Au Pair Social Activities - COVID 19

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Our LCC(!) organized a beach trip for 10 APs and suggested car pooling in 2-3 cars. I asked my AP to take only one AP in our car and it is one who we know and trust to have been relatively responsible. I also told the LCC that I thought she was probably putting HFs on the spot by suggesting this with out check with HFs first, and she subsequently sent a note saying they would be limiting it to two APs per car.

Wow this is crazy, what agency? was this part of the monthly activities? can't imagine what will possess the LCC to do this now...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Our LCC(!) organized a beach trip for 10 APs and suggested car pooling in 2-3 cars. I asked my AP to take only one AP in our car and it is one who we know and trust to have been relatively responsible. I also told the LCC that I thought she was probably putting HFs on the spot by suggesting this with out check with HFs first, and she subsequently sent a note saying they would be limiting it to two APs per car.

I am glad to see the LCC is talking the cultural exchange portion of the program seriously, if it becomes the indentured slavery some parents seek, the program will surely be killed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our LCC(!) organized a beach trip for 10 APs and suggested car pooling in 2-3 cars. I asked my AP to take only one AP in our car and it is one who we know and trust to have been relatively responsible. I also told the LCC that I thought she was probably putting HFs on the spot by suggesting this with out check with HFs first, and she subsequently sent a note saying they would be limiting it to two APs per car.

I am glad to see the LCC is talking the cultural exchange portion of the program seriously, if it becomes the indentured slavery some parents seek, the program will surely be killed.

The median age for new cases in Florida is 21, because young people feel immortal and invincible. But they aren’t, they’re getting sick; some are hospitalized and some are dying, all due to trips to improper social distancing.

This LCC is incredibly irresponsible and callous. They didn’t even check with the HF to find out if any have valid needs to continue quarantining (ie. doctor told them to do so!), and the initial response when HF threw a fit was to decrease passengers per car?! No way, everybody is in their own car, masks are worn at the beach, and if they feel they must talk on the way, a conference call (cells on the dash, plugged in) can do that just fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our LCC(!) organized a beach trip for 10 APs and suggested car pooling in 2-3 cars. I asked my AP to take only one AP in our car and it is one who we know and trust to have been relatively responsible. I also told the LCC that I thought she was probably putting HFs on the spot by suggesting this with out check with HFs first, and she subsequently sent a note saying they would be limiting it to two APs per car.

I am glad to see the LCC is talking the cultural exchange portion of the program seriously, if it becomes the indentured slavery some parents seek, the program will surely be killed.

The median age for new cases in Florida is 21, because young people feel immortal and invincible. But they aren’t, they’re getting sick; some are hospitalized and some are dying, all due to trips to improper social distancing.

This LCC is incredibly irresponsible and callous. They didn’t even check with the HF to find out if any have valid needs to continue quarantining (ie. doctor told them to do so!), and the initial response when HF threw a fit was to decrease passengers per car?! No way, everybody is in their own car, masks are worn at the beach, and if they feel they must talk on the way, a conference call (cells on the dash, plugged in) can do that just fine.

If HFs want to restrict freedom of movement of adult women, HFs must pay for the vacation (e.g., rent car, rent separate room).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our LCC(!) organized a beach trip for 10 APs and suggested car pooling in 2-3 cars. I asked my AP to take only one AP in our car and it is one who we know and trust to have been relatively responsible. I also told the LCC that I thought she was probably putting HFs on the spot by suggesting this with out check with HFs first, and she subsequently sent a note saying they would be limiting it to two APs per car.

I am glad to see the LCC is talking the cultural exchange portion of the program seriously, if it becomes the indentured slavery some parents seek, the program will surely be killed.

The median age for new cases in Florida is 21, because young people feel immortal and invincible. But they aren’t, they’re getting sick; some are hospitalized and some are dying, all due to trips to improper social distancing.

This LCC is incredibly irresponsible and callous. They didn’t even check with the HF to find out if any have valid needs to continue quarantining (ie. doctor told them to do so!), and the initial response when HF threw a fit was to decrease passengers per car?! No way, everybody is in their own car, masks are worn at the beach, and if they feel they must talk on the way, a conference call (cells on the dash, plugged in) can do that just fine.

If HFs want to restrict freedom of movement of adult women, HFs must pay for the vacation (e.g., rent car, rent separate room).

If the AP wants to leave HF she can. She's an adult! Living with other people requires accommodation and compromise on both sides esp at current moment. HF should go extra mile (renting car and room is nice as you suggest) but AP also has to be flexible. It's a crummy situation all around. But "restrict freedom of movement of adult women" is a silly way of talking. The adult women can leave the family if they choose. That's "freedom of movement."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our LCC(!) organized a beach trip for 10 APs and suggested car pooling in 2-3 cars. I asked my AP to take only one AP in our car and it is one who we know and trust to have been relatively responsible. I also told the LCC that I thought she was probably putting HFs on the spot by suggesting this with out check with HFs first, and she subsequently sent a note saying they would be limiting it to two APs per car.

I am glad to see the LCC is talking the cultural exchange portion of the program seriously, if it becomes the indentured slavery some parents seek, the program will surely be killed.

