Wow. No discussion about the death of the AP program here?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Matahari Women's Worker's Center. They lobbied for the bill (which in a large sense was needed) and pushed for eliminating the proposed exclusion for au pairs. As a group, they lobby on behalf of nannies, who will benefit from the loss of a more affordable (albeit quite different) childcare option.

I don't think any APs were involved in the push for inclusion in this bill.

Also note that the lawsuit was from one of the AP agencies for clarity from the AG that it didn't apply to APs. Other states have included specific riders that it didn't where MA had those proposed multiple times and pulled (see above).

I agree, but I think the baby was thrown out with the bathwater.

MA HM here. I agree completely. i am a huge fan of a higher min wage, but this was never meant to apply to APs. And PP is right that it was a home childcare worker advocacy group who pushed this --- it had nothing to do with helping APs and everything to do with killing the AP program to increase the wages and employment options of nannies.

Although that's not so awful. The AP program is much like the H-1B1 visa issue. Employers want the cheap foreign labor in lieu of employing Americans. Now if families want on demand childcare in MA then they have to pay a premium for it.

Please get over yourself. It's not "on demand" childcare. It's *flexible* childcare. We need early morning and late afternoon. We tried everything we could last year to go without an AP, but even offering $40 an hour, I could not get anyone reliable to do the hour-each-way drive to my son's special ed school, so we had to go back to the AP program. I would MUCH rather not have an AP -- we have been hosting 12 years and at this point pay way more for an AP than we need to since we don't need many hours -- but we cannot get anyone other than an AP to do the morning drive. No American wants to do 6:45-8:45 that involves 84 miles round-trip. Not even for $40 an hour. So please stop the drama with the "on demand" childcare claim.

It's cheap childcare. If it were not then MA families wouldn't be pulling out in droves. They would have your same excuse. But no, they are out.

I have an AP as well because I could never get the convenience of an American for the rate I pay an AP. Period. Sure, if I wanted to pay $40/hr I could get someone to wipe my ass. For my 20hrs a week I need an AP, i could pay just about anyone $800 to do this. And yes, if this happens here and this is no longer the best bang for my buck, I will also hire a sitter and will have to pay $23/hr for PT hours. I know this as fact since we've had to do this between AuPairs.

You, my dear are full of shit.

Wow, such crude language. I will just say that I have tried over and over to find someone in our area to do this job, and no one wants to get on the MA version of the Beltway every morning at 6:45am, drive for an hour, drop off my child at school 42 miles away, and drive back. I offered $40 all last year, and while I was able to get people to sign up for the job, come the first snowy morning, they were calling in sick or delayed. I wish I were in fact wrong and that we could find someone to do this. I wish we didn't have to host an AP anymore, after 12 years of hosting - but alas, no one up here in MA wants to do this job. Or, at least, no one with a clean driving record who doesn't smoke. Maybe in DC it's cheaper and easier? Or maybe you're happy to hire someone without a clean driving record or a smoker? Whatever, I'm done trying to explain. You can believe whatever you want. I was just trying to help those on this site understand what us HFs in MA are going through since people were asking (and trying to join our FB page). But I am happy to leave you to your potty mouth now.

NP. I sympathize with your situation. Did you figure what you are doing? Are you leaving the program? I assume at only 20h/week and the extra $100 from ccap you should still be around the same price?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Matahari Women's Worker's Center. They lobbied for the bill (which in a large sense was needed) and pushed for eliminating the proposed exclusion for au pairs. As a group, they lobby on behalf of nannies, who will benefit from the loss of a more affordable (albeit quite different) childcare option.

I don't think any APs were involved in the push for inclusion in this bill.

Also note that the lawsuit was from one of the AP agencies for clarity from the AG that it didn't apply to APs. Other states have included specific riders that it didn't where MA had those proposed multiple times and pulled (see above).

I agree, but I think the baby was thrown out with the bathwater.

MA HM here. I agree completely. i am a huge fan of a higher min wage, but this was never meant to apply to APs. And PP is right that it was a home childcare worker advocacy group who pushed this --- it had nothing to do with helping APs and everything to do with killing the AP program to increase the wages and employment options of nannies.

