loved bringing our APs. If they don’t like the location, they can skip it. |
Anonymous
I read the board, and would unfortunately have to agree that the person misreading the board this badly (molesters etc) when there was nothing close to that really should talk to someone before something worse happens. A lot of people are under a real pressure and fraying mentally. The dads as molesters comments started on page 23: "We KNOW it’s a great deal for fathers. That’s a no1 complaint of au pairs. Handsy creepy fathers" |
Anonymous
| The way I read it, it came from one article that was about nannies and not au pairs specifically. Why is this such a concern for you? Of everything you’ve read? No one said molesters, but unwanted attention did get brought up in the complaints. While it might have been misquoted as au pairs and not nannies through the records of this one agent, you’re severely mischaracterizing the discourse coming across honestly a bit unhinged. |
Anonymous
No, they aren't exchange students. They aren't going to school full time and helping out with babysitting. They are working up to 45 hours a week taking care of your kids. That is an employee masked under a cultural exchange. |
Anonymous
Maybe that’s how you use the program. It’s not how I do. And actually I have had au pairs go to school full time. |
Anonymous
| Takeaway here is a wide variation in how people use and treat au pairs, so legislation would iron that out. |
Anonymous
It's equally clear that legislation turning au pairs into nannies guts the intent of the program. New legislation needs to specially address the au pair program and include more safeguards for both au pairs and host families. |
Anonymous
| Anyone who thinks au pairs want to be treated more like nannies needs to meet more au pairs. |
Anonymous
I’m sure none would object to no scope creep in terms of duties, fewer hours or higher pay, and protection from families who take advantage of the program. As always, if market is warped, legislation needs to step in — even at MA rates, 45 hrs/wk of au pair is half of a live in nanny (or should be) so I don’t buy that the program would stop. I think it would draw better families, more willing to buy into the spirit of cultural exchange. Just because things are the way they are doesn’t mean they are right; look at the food bank queues, maternity or sick leave policy in our country for proof. I don’t think the federal judge, 200+ state senators, domestic workers union or Kamala are off their rockers in thinking the change is needed. |
Anonymous
|
For those of you currently using AP's, or considering using them, how risk averse are you? It's not just Massachusetts laws changing.
From Shortchanged: Au pairs are currently challenging this wage calculation in an ongoing class action lawsuit in Colorado, Beltran v. InterExchange, Inc., which alleges that the sponsor organizations are violating not only minimum wage and overtime laws, but also federal antitrust law and state-law fraud protections. The plaintiffs allege that the sponsors’ stipend amount violates federal, state, and local minimum wage rules and deprives them of earned overtime premiums. They also assert that the sponsors colluded to set that wage, which accounts for neither the number of children an au pair cares for nor her geographic location, in violation of the antitrust laws. Finally, the plainti s allege that the sponsors fraudulently misrepresented the au pair program, au pairs’ ability to negotiate their wages, and the wages the au pairs were entitled to receive. The Federal District Court of Colorado has determined that the au pairs in Beltran have viable claims in each of these areas. In particular, the au pairs are proceeding with minimum wage claims under federal, state, and various local laws, and the Court has explained that FLSA bars the practice of deducting room and board from wages where, as in the case of au pairs, live-in employment is a program requirement for the benefit of the employer. The Court further concluded that the au pairs have a viable claim for overtime, since au pair sponsor agencies are employers who “may not avail themselves of the [domestic worker] overtime exemption, even if the employee is jointly employed by the individual or member of the family or household using the services.” The Court additionally found that the au pairs have a viable claim against the sponsor agencies for wage fixing and recently certified a class of over 91,000 current and former au pairs to proceed with that claim. The court also certifed classes under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organiza- tions Act (RICO), state minimum wage laws and state fraud rules. The au pairs are also proceeding collectively with federal wage and hour claims under the FLSA’s collective action mechanism. As a general matter, au pairs report that the program fails to guarantee access to the basic material needs and services promised under the J-1 au pair program. Despite program requirements that host families guarantee transportation to classes, some au pairs interviewed for this report stated that they did not have access to transportation to attend their required classes or to leave the house on their days off. |