Au Pair just asked for more money

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:WHAT DO WE HEAR FROM AU PAIRS?

We frequently hear from current and former au pairs. While we know that many au pairs have very positive experiences, we often hear from au pairs who are exploited, do not receive the protections to which they are entitled under program rules or the law, and do not get the support they need from their sponsor agencies. To learn more about common grievances we hear from au pairs and more about our structural critique of the program, please check out a report to which we contributed: Shortchanged: the Big Business Behind the Low Wage J-1 Au Pair Program, put out by the International Human Rights Law Clinic and other national organizations. Below is a sample of complaints that we hear from au pairs in their workplaces (the homes of their host families):

Sexual assault and harassment
Being expected to work more than 45 hours per week
Being asked to do non-child care work, for example house cleaning
Not being given sufficient food, being mocked when cooking meals from their home country, being left at home without food when the host family goes out to eat, etc.
Not being allowed to share kitchen space when host families are cooking
Taking care of children beyond their host family’s children
Being subjected to sexist and racist comments
Being abandoned by host parents to care for children for over multiple days
Being given a walk-in closet as a bedroom and lacking basic privacy in their rooms.
Not being supported in taking classes, going to church, etc.

I’d love to hear about another (relevant) source, preferably one that isn’t biased.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here is an excellent Harvard Law article by a law prof from AU: THE U.S. AU PAIR PROGRAM: LABOR EXPLOITATION AND THE MYTH OF CULTURAL EXCHANGE

https://harvardjlg.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/19/2012/01/2013-summer.1.pdf

On the one hand, the “cultural exchange” rubric enables the U.S. government to house the program under the Department of State rather than Labor and to delegate oversight of this government program to private recruitment agencies that have strong financial incentives to overlook and even hide worker exploitation.

On the other hand, the “cultural exchange” rhetoric used in the au pair program regulations and practice reifies harmful class, gender, and racial biases and tropes that feed society’s stubborn resistance to valuing domestic work as work worthy of labor protection.

Together, these dynamics render au pairs vulnerable to abuse and threaten to undermine the tremendous gains otherwise being made on behalf of domestic workers’ rights. The Article concludes with a proposal to reform the au pair program with an eye toward promoting decent working conditions for all.

I read through a portion. Are there any unbiased sources, relevant to treatment of APs? For some reason, they left out a list at the end, perhaps to make checking sources harder...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The way the proposed DC bill would work is $15/hr, $77 deduction so for families currently not paying above stipend, a $400/wk extra. However, some offsets from agency fees. Of course, ability to charge some expenses like cell phone for personal use (but most have unlimited data), plane tickets for family vacation but only if au pair is not working on that vacation (which is almost never the case). I can see how allowing for fewer hours written into the contract would make this work better for families and support the cultural exchange/education/travel better anyway. In any case, the au pair would share a clear charter of rights and legal protections, and no longer depend on the hosts’ largesse.

In MD and VA, min wage is lower and domestic worker provisions have to date been defeated. It would be very interesting to see how the market would play out with such a difference between the city and the surrounding states. Would all the best au pairs end up in DC?

It is very hard to argue in the face of evidence that the MA law is unfair. Reforms to the program to even out the playing field are necessary, including some to help the host families.

Someone earlier up thread made the point that this guts the program except for those very wealthy families who may not need full time childcare and may have a stay at home parent or older school age children who really only need car service. Full stop. If that is your aim, then just be clear you think this is only something that should be accessible to a very small subset of the population. I might spend 35k on my au pair but I’m not spending 60k and creating a weird employee type dynamic. These are 20 year olds hanging out for shopping money not people trying to scrap together a living. It’s not reasonable to expect me to spend 35k at a minimum and then have all of the extras I’d want to give to treat someone as part of the family.

When the MA legislation came out, many of the au pairs had to rematch or go home when host families left the program. Lol. You actually think all the au pairs tried to run to Ma because there were just so many openings?

You and the other families would still spend the same amount (20-40k/yr) but more of it would go your au pair to spend as she wishes vs. to the agency or what you think au pairs should like. Even at the high end, it would still be a fraction of live-in nanny unless you are involved in illegal arrangements. I agree there’s an issue with affordable childcare in the US but it cannot be solved by excluding a cohort of people from labor protections.

I already spelled out what agency fees do upthread. Flights aren’t going down, nor are the salaries for LCCs and national staff. The fees won’t go down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Other than the still very high agency fees, what the agencies outline as the HF obligations in MA seem perfectly reasonable. It’s very hard to argue with a 30 hr/wk cultural exchange and childcare program at $305/wk or 40 hr/wk at $433. Sounds perfectly reasonable, and even favorable to the HFs while fair to the APs.

If you’re still against the program reform, please explain why after reading the details of the difference published by the Cultural Care (not a domestic worker advocacy agency). I can think of only two reasons: no room left for ambiguity and exploitation in terms of hours and duties and au pairs no longer depending on your largesse for any perks.

https://culturalcare.com/massachusetts-pricing/

Families are no longer treating it like an exchange program. HFs don’t like it. APs don’t like it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No. We are saying it’s a cultural exchange program with an educational dimension which compensates au pairs’ time more fairly at a minimum wage and without arbitrary 40% deductions. It is not comparable to a live in nanny nor a seasonal worker program (which should also be fairly compensated).

