Au Pair just asked for more money

[Anonymous]

What’s illuminating is that after a DC Councilman introduced a bill meant to include au pairs in the human rights and labor protection bills, the host families organized not to find out the issues, but to protest and prevent it. See the Kojo Nnamdi show about domestic worker protections (or lack thereof) in DMV — link to full transcript and an excerpt speaking to some of the exchanges on this board included below. The bill is pending in DC (slowed down by Covid).

https://thekojonnamdishow.org/shows/2019-08-28/d-c-domestic-workers-dont-receive-discrimination-protection

NNAMDI
And did you discover why they are excluded from the D.C. Human Rights Act?
12:16:46
BROWN
We did not. I mean, the short answer is there is no answer. We had students at UDC's Law Legislative clinic look into this for us. The precursor to the Human Rights Act was passed by Congress before the Home Rule Act established our D.C. Council. And there's no legislative history for it. However, many federal laws have historically excluded both domestic workers and agricultural workers notably two areas of employment that were formally filled by slaves. And so most legal scholars have concluded that, you know, there's a connection between -- it's like a remnant of slavery. That there's a connection between slavery and the exclusion of these workers from discrimination protections and other protections under the law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Takeaway here is a wide variation in how people use and treat au pairs, so legislation would iron that out.

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.

I disagree that’s clear at all. What will be gutted is misbehaving agencies’ and families in it for the wrong reasons. The program would shine again with better families and conditions and a renewed purpose. It would attract the families that decide they like the cultural exchange aspect and want to facilitate it, and are choosing an au pair in lieu of a nanny not because it’s a cheaper alternative.

What it will do is create a childcare hardship for some families, who couldn’t normally afford live in childcare. That is an issue for us to solve, but not by exploring a class of people.

[Anonymous]

“Exploiting”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who thinks au pairs want to be treated more like nannies needs to meet more au pairs.

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.

To be clear:
The domestic workers union is against the au pair program because they view it as competition for their members. They'd like to see the program die altogether.

Republicans are against the program (see current Trump ban) because they hate immigrants and dont want immigrants taking jobs from "Americans." They also dont give a flip if women are forced out of the workforce, as they'd prefer all American women to be in the home full time caring for children.

I'm fine with reform, but it needs to be specifically geared toward au pairs. I read the domestic workers bill when it was being considered in Virginia and it made zero sense in the context of an au pair. There was no way logistically that au pairs could use many of the provisions and others were inappropriate given the role of au pairs. For instance, under the bill host families were going to required ro pay for unemployment insurance, when au pairs are required to go home if they are not "working" per their visa. It was just illogical. Stop trying to lump au pairs in as domestic workers--it either waters down the bill for actual domestic workers or imposes illogical requirements on host families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

I’m not very concerned given that Boies Schiller didn’t include families, only agencies, in their suit, because you could never get a certified class that included families as defendants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I’m not very concerned given that Boies Schiller didn’t include families, only agencies, in their suit, because you could never get a certified class that included families as defendants.

Did you read the earlier example of AP Paola from the same source, Shortchanged?

With the help of an anti-trafficking advocate, Paola pursued – and ultimately settled – a civil lawsuit against the host family for the approximately $12,000 the family owed her in unpaid back wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I’m not very concerned given that Boies Schiller didn’t include families, only agencies, in their suit, because you could never get a certified class that included families as defendants.

Did you read the earlier example of AP Paola from the same source, Shortchanged?

With the help of an anti-trafficking advocate, Paola pursued – and ultimately settled – a civil lawsuit against the host family for the approximately $12,000 the family owed her in unpaid back wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Our au pairs have called their au pair year the best year of their life. We keep in touch and visit each other and send each other Christmas presents. They are no going to pursue litigation against us.

[Anonymous]

For those questioning paying more than $200 per week to their APs: ($5 more than the minimum!), read this from another many forum on this board:
Anonymous wrote:
Hi! I am accepting a position and curious about how much I should ask for my healthcare stipend. I will be working for one family. I’m used to working for 2 and they usually split the costs.

Hourly rate: $29/hour
Overtime rate: $43.50/hour
Weekly compensation for 50 hours: $1595.00/week pre-tax

What do other families usually pay? My health insurance is usually around $350ish per month. I suppose I could ask them to just pay the entire amount.

Ask for the entire amount. That's what they're used to getting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also learned that if an au pair is sent home during the program by a complaint from her host family, she forfeits her fees. And if she chooses to leave her host family during the program, she has only 2 weeks to find a new host family or she is sent home, again forfeiting her fees.

You seem very misinformed.

Either AP or the family can initiate rematch, for any reason. Unless the AP did something egregious, the AP remains in the house while looking for another family. The agencies ALWAYS gloss over whatever the issues were. APs who slept through pick up, had three accidents or poured hot sauce in a child’s mouth as a punishment all managed to find rematch families.

The fees are so that APs don’t flake and quit, either after matching but prior to coming to the US or after arriving here. They’re young people who otherwise might flake the moment they’re expected to work.

Wouldn't this be child endangerment and why wasn't AP arrested and sent back home?

