Au Pair just asked for more money

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No, DoL allows deduction of $77/wk max: $35 for room. Kamala Harris Bill is pending that should put stop
to abuses. https://www.harris.senate.gov/news/press-releases/harris-jayapal-announce-domestic-workers-bill-of-rights

A live-in nanny should receive the same rate of pay you would consider for a live-out caregiver. The fact that they receive room and board shouldn’t lessen their pay.

According to the International Nanny Association’s 2017 Salary and Benefits Survey, the national average hourly rate for a full-time nanny is $19.14/hour. There wasn’t much difference in pay rate for live-in and live-out employees.

Live-in nannies are considered hourly workers and need to be paid the highest applicable minimum wage of the federal, state, and local rates.

As mentioned, they are paid for all hours they’re on duty and “on call.” If your live-in nanny needs to be at your home and isn’t free to leave, then they need to be paid for those hours.

You are smoking something great, clearly. Room and board is a benefit and the nanny is taxed on the benefit as income....so of course it is part of a compensation package. Nannies are free to leave when they are not working....crazy!

If living in is conditional to having the job, nothing gets deducted.

[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, it is legal to deduct room and board from a live-in nanny depending on the specifics of the arrangement. But good luck finding an American who will accept the position.

For the wages that most HP can afford? Only if the hours are very low and it’s clearly an employer-employee relationship, so that the inexperienced nanny can do their classes to find a “real” job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No, DoL allows deduction of $77/wk max: $35 for room. Kamala Harris Bill is pending that should put stop
to abuses. https://www.harris.senate.gov/news/press-releases/harris-jayapal-announce-domestic-workers-bill-of-rights

A live-in nanny should receive the same rate of pay you would consider for a live-out caregiver. The fact that they receive room and board shouldn’t lessen their pay.

According to the International Nanny Association’s 2017 Salary and Benefits Survey, the national average hourly rate for a full-time nanny is $19.14/hour. There wasn’t much difference in pay rate for live-in and live-out employees.

Live-in nannies are considered hourly workers and need to be paid the highest applicable minimum wage of the federal, state, and local rates.

As mentioned, they are paid for all hours they’re on duty and “on call.” If your live-in nanny needs to be at your home and isn’t free to leave, then they need to be paid for those hours.

You are smoking something great, clearly. Room and board is a benefit and the nanny is taxed on the benefit as income....so of course it is part of a compensation package. Nannies are free to leave when they are not working....crazy!

Why should a live in nanny be paid the same as a live out nanny?? An apartment would cost at least 1k

If the nanny can choose to live in or out, deductions are allowed. If the position is conditional on living in, no deductions are allowed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

No they don’t. Nannies and APs are so dissimilar that one rate doesn’t affect the other at all. Next you’ll say that lowering daycare rates would lower nanny rates...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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!

None, which is the way the program is structured. These young people are only here on the J-1 visa for 1-2 years, and they’re NOT supposed to be staying. The point is to visit, have fun, learn something (English!), and then return home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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!

The 2nd paragraph is about legal resident or citizen American workers, such as nannies

None, which is the way the program is structured. These young people are only here on the J-1 visa for 1-2 years, and they’re NOT supposed to be staying. The point is to visit, have fun, learn something (English!), and then return home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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!

The 2nd paragraph is about legal resident or citizen American workers, such as nannies

None, which is the way the program is structured. These young people are only here on the J-1 visa for 1-2 years, and they’re NOT supposed to be staying. The point is to visit, have fun, learn something (English!), and then return home.

The 2nd paragraph is about legal resident or citizen American workers, such as nannies

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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!

None, which is the way the program is structured. These young people are only here on the J-1 visa for 1-2 years, and they’re NOT supposed to be staying. The point is to visit, have fun, learn something (English!), and then return home.

The 2nd paragraph is about legal resident or citizen American workers, such as nannies

Except that APs are “making less than minimum wage” and other domestic workers aren’t, unless they elect to live in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No, DoL allows deduction of $77/wk max: $35 for room. Kamala Harris Bill is pending that should put stop
to abuses. https://www.harris.senate.gov/news/press-releases/harris-jayapal-announce-domestic-workers-bill-of-rights

A live-in nanny should receive the same rate of pay you would consider for a live-out caregiver. The fact that they receive room and board shouldn’t lessen their pay.

According to the International Nanny Association’s 2017 Salary and Benefits Survey, the national average hourly rate for a full-time nanny is $19.14/hour. There wasn’t much difference in pay rate for live-in and live-out employees.

Live-in nannies are considered hourly workers and need to be paid the highest applicable minimum wage of the federal, state, and local rates.

As mentioned, they are paid for all hours they’re on duty and “on call.” If your live-in nanny needs to be at your home and isn’t free to leave, then they need to be paid for those hours.

You are smoking something great, clearly. Room and board is a benefit and the nanny is taxed on the benefit as income....so of course it is part of a compensation package. Nannies are free to leave when they are not working....crazy!

If living in is conditional to having the job, nothing gets deducted.

You are incorrect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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!

None, which is the way the program is structured. These young people are only here on the J-1 visa for 1-2 years, and they’re NOT supposed to be staying. The point is to visit, have fun, learn something (English!), and then return home.

The 2nd paragraph is about legal resident or citizen American workers, such as nannies

Except that APs are “making less than minimum wage” and other domestic workers aren’t, unless they elect to live in.

APs are not making less than the federal minimum wage, unless you are not properly deducting for room, board, education, etc.

[Anonymous]

Au pairs are NOT BEING PAID A SALARY.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Au pairs are NOT BEING PAID A SALARY.

Lots of people are not paid salaries. That's ok.

[Anonymous]

The self-serving attitudes of the majority on this forum ($195 per week is plenty for 45hrs, live in babies earn even less because we deduct everything) — despite all the evidence to say you are in fact in the wrong — help explain why so many a Americans are in line for food banks, don’t have proper health care, and are in dire straits

[Anonymous]

“Nannies” not babies, obv

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We need some more details:
What is current pay?
How much more is she asking for?
What does she say her reason is for asking for more?

Current pay is $200/week. I think the au pair agency requires a $195/week.

She didn't specify how much more - just that she wanted more. I told her I would think about it. I think she's asking because she thinks we are well off and can afford it.

I was initially confused by this request because she's only been with us for 3 months. She's average at best.

My first thought was that I could use this to leverage getting her to do some things - such as play or interact with the kids (this rarely happens), do their laundry, and keep the kitchen and family room tidy. Right now, none of those things happen.

She sounds awful.

I'd rather pay $250/ week for an au pair who does all of the things that she currently doesn't. The fact that she currently does none of those things, super basic things imo, and asked for more money in less than a year, with no reason given outside of just wanting more money would sour me to her and I'd have lost respect for her and trust in her.