If you don’t agree with that, and think it’s fair to compensate at $4.35/hr regardless how nice of a host family you might be, perhaps no type of live in care is acceptable to you. As luck would have it, the bill sponsored by Kamala Harris and other such legislation is still pending in most places, so no immediate legislative enforcement in DMV. But there is a moral imperative to voluntarily internalize the issues and meet the spirit of the program accordingly.

If you ask APs which they want, higher pay or to feel (and be treated) like part of the family, they invariably fall into the latter category. Enforce the legislation as is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Activists scored a victory in June when the Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge to a ruling that requires au pairs in Massachusetts to be paid the state’s minimum wage of $12.75 an hour. That thrilled pressure groups like the National Domestic Workers Alliance, which are now multiplying suits against the programme. Expect fireworks.

And they’re not listening to nannies, who have told them o er and over that we don’t want split shift 1-4 hour days...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have been following this thread. Is it legal to hire an American to watch your children but pay less than minimum wage? If you let them live in your in law suite or finished basement and provided food and a car?

There just seems like nothing between an AP and a nanny, which is out of reach for many.

Technically. You hire a nanny and create a separate document for rent. The nanny is obligated for everything else (including board) herself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have been following this thread. Is it legal to hire an American to watch your children but pay less than minimum wage? If you let them live in your in law suite or finished basement and provided food and a car?

There just seems like nothing between an AP and a nanny, which is out of reach for many.

Yes, because in that scenario you would be deducting the cost of room, board, and transportation- that’s thousands of dollars per year.

If the nanny chooses to live in, you can deduct room and board, but not transportation. If it’s a condition of employment, you can’t.

[Anonymous]

The market says: Families need affordable childcare, and young women from ther countries are jumping at the chance to live in America, earn money, and hopefully find a husband. Win for all.

No, the program will not shut down.

-- mom with 3 kids who has hosted 4 au pairs over 8 years

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have been following this thread. Is it legal to hire an American to watch your children but pay less than minimum wage? If you let them live in your in law suite or finished basement and provided food and a car?

There just seems like nothing between an AP and a nanny, which is out of reach for many.

Yes, because in that scenario you would be deducting the cost of room, board, and transportation- that’s thousands of dollars per year.

If the nanny chooses to live in, you can deduct room and board, but not transportation. If it’s a condition of employment, you can’t.

You are incorrect. If you provide a car and gas, you absolutely can deduct a portion of the car, insurance, and gas for non-work usage. The nanny would be taxed on the same as income.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This board appears to have been taken over by loonies calling people names and undeserved epithets. There are even insults flying to direct quotes from the DoL and similar. Good work everyone, but as sadly almost always, that tends to happen on dcum recently. Completely useless but tedious loonies, so I’m leaving.

It is turning into a proxy war thread for au pair vs host families. Or maybe nannies vs employers because au pairs bring down the nanny rate?

[Anonymous]

I think it’s people for fair living wage v people who think it’s ok to not pay a living wage to live-in nanny or au pair.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s people for fair living wage v people who think it’s ok to not pay a living wage to live-in nanny or au pair.

This is sort of a baffling framing. What is the definition of “living wage” if not sufficient to pay for food, housing, transportation, healthcare, clothes, and incidentals? Every au pair has all of that covered. Most also spend a month on vacation at the end using savings.

[Anonymous]

You’re all missing a couple of huge points about the au pair program. One, young people are signing up by the droves to participate, and they know the stipend amount and work requirements. No one is forcing them and they choose the families they live with, they aren’t assigned to them. They can always say no, and if things are not a good fit, they can always rematch.
Two, in most situations, au pairs don’t pay ANY of their living expenses. Their STIPEND, not salary, is either “fun money”, or or cases where they’re saving or sending money home, @$200/week for them to save or give their families. In families where that money is needed, $200/week goes a long way.
Signed, former au pair, now long-term host parent who has seen both sides

[Anonymous]

Young unattached people from countries requiring a visa for the US are generally rejected by the Consulates, particularly the women, even for a tourist visit. Even those from the countries not needing visas cannot obtain J1 visas easily otherwise. So, of course it is attractive. The question is whether it is fair. I can see how that would be debatable, and can see how fewer hours at fair rates could uphold the program goals even better. I would like the program to remain, but be fairer.

I see no justification for keeping domestic workers in a dependent situation by deducting room and board to the extent that they are paid well below minimum wage. What hope do they have of obtaining own housing or moving on from that situation? There is no moral or legal
justification for keeping workers in bond in this manner. That was not the intent of the lawmaker and we hope redress is forthcoming soon, perhaps through the Kamala Harris bill.

That the au pairs buy clothes, send money home and travel, or get married in the US is a testament to their human capital and ingenuity, and not a justification of low pay. Imagine what they could do with more time at the same overall cost to families or same hours and more pay!