1 full day (not weekend) off per month (I though it was per week)

100%

If paying minimum wage is too expensive for some families, why not reduce the hours? The au pairs also want to take classes while they are here, which must be difficult with their work schedules. And it seems very harsh to only have one full weekend off per month.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The existing limits on pay deductions for housing and food strike many families as unreasonable. The maximum deduction for housing is $35/week and the maximum deduction for food is $6.00/day. For more detail see the minimum wage regulations.

I agree that in the context of the homes where au pairs are most likely to be retained, these numbers look low. Yet, I do not think that adjusting these numbers is a promising idea. First, from a practical legislative standpoint, raising these numbers basically means cutting the minimum wage; we cannot carve out au pairs for different allowances. Cutting the minimum wage is not what we are trying to do right now. Second, the truth is that from a marginal cost standpoint, the numbers are not so far off. It does not actually cost a family anything to let an au pair use empty space in the house. Similarly, one more plate at a family table does not necessarily generate the same cost as it would to prepare a single meal from scratch.

Addendum: This note has generated push back. I fully appreciate that the marginal costs of having an au pair in a house are not zero. I fully appreciate that families are likely to spend much more than the housing and meals allowances. I’m just responding to some who seemed to suggest that the allowances should be compared to market rents.

I don’t disagree that the marginal cost is not the same as market rent - but that’s why you don’t compare the market wage to the au pair stipend. Please explain how it makes sense to compare market wage rate to au pair wage rate if you refuse to use market living costs (rent, food, etc) and instead use marginal living costs?

It is not the market rate; it’s the minimum wage, with live in costs deducted at allowed levels; in no way is it market competitive for a live in nanny (unless you’re exploiting Prior to March 2020, the average rates we saw were $20-25/hr for nannies and $25-30 for Family Assistants. Since COVID, we’ve seen the market shift to $25-30/hr across the board due to the highly competitive nature of the market. Live in nanny’s earn more with the same DoL deduction rules plus healthcare insurance travel education and many other competitive rules. I applaud the PP as well for summarizing the solution space: good intentions by most, welcoming the reform nonetheless because it is needed. The rates above for DMV

Someone said to another poster: "You're clearly a disgruntled nanny who has too few skills or motivation to actually get a job that you'd actually enjoy. So now you're taking your rage at having to care for children (which you consider to be a terrible and exploitive job at its core) out on host parents."

That remark is rude and uncalled for. But most (not all!) of the host families here seem like great people who are kind and attempting to follow the spirit of cultural exchange. The real problem seems to be with the agencies: the lack of clear communication, and their lack of managing complaints. I'm glad that reform is coming.

Anonymous wrote:The existing limits on pay deductions for housing and food strike many families as unreasonable. The maximum deduction for housing is $35/week and the maximum deduction for food is $6.00/day. For more detail see the minimum wage regulations.

I agree that in the context of the homes where au pairs are most likely to be retained, these numbers look low. Yet, I do not think that adjusting these numbers is a promising idea. First, from a practical legislative standpoint, raising these numbers basically means cutting the minimum wage; we cannot carve out au pairs for different allowances. Cutting the minimum wage is not what we are trying to do right now. Second, the truth is that from a marginal cost standpoint, the numbers are not so far off. It does not actually cost a family anything to let an au pair use empty space in the house. Similarly, one more plate at a family table does not necessarily generate the same cost as it would to prepare a single meal from scratch.

Addendum: This note has generated push back. I fully appreciate that the marginal costs of having an au pair in a house are not zero. I fully appreciate that families are likely to spend much more than the housing and meals allowances. I’m just responding to some who seemed to suggest that the allowances should be compared to market rents.

I don’t disagree that the marginal cost is not the same as market rent - but that’s why you don’t compare the market wage to the au pair stipend. Please explain how it makes sense to compare market wage rate to au pair wage rate if you refuse to use market living costs (rent, food, etc) and instead use marginal living costs?

The only arguments against these limited rules are born from the entitlement of the previous Wild West nature of the au pair business (and it is now BIG business), and if these rules bother you then the reality is that you were taking advantage of your au pair.

Read the report. Now you know. And, no, a group of people from US to MA senators to judges to DC Council are not failing to hear or understand you. You’re just not in the right.

Based on the self-serving stuff I’ve read on here, we need the law, even for the well-meaning families. Read https://fairlaborrecruitment.files.wordpress.com/2018/08/shortchanged.pdf

To the page 1 script, in all the states, families and au pairs have been informed of the au pair’s right to negotiate above the stipend and retaliation is verboten. So OP needs to negotiate in good faith.

many low-income vulnerable non-European workers who come in to do child care work as “au pairs” would have only the protections offered by federal law. The federal law really regulates the agencies and does little to directly police family employers.

NP. Just to point out that the hours OP outlined might be correct. But probs not b/c free hours can’t be on call in any way. They have to be truly off/free. I don’t buy it

The existing limits on pay deductions for housing and food strike many families as unreasonable. The maximum deduction for housing is $35/week and the maximum deduction for food is $6.00/day. For more detail see the minimum wage regulations.

