The rule, as far as I understand it, is that a host parent has to HOUSE a rematch au pair for two weeks. They are not necessarily required to go home if they haven't found a match after two weeks. I know many au pairs who have stayed with friends or other host parents after their two week period was up. This seems like a reasonable rule to me, as a host parent. Having gone through a rematch, it's incredibly difficult for all parties to live with each other after having decided not to. It's awkward for the au pair and the host parents, painful for the kids, a challenge if the host parents are matching with a new au pair (where to put both au pairs in the house if there is overlap?), etc. It just doesn't make sense to require host parents to provide free housing to an au pair who has either decided to go into rematch or who the host parents have decided is unsafe or a bad fit for their family for an extended period of time until the au pair herself decides to match. There are some LCCs that will take an au pair, but that's too much to ask LCCs too, particularly ones that have dozens of au pairs in the clusters. The agencies could put the au pairs up in hotels or something, but when should be the limit of time? That's the question really. What would you think is fair? And where should the au pair live in the meantime? |
APs can usually find places to stay. Why can't they have more than 2 weeks to find themselves a new family. Most LCCs don't have time to help them with much of anything. |
If the State Department is unable to enforce any rules, that explains the wild west abuse. |
Op, if you are a nanny being taken advantage of, go to network news and report your situation. I'm sure they would be interested. Np here, and mb. I have seen too many nasty moms who try to take advantage of ap's naivete. Gl. |
My AP seems pretty happy. She said that it's easier than a job in her home country where she works long hours for little pay or protection. We have 1 kid. Consistent schedule. All weekends off. We give her a car, laptop, phone, money on her metro card, education stipend, all fed holidays off plus 2 week vacation, 3 meals a day, private room and bathroom. She has no reoccurring expenses and can spend her money / free time on whatever she wants. She uses it to travel, party,or shop for clothes and makeup.
She is free to come and go as she pleases. It's all her choice. We treat her like a family member. She is excited to live in America, learn and try new things. I think some host families may abuse, but not all. OP may have had a bad experience. But not everyone does... |
I am baffled as to how anyone things the au pair program is cheap childcare? It is not cheap. We make $110,000 which is not a lot for this area I know but we cannot afford an au pair. The weekly fee to the au pair, sure, but the agency fees, travel costs, car costs, cell phone etc, all add up and make it unaffordable for us.
The advantage I see is that you can flex the hours more with an au pair than you can with a Nanny. |
The program might be expensive, but the cut the APs actually get is quite shameful. If you look at the bare minimum they are to receive, you'd have a hell of a time finding a live-in nanny, even an inexperienced one for that rate. |
Why are we bringing up a year old thread? |
Because the question is legitimate. 45 hours a week, no OT, lowest minimum Wage in DC area. It is, in my opinion, a form of modern indentured servitude and program should be scrapped or highest local minimum wage should be Paid and OT for the five hours over 40. Judging by the host moms who post, more than a few take advantage of APs. The US State Dept. should not be concerned with providing childcare, at any price, for Americans. Aug pairs are 59% cheaper than hiring a nanny. |
Live-in nannies don't get OT in most states either... |
Live in nannies also get paid considerably more than minimum wage and are, supposed to be at any rate, paid straight time for all hours worked. |
The Au Pair program is literally the definition of indentured servitude. The APs work for shit wages in exchange for entrance into the country. Look at the host parents constantly screeching that they and they're kids should be AP's priority, while they seek out every way to get around their end of the cultural exchange deal. "Do we have to bring her on vacation?" "Does she have to eat dinner with the rest of us?" "Can I limit her food intake?" "Can I refuse to provide transportation for leisure time and strand her at my house so she's available at my beck and call?" "How much housework can we make her do under the guise of being part of the family???" It's disgusting. |
This is 100% right. And screeching is the right word to. Ouch! |
This thread never gets old for you, does it trolly poster? |
#5 is hilarious.
Straightening kids' room OK, vacuuming not OK. The specialized "kids vacuuming employee" should take care of all kids room vacuuming, got it. |