Although that's not so awful. The AP program is much like the H-1B1 visa issue. Employers want the cheap foreign labor in lieu of employing Americans. Now if families want on demand childcare in MA then they have to pay a premium for it.

Please get over yourself. It's not "on demand" childcare. It's *flexible* childcare. We need early morning and late afternoon. We tried everything we could last year to go without an AP, but even offering $40 an hour, I could not get anyone reliable to do the hour-each-way drive to my son's special ed school, so we had to go back to the AP program. I would MUCH rather not have an AP -- we have been hosting 12 years and at this point pay way more for an AP than we need to since we don't need many hours -- but we cannot get anyone other than an AP to do the morning drive. No American wants to do 6:45-8:45 that involves 84 miles round-trip. Not even for $40 an hour. So please stop the drama with the "on demand" childcare claim.

It's cheap childcare. If it were not then MA families wouldn't be pulling out in droves. They would have your same excuse. But no, they are out.

I have an AP as well because I could never get the convenience of an American for the rate I pay an AP. Period. Sure, if I wanted to pay $40/hr I could get someone to wipe my ass. For my 20hrs a week I need an AP, i could pay just about anyone $800 to do this. And yes, if this happens here and this is no longer the best bang for my buck, I will also hire a sitter and will have to pay $23/hr for PT hours. I know this as fact since we've had to do this between AuPairs.

You, my dear are full of shit.

Wow, such crude language. I will just say that I have tried over and over to find someone in our area to do this job, and no one wants to get on the MA version of the Beltway every morning at 6:45am, drive for an hour, drop off my child at school 42 miles away, and drive back. I offered $40 all last year, and while I was able to get people to sign up for the job, come the first snowy morning, they were calling in sick or delayed. I wish I were in fact wrong and that we could find someone to do this. I wish we didn't have to host an AP anymore, after 12 years of hosting - but alas, no one up here in MA wants to do this job. Or, at least, no one with a clean driving record who doesn't smoke. Maybe in DC it's cheaper and easier? Or maybe you're happy to hire someone without a clean driving record or a smoker? Whatever, I'm done trying to explain. You can believe whatever you want. I was just trying to help those on this site understand what us HFs in MA are going through since people were asking (and trying to join our FB page). But I am happy to leave you to your potty mouth now.

Yes, and this is what makes the AP program so appealing. Cheap on demand childcare.

We've gone full circle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Matahari Women's Worker's Center. They lobbied for the bill (which in a large sense was needed) and pushed for eliminating the proposed exclusion for au pairs. As a group, they lobby on behalf of nannies, who will benefit from the loss of a more affordable (albeit quite different) childcare option.

I don't think any APs were involved in the push for inclusion in this bill.

Also note that the lawsuit was from one of the AP agencies for clarity from the AG that it didn't apply to APs. Other states have included specific riders that it didn't where MA had those proposed multiple times and pulled (see above).

I agree, but I think the baby was thrown out with the bathwater.

MA HM here. I agree completely. i am a huge fan of a higher min wage, but this was never meant to apply to APs. And PP is right that it was a home childcare worker advocacy group who pushed this --- it had nothing to do with helping APs and everything to do with killing the AP program to increase the wages and employment options of nannies.

Although that's not so awful. The AP program is much like the H-1B1 visa issue. Employers want the cheap foreign labor in lieu of employing Americans. Now if families want on demand childcare in MA then they have to pay a premium for it.

Please get over yourself. It's not "on demand" childcare. It's *flexible* childcare. We need early morning and late afternoon. We tried everything we could last year to go without an AP, but even offering $40 an hour, I could not get anyone reliable to do the hour-each-way drive to my son's special ed school, so we had to go back to the AP program. I would MUCH rather not have an AP -- we have been hosting 12 years and at this point pay way more for an AP than we need to since we don't need many hours -- but we cannot get anyone other than an AP to do the morning drive. No American wants to do 6:45-8:45 that involves 84 miles round-trip. Not even for $40 an hour. So please stop the drama with the "on demand" childcare claim.

Live-in childcare, driving your vehicle. Nanny, housekeeper, college kid...