I agree that in the context of the homes where au pairs are most likely to be retained, these numbers look low. Yet, I do not think that adjusting these numbers is a promising idea. First, from a practical legislative standpoint, raising these numbers basically means cutting the minimum wage; we cannot carve out au pairs for different allowances. Cutting the minimum wage is not what we are trying to do right now. Second, the truth is that from a marginal cost standpoint, the numbers are not so far off. It does not actually cost a family anything to let an au pair use empty space in the house. Similarly, one more plate at a family table does not necessarily generate the same cost as it would to prepare a single meal from scratch.

Addendum: This note has generated push back. I fully appreciate that the marginal costs of having an au pair in a house are not zero. I fully appreciate that families are likely to spend much more than the housing and meals allowances. I’m just responding to some who seemed to suggest that the allowances should be compared to market rents.

Ruling
Posted byWill Brownsberger December 18, 2019 85 Comments on Au Pair Ruling
A federal appellate court ruling has created a difficult situation for some families who rely on “au pair” arrangements for their child care. The ruling upheld the application of the Massachusetts Domestic Workers Bill of Rights to au pair arrangements.

In an “au pair” arrangement, a young person comes from another country to live with a U.S. family. In return for room and board, they provide child care. In many cases, they are treated very well, often as a family members. They have the opportunity to perfect their English and may also be a full time student. They may have light responsibilities, perhaps only after-school pick up and afternoon childcare, but they may make a critical difference for working parents. All benefit from a cultural exchange.

For better or for worse, what historically has been a personal arrangement of trust has grown into a big business. Agencies recruit women from around the world and place them with families to provide child care. They charge the families hefty fees. In some cases, the “au pair” has not been treated as a family member, but as a domestic servant with full-time responsibilities often going beyond child care to include house work. Because the women are on temporary visas, they have limited ability to push back on unreasonable demands and cases of real abuse have occurred.

The legislature followed California and New York and passed a Massachusetts Domestic Workers Bill of Rights in 2014 to respond to a series of troubling reports. The Massachusetts “DWBOR” requires families to treat their au pairs as employees:

Keep records of hours worked
Pay Massachusetts minimum wage (now $12/hour) and overtime
Make only limited permitted deductions for room and board
Provide rest time and sick leave
Provide reasonable access to phone and internet
Of critical importance, the au pair must be provided notice of these rights and an employer family can be prosecuted if they retaliate against an au pair’s assertion of these rights.

The Domestic Workers Bill of Rights was enacted over 5 years ago, but some agencies who place au pairs have chosen to litigate the new rules, instead of adapting to them. They have argued that weaker federal rules preempt the state rules. The agencies have continued to place au pairs without regard to the rules and, with the litigation pending, the Massachusetts Attorney General has not brought enforcement actions against families.

The recent ruling settles the issue that the Massachusetts DWBOR does lawfully apply to au pair arrangments. Weaker federal rules do not necessarily preempt stronger state rules. For example, the federal minimum wage is only $7.25, but Massachusetts workers benefit from the higher Massachusetts rate of $12.00. The court confirmed that Massachusetts has the power to set standards for domestic workers, including au pairs.

For families who currently have arrangements that do not comply with Massachusetts rules, the change increases costs and paperwork and, in some cases, creates a genuine hardship. I have heard from many families who depend on au pair child care who are distraught and are seeking a legislative exemption from the new rules. While I am deeply troubled that some mutually beneficial arrangements are going to be disrupted by the new rules, I do not support exempting au pair arrangements.

The Massachusetts Domestic Workers bill of rights responded to very real abuses. At the time the bill was under discussion and debate, we considered exempting au pair arrangements but concluded that by so doing we would be creating a significant loop hole that would defeat the purposes of the bill. The bill was passed by a unanimous final roll call in the Senate and by a final roll call of 126 to 22 in the House.

To the extent that some families have been surprised by the ruling, the fault lies with agencies who may have placed au pairs under the old rules and failed to inform families that the new rules were likely to come into force when litigation ended. The legislation was enacted on June 26, 2014 and a full transition period was allowed. We made it effective April 1, 2015.

Recognizing that families are not at fault, the Attorney General is still deferring enforcement as agencies and families sort out the consequences, but all who are affected should plan to move as quickly as possible into compliance. Agencies should be offering to unwind agreements or absorb the costs. I would like to know about agencies who are not taking appropriate responsibility for the transition.

I am also eager to continue to hear from affected families in my district — while I do not foresee any wholesale changes and our degrees of freedom on the details are limited, I remain willing to look for fair and feasible adjustments.

Nope. Here’s the “patter on the back” again, not as prolific as the PP would have you believe. “For families who currently have arrangements that do not comply with Massachusetts rules, the change increases costs and paperwork and, in some cases, creates a genuine hardship. I have heard from many families who depend on au pair child care who are distraught and are seeking a legislative exemption from the new rules. While I am deeply troubled that some mutually beneficial arrangements are going to be disrupted by the new rules, I do not support exempting au pair arrangements.”

If you pay your au pair fairly, they won’t depend on your goodwill to do these “extras”. I’ve had au pairs and babysitters, and offered similar extras on top of fair wage because it, first and foremost, served my family well too.

For detailed analysis, here is in part why; for the rest have a look at the VP Elect domestic workers bill:
https://willbrownsberger.com/au-pair-ruling/