The median age for new cases in Florida is 21, because young people feel immortal and invincible. But they aren’t, they’re getting sick; some are hospitalized and some are dying, all due to trips to improper social distancing.

This LCC is incredibly irresponsible and callous. They didn’t even check with the HF to find out if any have valid needs to continue quarantining (ie. doctor told them to do so!), and the initial response when HF threw a fit was to decrease passengers per car?! No way, everybody is in their own car, masks are worn at the beach, and if they feel they must talk on the way, a conference call (cells on the dash, plugged in) can do that just fine.

If HFs want to restrict freedom of movement of adult women, HFs must pay for the vacation (e.g., rent car, rent separate room).

If the AP wants to leave HF she can. She's an adult! Living with other people requires accommodation and compromise on both sides esp at current moment. HF should go extra mile (renting car and room is nice as you suggest) but AP also has to be flexible. It's a crummy situation all around. But "restrict freedom of movement of adult women" is a silly way of talking. The adult women can leave the family if they choose. That's "freedom of movement."

+1 it is funny how some nannies keep posting here to make HFs look unreasonable, go to the nanny forum and there discussions about the same issues: Families complaining that their nannies are not social distancing or nannies complaining that their family is not social distancing. It is not about restricting movement of adult women, it is about risk tolerance and everyone is different regardless if your are HF, AP, nanny or MB. If it is not a good match everyone is free to get out of it!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our LCC(!) organized a beach trip for 10 APs and suggested car pooling in 2-3 cars. I asked my AP to take only one AP in our car and it is one who we know and trust to have been relatively responsible. I also told the LCC that I thought she was probably putting HFs on the spot by suggesting this with out check with HFs first, and she subsequently sent a note saying they would be limiting it to two APs per car.

I am glad to see the LCC is talking the cultural exchange portion of the program seriously, if it becomes the indentured slavery some parents seek, the program will surely be killed.

The median age for new cases in Florida is 21, because young people feel immortal and invincible. But they aren’t, they’re getting sick; some are hospitalized and some are dying, all due to trips to improper social distancing.

This LCC is incredibly irresponsible and callous. They didn’t even check with the HF to find out if any have valid needs to continue quarantining (ie. doctor told them to do so!), and the initial response when HF threw a fit was to decrease passengers per car?! No way, everybody is in their own car, masks are worn at the beach, and if they feel they must talk on the way, a conference call (cells on the dash, plugged in) can do that just fine.

If HFs want to restrict freedom of movement of adult women, HFs must pay for the vacation (e.g., rent car, rent separate room).

If the AP wants to leave HF she can. She's an adult! Living with other people requires accommodation and compromise on both sides esp at current moment. HF should go extra mile (renting car and room is nice as you suggest) but AP also has to be flexible. It's a crummy situation all around. But "restrict freedom of movement of adult women" is a silly way of talking. The adult women can leave the family if they choose. That's "freedom of movement."

+1 it is funny how some nannies keep posting here to make HFs look unreasonable, go to the nanny forum and there discussions about the same issues: Families complaining that their nannies are not social distancing or nannies complaining that their family is not social distancing. It is not about restricting movement of adult women, it is about risk tolerance and everyone is different regardless if your are HF, AP, nanny or MB. If it is not a good match everyone is free to get out of it!

8.29 here. It’s not about nanny vs AP vs HF. I’m a nanny who strongly believes that the reason the US leads the world in cases and deaths is because we didn’t close down strong enough and we started reopening too fast. Add in young people who believe that fun trumps health? And it’s just going to get worse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our LCC(!) organized a beach trip for 10 APs and suggested car pooling in 2-3 cars. I asked my AP to take only one AP in our car and it is one who we know and trust to have been relatively responsible. I also told the LCC that I thought she was probably putting HFs on the spot by suggesting this with out check with HFs first, and she subsequently sent a note saying they would be limiting it to two APs per car.

I am glad to see the LCC is talking the cultural exchange portion of the program seriously, if it becomes the indentured slavery some parents seek, the program will surely be killed.

The median age for new cases in Florida is 21, because young people feel immortal and invincible. But they aren’t, they’re getting sick; some are hospitalized and some are dying, all due to trips to improper social distancing.

This LCC is incredibly irresponsible and callous. They didn’t even check with the HF to find out if any have valid needs to continue quarantining (ie. doctor told them to do so!), and the initial response when HF threw a fit was to decrease passengers per car?! No way, everybody is in their own car, masks are worn at the beach, and if they feel they must talk on the way, a conference call (cells on the dash, plugged in) can do that just fine.

If HFs want to restrict freedom of movement of adult women, HFs must pay for the vacation (e.g., rent car, rent separate room).

If the AP wants to leave HF she can. She's an adult! Living with other people requires accommodation and compromise on both sides esp at current moment. HF should go extra mile (renting car and room is nice as you suggest) but AP also has to be flexible. It's a crummy situation all around. But "restrict freedom of movement of adult women" is a silly way of talking. The adult women can leave the family if they choose. That's "freedom of movement."