[Anonymous]

You know, it's not a crime for families not to be able to afford a fulltime professional nanny. That doesn't mean they don't need the services. If au pairs want the job at that rate, why interfere with the market? Most young American families are squeezed with student debt, stagnant wages, etc. Why mock them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Matahari Women's Worker's Center. They lobbied for the bill (which in a large sense was needed) and pushed for eliminating the proposed exclusion for au pairs. As a group, they lobby on behalf of nannies, who will benefit from the loss of a more affordable (albeit quite different) childcare option.

I don't think any APs were involved in the push for inclusion in this bill.

Also note that the lawsuit was from one of the AP agencies for clarity from the AG that it didn't apply to APs. Other states have included specific riders that it didn't where MA had those proposed multiple times and pulled (see above).

I agree, but I think the baby was thrown out with the bathwater.

MA HM here. I agree completely. i am a huge fan of a higher min wage, but this was never meant to apply to APs. And PP is right that it was a home childcare worker advocacy group who pushed this --- it had nothing to do with helping APs and everything to do with killing the AP program to increase the wages and employment options of nannies.

Although that's not so awful. The AP program is much like the H-1B1 visa issue. Employers want the cheap foreign labor in lieu of employing Americans. Now if families want on demand childcare in MA then they have to pay a premium for it.

Please get over yourself. It's not "on demand" childcare. It's *flexible* childcare. We need early morning and late afternoon. We tried everything we could last year to go without an AP, but even offering $40 an hour, I could not get anyone reliable to do the hour-each-way drive to my son's special ed school, so we had to go back to the AP program. I would MUCH rather not have an AP -- we have been hosting 12 years and at this point pay way more for an AP than we need to since we don't need many hours -- but we cannot get anyone other than an AP to do the morning drive. No American wants to do 6:45-8:45 that involves 84 miles round-trip. Not even for $40 an hour. So please stop the drama with the "on demand" childcare claim.

Live-in childcare, driving your vehicle. Nanny, housekeeper, college kid...

Riiiight. It’s actually not that easy to find, and a lot of people want AP for language immersion for kids.

[Anonymous]

My current AP spent her first year in MA and extended here. She said lots of her friends’ families are having them sign an agreement to continue working 45 hours a week for $195. I’m not sure what protection the families think they’re getting from having their APs sign this (unenforceable, illegal) piece of paper, but the au pairs are agreeing to it because they’re afraid of being sent home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Matahari Women's Worker's Center. They lobbied for the bill (which in a large sense was needed) and pushed for eliminating the proposed exclusion for au pairs. As a group, they lobby on behalf of nannies, who will benefit from the loss of a more affordable (albeit quite different) childcare option.

I don't think any APs were involved in the push for inclusion in this bill.

Also note that the lawsuit was from one of the AP agencies for clarity from the AG that it didn't apply to APs. Other states have included specific riders that it didn't where MA had those proposed multiple times and pulled (see above).

I agree, but I think the baby was thrown out with the bathwater.

MA HM here. I agree completely. i am a huge fan of a higher min wage, but this was never meant to apply to APs. And PP is right that it was a home childcare worker advocacy group who pushed this --- it had nothing to do with helping APs and everything to do with killing the AP program to increase the wages and employment options of nannies.

Although that's not so awful. The AP program is much like the H-1B1 visa issue. Employers want the cheap foreign labor in lieu of employing Americans. Now if families want on demand childcare in MA then they have to pay a premium for it.

Please get over yourself. It's not "on demand" childcare. It's *flexible* childcare. We need early morning and late afternoon. We tried everything we could last year to go without an AP, but even offering $40 an hour, I could not get anyone reliable to do the hour-each-way drive to my son's special ed school, so we had to go back to the AP program. I would MUCH rather not have an AP -- we have been hosting 12 years and at this point pay way more for an AP than we need to since we don't need many hours -- but we cannot get anyone other than an AP to do the morning drive. No American wants to do 6:45-8:45 that involves 84 miles round-trip. Not even for $40 an hour. So please stop the drama with the "on demand" childcare claim.

Live-in childcare, driving your vehicle. Nanny, housekeeper, college kid...

Riiiight. It’s actually not that easy to find, and a lot of people want AP for language immersion for kids.

