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.
Anonymous wrote: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.
So just be clear and own your own racism and sexism that you think only rich white people with women who don’t work should be able to have APs - don’t pretend that you give any effs about women of color, working women, etc, middle class, etc. Own your own extreme privilege - and your own racism/misogyny/classicism...
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.
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?
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.