This is not going away:
Harvard Law Review https://blog.harvardlawreview.org/recent-case-capron-v-office-of-the-attorney-general-of-massachusetts/

Recent class action win in a suit brought on behalf of 11 au pairs may apply to 90,000 class members, and open the floodgates. At minimum, pay attention OP and the page 1 buddies here’s what the decision already means for you:

The settlement also requires that 15 agencies authorized by the U.S. State Department to connect au pairs with families notify both parties going forward that au pairs can negotiate to be paid more than the minimum $195.75 a week required by the department.

OP should do the right thing and pay minimum wage in her locale. That’s still very cheap since sadly they still can do the deductions here. But there’s nothing justifying extra chores and $200 per week.

There are plenty of good families willing to pay fairly. Sadly, there are many families (and boards on dcum) that tried to preempt MA type law in DC fighting against their au pairs. Ultimately, what will make the difference is lawsuits. And there are now plenty going state to state. I think the only losers from this will be exploitative families and agencies; there will be plenty of good au pairs and decent hosts to carry the program forward.

The judge said it all: Furthermore, the federal interest in promoting cultural exchange did not dominate over state wage laws because “[i]t is hardly evident that a federal foreign affairs interest in creating a ‘friendly’ and ‘cooperative’ spirit with other nations is advanced by a program of cultural exchange that, by design, would authorize foreign nationals to be paid less than Americans performing similar work.”

MA law for now applies in MA, but there are movements to make into law in DMV and elsewhere. I think this will succeed in DC before too long; it’s had a set back in VA and Montgomery County because parents like the OP lobbied against it. I’m confident we’ll see this law adopted elsewhere and meanwhile there are many pending law suits for back wages, and a recent class action win. I see this as a win win: au pairs get treated better and perhaps fewer families participate, but they are the right type of family: not exploitative, invested in the cultural exchange. A few of the agencies might go bust, but they appear to be semi-criminal
exploitation enterprises in the first place. No one will cry for OP and families like hers in the revamped au pair program.

Anonymous wrote:Nope, what you describe is illegal even by today’s rules. The MA ruling has opened the door for those rules to change to actually compensate properly.

That's not how this works. The Massachusetts case applies to Massachusetts only.

Au pair compensation is complicated. If you say that an au pair should be paid like a nanny, then they should cover their own expenses like a nanny. This would involve buying their own phone plan, car insurance and car. But it makes zero sense to ask an 18 year old to buy their own car when they're only going to be here for a year. So host families typically offer these "perks" so au pairs have a good experience. But if you pay an au pair like a nanny, but still have to offer these perks so the au pair can have a good experience, then you might as well get a nanny. Why pay more for someone with less childcare experience and who needs ongoing support to adapt to America and who has a bunch of work restrictions and who requires you to pay significant agency fees? Massachusetts doesnt allow you to consider unlimited access to a car in or putting the au pair on your phone plan to be part of the au pair's compensation. If you just want to kill the program, then you can absolutely take the position that nothing other than equal pay to a nanny will do. But if you think it's a good program that can benefit both au pairs and families, then there needs to be a middle ground.

Nope, what you describe is illegal even by today’s rules. The MA ruling has opened the door for those rules to change to actually compensate properly.

I used to be an au pair and am now a parent.
I would say no because the amount is set by the agency as part of the program. If she wants to go above and beyond you can compensate her in other ways though. But it does not sound like she is.

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.

I am not sure how much of the dynamic is there to leverage because their choices are rematch or go home.

And actually, we were her rematch for her second year.

She wanted to stay in the US. Her first host family was in CT. Her second year she went to CA but then got upset with the host family. She was with them for like two weeks in CA. We were kind of a last resort for her.

She actually had several friends from the au pair world in the DMV already.

So now you know how much you should be paying her and it’s a lot more than you are; she might agree to the bare minimum because you are the last resort but what does that make you?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this typical? We pay her the normal weekly stipend. Is there anyone else out there that pays or receives more than is required?

I'm not sure what to do. Feels a little like extortion to me. She's only been with us for three months.

Ha! I was delighted to read that it’s not only typical but is coming for you at $15/hr direct from a federal judge and the Supreme Court who refused to hear the appeal. So in DC, you are looking at $675 if you want 45 hrs per week. And it can only be the approved cultural exchange works. Also unlikely you can deduct 40% or even 0% for room and board. So let’s say it’s the same as in MA, per the court ruling (although some would argue $0 deduction since the au pair must room and board with your family), you can deduct about 13%, so you should be paying $587 per week. Let me know if you still claim you’re in it for a cultural exchange. Really curious.

Curious if we can then charge for room and board. You know - cable, Internet, own room, own bath, groceries, etc.

Even with normal nannies you can only count this if they’re legally allowed to live out.

Well said. Mind boggles. This is a definition of exploitation. Who are you people? You’ve certainly proven you’re not interested in cultural exchange snd treating au pairs well.

Anonymous wrote:Wow, upthread some crazy person posted pages and pages of nonsense talking to themselves in the middle of the night.

In case anyone else wonders, the Massachusetts care relates to Massachusetts state law. Other states have different laws. And other courts have gone the other way on the question of preemption.

Which states have gone the other way? Please share. Any opinion on why MA ruling might be fair and why Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal of the au pair agencies, thus making it more likely to become a precedent more broadly? I didn’t know about it, but the rationale is very reasonable.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. You mean I can just make up rules as I go along and continue to exploit my au pair as I please? That can’t be right!

I'm not sure who you are, but you are not the OP. I am.

OP they were not pretending to be you; they were making fun of you.

DMV is headed that way too.

Wow, upthread some crazy person posted pages and pages of nonsense talking to themselves in the middle of the night.

In case anyone else wonders, the Massachusetts care relates to Massachusetts state law. Other states have different laws. And other courts have gone the other way on the question of preemption.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this typical? We pay her the normal weekly stipend. Is there anyone else out there that pays or receives more than is required?

I'm not sure what to do. Feels a little like extortion to me. She's only been with us for three months.

Ha! I was delighted to read that it’s not only typical but is coming for you at $15/hr direct from a federal judge and the Supreme Court who refused to hear the appeal. So in DC, you are looking at $675 if you want 45 hrs per week. And it can only be the approved cultural exchange works. Also unlikely you can deduct 40% or even 0% for room and board. So let’s say it’s the same as in MA, per the court ruling (although some would argue $0 deduction since the au pair must room and board with your family), you can deduct about 13%, so you should be paying $587 per week. Let me know if you still claim you’re in it for a cultural exchange. Really curious.

Curious if we can then charge for room and board. You know - cable, Internet, own room, own bath, groceries, etc.

Even with normal nannies you can only count this if they’re legally allowed to live out.