???? I know several people who have live-in nannies or housekeepers, but they pay a pretty penny and go through agencies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Matahari Women's Worker's Center. They lobbied for the bill (which in a large sense was needed) and pushed for eliminating the proposed exclusion for au pairs. As a group, they lobby on behalf of nannies, who will benefit from the loss of a more affordable (albeit quite different) childcare option.

I don't think any APs were involved in the push for inclusion in this bill.

Also note that the lawsuit was from one of the AP agencies for clarity from the AG that it didn't apply to APs. Other states have included specific riders that it didn't where MA had those proposed multiple times and pulled (see above).

I agree, but I think the baby was thrown out with the bathwater.

MA HM here. I agree completely. i am a huge fan of a higher min wage, but this was never meant to apply to APs. And PP is right that it was a home childcare worker advocacy group who pushed this --- it had nothing to do with helping APs and everything to do with killing the AP program to increase the wages and employment options of nannies.

Although that's not so awful. The AP program is much like the H-1B1 visa issue. Employers want the cheap foreign labor in lieu of employing Americans. Now if families want on demand childcare in MA then they have to pay a premium for it.

Please get over yourself. It's not "on demand" childcare. It's *flexible* childcare. We need early morning and late afternoon. We tried everything we could last year to go without an AP, but even offering $40 an hour, I could not get anyone reliable to do the hour-each-way drive to my son's special ed school, so we had to go back to the AP program. I would MUCH rather not have an AP -- we have been hosting 12 years and at this point pay way more for an AP than we need to since we don't need many hours -- but we cannot get anyone other than an AP to do the morning drive. No American wants to do 6:45-8:45 that involves 84 miles round-trip. Not even for $40 an hour. So please stop the drama with the "on demand" childcare claim.

Live-in childcare, driving your vehicle. Nanny, housekeeper, college kid...

Riiiight. It’s actually not that easy to find, and a lot of people want AP for language immersion for kids.

Not a lot, very few actually.

And yes, it is easy to find live in childcare, it is just not easy to find one as cheap as an AuPair.

[Anonymous]

Woah, sh!t is getting real in MA. Looks like families will owe APs backpay if you had one in MA from April 1, 2015 on through today.

So glad I live in Virginia and will be done with this program in July.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Woah, sh!t is getting real in MA. Looks like families will owe APs backpay if you had one in MA from April 1, 2015 on through today.

So glad I live in Virginia and will be done with this program in July.

Where you getting this from? And why april 1st?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Woah, sh!t is getting real in MA. Looks like families will owe APs backpay if you had one in MA from April 1, 2015 on through today.

So glad I live in Virginia and will be done with this program in July.

Where you getting this from? And why april 1st?

That’s the date in the lawsuit, right?

[Anonymous]

I don't even need split shift but have a heck of a time finding someone to work evenings from 3-7. I'd pay $25/hour but haven't had much luck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Woah, sh!t is getting real in MA. Looks like families will owe APs backpay if you had one in MA from April 1, 2015 on through today.

So glad I live in Virginia and will be done with this program in July.

I am a HF in Chicago. Equally concerned that the back pay could be enforced in jurisdictions outside of the first circuit eventually.
IL passed a DWBOR in 2016, though unclear if Au Pairs are exempted.
Would think that class actions would result from host families against agencies.
Pretty sure we will take a similar route and leave the program come august.
Too many question marks to continue digging a deeper hole, plus deal with the baggage some of our AP have put us through.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Matahari Women's Worker's Center. They lobbied for the bill (which in a large sense was needed) and pushed for eliminating the proposed exclusion for au pairs. As a group, they lobby on behalf of nannies, who will benefit from the loss of a more affordable (albeit quite different) childcare option.

I don't think any APs were involved in the push for inclusion in this bill.

Also note that the lawsuit was from one of the AP agencies for clarity from the AG that it didn't apply to APs. Other states have included specific riders that it didn't where MA had those proposed multiple times and pulled (see above).

I agree, but I think the baby was thrown out with the bathwater.