According to the agency and rematch documents, there was unspecified "miscommunication."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also learned that if an au pair is sent home during the program by a complaint from her host family, she forfeits her fees. And if she chooses to leave her host family during the program, she has only 2 weeks to find a new host family or she is sent home, again forfeiting her fees.

You seem very misinformed.

Either AP or the family can initiate rematch, for any reason. Unless the AP did something egregious, the AP remains in the house while looking for another family. The agencies ALWAYS gloss over whatever the issues were. APs who slept through pick up, had three accidents or poured hot sauce in a child’s mouth as a punishment all managed to find rematch families.

The fees are so that APs don’t flake and quit, either after matching but prior to coming to the US or after arriving here. They’re young people who otherwise might flake the moment they’re expected to work.

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

And I agree that just like there are awful APs (not the norm), there are awful HF (not the norm). We take reasonable steps to suss out the bad apples and deal with those that slip through. Presumption of innocence, not guilt, yes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I’m not very concerned given that Boies Schiller didn’t include families, only agencies, in their suit, because you could never get a certified class that included families as defendants.

Did you read the earlier example of AP Paola from the same source, Shortchanged?

With the help of an anti-trafficking advocate, Paola pursued – and ultimately settled – a civil lawsuit against the host family for the approximately $12,000 the family owed her in unpaid back wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Oh. None of my former au pairs would survive MTD, so no, I’m not worried about that kind of suit. Only about getting swept up in a class action.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also this makes the person saying their au pair costs them
$30k per year insane. Unless they’re handing out gold bars.

This is only because you don't understand the program and ignore posts by anyone who tries to explain how it works. As I've said previously, posting nonsense prolifically (and then prolifically patting yourself on the back for your nonsense) doesn't make you correct.

Why don’t you explain it? If you’d like to advance an argument, provide some facts instead of repeating yourself and lashing out at other women. Not a good look. Also, maybe explain to the federal judge and a couple senators who reviewed the situation and came to the same conclusions about corrupting of the program.

Live-in nanny here. Maybe you’ll listen to me, since you are ignoring the HP.

$10400 (roughly, rounded to $200 weekly): directly to the AP; $10179 if paying exactly the stipend
$6000-11000: agency fees
$1000: education credits, $500 per semester
$2400-7200: $200-600 food per month for the extra person (BPs are notorious for eating triple what HP expect), but the amount “deducted” is much less
$60-600: $5-50 increase in electricity per month, depending on what the AP does
$60-600: $5-50 increase in water per month, depending on how much water AP uses and what your rate is
$240-$1000 phone for a year
Car insurance rate increase can be several hundred to more than a thousand
Increased gas for the car
Increased maintenance on the car
Extra flight, food, and tickets for vacation
Extra tickets, food and other costs associated with including AP in dinner out, movie night, apple picking, etc.

Most families hit $24000 without trying. Many families go over $30k. I don’t want to count the number of families who switch from nanny to AP thinking they’ll save, then they find they don’t. OTOH, families who get tired of rematching don’t quibble about a nanny’s rate.

None of that is relevant as they decided that they were willing to pay. They don't have to offer a car and insurance but most do to drive the kids around. Same with cell phone. And, you take the AP on vacation for your child care needs, not a vacation for them. I don't think its unreasonable to ask for more with multiple kids for 45 hours a week. They aren't even paying minimum wage. AP is living in their home for their needs.

Many families invite au pairs on vacation because they’re a member of the family, not for them to work on vacation. When we do it, it’s max one night of babysitting. And we’ve also had au pairs bring a friend so she can have a proper trip for herself and make better use of the room we are paying for.

Not all families invite au pairs on vacation but for me it always seemed a little cruel.

They are not family, they are your employee.

And once they're treated like an employee (MA), the APs hate it. They'd rather go back to the way it was, but bitter APs spoiled it for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That’s helpful. Until MA laws are enacted here therefore, do we think $50 extra a week for OP’s aupair is not misplaced then?

OP’s AP isn’t doing the job. She’s not playing with kids, tidying up after them or doing their laundry (kid, not adult). No, she doesn’t need extra pay for not doing her job!

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.

Actually, I agree with the premise of what was suggested.

"AP, I understand you want more money. I want these basic things done, things that are part of your job, things you aren't doing. When I see that they being done, we can talk about a merit raise."

Personally, I think it should be phrased in a positive way, as a merit raise to be earned. But I also think that OP should draw attention to the fact that she's not doing basic tasks that she should be doing. For goodness sake, she's not even playing or interacting with the kids! The 3yo is on a device all day!

[Anonymous]

Do you have her doing DL? I bet you do plus all her other duties. I also bet you also have her work 50 hoursor more hours a week.

She asked for money because you are taking advantage big her. She should call her agency and report you

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who thinks au pairs want to be treated more like nannies needs to meet more au pairs.

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.

If you raise the rates and require breaks (meaning that only wfh parents or parents who can afford two caregivers can have an AP), the program is defunct as a cultural exchange. APs aren't nannies, and they aren't held to the same standards. They don't want to be treated like employees either.