MA HM here. I agree completely. i am a huge fan of a higher min wage, but this was never meant to apply to APs. And PP is right that it was a home childcare worker advocacy group who pushed this --- it had nothing to do with helping APs and everything to do with killing the AP program to increase the wages and employment options of nannies.

Although that's not so awful. The AP program is much like the H-1B1 visa issue. Employers want the cheap foreign labor in lieu of employing Americans. Now if families want on demand childcare in MA then they have to pay a premium for it.

Please get over yourself. It's not "on demand" childcare. It's *flexible* childcare. We need early morning and late afternoon. We tried everything we could last year to go without an AP, but even offering $40 an hour, I could not get anyone reliable to do the hour-each-way drive to my son's special ed school, so we had to go back to the AP program. I would MUCH rather not have an AP -- we have been hosting 12 years and at this point pay way more for an AP than we need to since we don't need many hours -- but we cannot get anyone other than an AP to do the morning drive. No American wants to do 6:45-8:45 that involves 84 miles round-trip. Not even for $40 an hour. So please stop the drama with the "on demand" childcare claim.

Live-in childcare, driving your vehicle. Nanny, housekeeper, college kid...

Riiiight. It’s actually not that easy to find, and a lot of people want AP for language immersion for kids.

Not a lot, very few actually.

And yes, it is easy to find live in childcare, it is just not easy to find one as cheap as an AuPair.

Most of the families I know who have APs (including us) want specific language immersion that is unavailable in the local nanny market. We did look and advertise for a nanny who speaks the target language for full-time care. No takers in DC. Now, maybe DC is different than other places, but I suspect that there are other cities where language skills are also important.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Matahari Women's Worker's Center. They lobbied for the bill (which in a large sense was needed) and pushed for eliminating the proposed exclusion for au pairs. As a group, they lobby on behalf of nannies, who will benefit from the loss of a more affordable (albeit quite different) childcare option.

I don't think any APs were involved in the push for inclusion in this bill.

Also note that the lawsuit was from one of the AP agencies for clarity from the AG that it didn't apply to APs. Other states have included specific riders that it didn't where MA had those proposed multiple times and pulled (see above).

I agree, but I think the baby was thrown out with the bathwater.

MA HM here. I agree completely. i am a huge fan of a higher min wage, but this was never meant to apply to APs. And PP is right that it was a home childcare worker advocacy group who pushed this --- it had nothing to do with helping APs and everything to do with killing the AP program to increase the wages and employment options of nannies.

Although that's not so awful. The AP program is much like the H-1B1 visa issue. Employers want the cheap foreign labor in lieu of employing Americans. Now if families want on demand childcare in MA then they have to pay a premium for it.

Please get over yourself. It's not "on demand" childcare. It's *flexible* childcare. We need early morning and late afternoon. We tried everything we could last year to go without an AP, but even offering $40 an hour, I could not get anyone reliable to do the hour-each-way drive to my son's special ed school, so we had to go back to the AP program. I would MUCH rather not have an AP -- we have been hosting 12 years and at this point pay way more for an AP than we need to since we don't need many hours -- but we cannot get anyone other than an AP to do the morning drive. No American wants to do 6:45-8:45 that involves 84 miles round-trip. Not even for $40 an hour. So please stop the drama with the "on demand" childcare claim.

Live-in childcare, driving your vehicle. Nanny, housekeeper, college kid...

Riiiight. It’s actually not that easy to find, and a lot of people want AP for language immersion for kids.

Not a lot, very few actually.

And yes, it is easy to find live in childcare, it is just not easy to find one as cheap as an AuPair.

Au pairs/agencies make an exit plan possible (rematch). Other live in arrangements can end up being a nightmare to give them the boot, if necessary.

We have au pairs because it's guaranteed legal childcare for that first year or two with a clear contract. You have no way of knowing that your "legal" nanny is actually using their own SSN or a stolen one without running background checks or going through a nanny agency that supposedly checks.

The MA ruling also makes it unclear what the HF is responsible for (tax withholdings?) and how to properly document them. The agencies have no interest in providing that clarity because they're busy covering their own ass. Requiring HF to basically use a third party payroll service and other admin hassles (just like using a nanny) have eliminated some of the differences that make having an AP "easier."