+1 it is funny how some nannies keep posting here to make HFs look unreasonable, go to the nanny forum and there discussions about the same issues: Families complaining that their nannies are not social distancing or nannies complaining that their family is not social distancing. It is not about restricting movement of adult women, it is about risk tolerance and everyone is different regardless if your are HF, AP, nanny or MB. If it is not a good match everyone is free to get out of it!

8.29 here. It’s not about nanny vs AP vs HF. I’m a nanny who strongly believes that the reason the US leads the world in cases and deaths is because we didn’t close down strong enough and we started reopening too fast. Add in young people who believe that fun trumps health? And it’s just going to get worse.

PP here, I think we are saying the same thing. My point is that, it is totally reasonable for a HF to ask their AP to follow certains rules re COVID even if the government is saying the opposite. This doesn't mean you are treating your AP as a slave contrary to what a few nannies have been saying on this forum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our LCC(!) organized a beach trip for 10 APs and suggested car pooling in 2-3 cars. I asked my AP to take only one AP in our car and it is one who we know and trust to have been relatively responsible. I also told the LCC that I thought she was probably putting HFs on the spot by suggesting this with out check with HFs first, and she subsequently sent a note saying they would be limiting it to two APs per car.

I am glad to see the LCC is talking the cultural exchange portion of the program seriously, if it becomes the indentured slavery some parents seek, the program will surely be killed.

The median age for new cases in Florida is 21, because young people feel immortal and invincible. But they aren’t, they’re getting sick; some are hospitalized and some are dying, all due to trips to improper social distancing.

This LCC is incredibly irresponsible and callous. They didn’t even check with the HF to find out if any have valid needs to continue quarantining (ie. doctor told them to do so!), and the initial response when HF threw a fit was to decrease passengers per car?! No way, everybody is in their own car, masks are worn at the beach, and if they feel they must talk on the way, a conference call (cells on the dash, plugged in) can do that just fine.

If HFs want to restrict freedom of movement of adult women, HFs must pay for the vacation (e.g., rent car, rent separate room).

If the AP wants to leave HF she can. She's an adult! Living with other people requires accommodation and compromise on both sides esp at current moment. HF should go extra mile (renting car and room is nice as you suggest) but AP also has to be flexible. It's a crummy situation all around. But "restrict freedom of movement of adult women" is a silly way of talking. The adult women can leave the family if they choose. That's "freedom of movement."

+1 it is funny how some nannies keep posting here to make HFs look unreasonable, go to the nanny forum and there discussions about the same issues: Families complaining that their nannies are not social distancing or nannies complaining that their family is not social distancing. It is not about restricting movement of adult women, it is about risk tolerance and everyone is different regardless if your are HF, AP, nanny or MB. If it is not a good match everyone is free to get out of it!

There are 7 families looking for every au pair in rematch, hopefully, she can move on to a calmer, healthier environment. You cannot force an AP to take their vacation in your home, if it is legal for her to leave it. That is the definition of indentured servitude.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our LCC(!) organized a beach trip for 10 APs and suggested car pooling in 2-3 cars. I asked my AP to take only one AP in our car and it is one who we know and trust to have been relatively responsible. I also told the LCC that I thought she was probably putting HFs on the spot by suggesting this with out check with HFs first, and she subsequently sent a note saying they would be limiting it to two APs per car.

I am glad to see the LCC is talking the cultural exchange portion of the program seriously, if it becomes the indentured slavery some parents seek, the program will surely be killed.

The median age for new cases in Florida is 21, because young people feel immortal and invincible. But they aren’t, they’re getting sick; some are hospitalized and some are dying, all due to trips to improper social distancing.

This LCC is incredibly irresponsible and callous. They didn’t even check with the HF to find out if any have valid needs to continue quarantining (ie. doctor told them to do so!), and the initial response when HF threw a fit was to decrease passengers per car?! No way, everybody is in their own car, masks are worn at the beach, and if they feel they must talk on the way, a conference call (cells on the dash, plugged in) can do that just fine.

If HFs want to restrict freedom of movement of adult women, HFs must pay for the vacation (e.g., rent car, rent separate room).

If the AP wants to leave HF she can. She's an adult! Living with other people requires accommodation and compromise on both sides esp at current moment. HF should go extra mile (renting car and room is nice as you suggest) but AP also has to be flexible. It's a crummy situation all around. But "restrict freedom of movement of adult women" is a silly way of talking. The adult women can leave the family if they choose. That's "freedom of movement."

+1 it is funny how some nannies keep posting here to make HFs look unreasonable, go to the nanny forum and there discussions about the same issues: Families complaining that their nannies are not social distancing or nannies complaining that their family is not social distancing. It is not about restricting movement of adult women, it is about risk tolerance and everyone is different regardless if your are HF, AP, nanny or MB. If it is not a good match everyone is free to get out of it!

There are 7 families looking for every au pair in rematch, hopefully, she can move on to a calmer, healthier environment. You cannot force an AP to take their vacation in your home, if it is legal for her to leave it. That is the definition of indentured servitude.

Where are you getting vacation? You raised that earlier (assuming your the pp who was talking about hotel rooms) but that's not really the question here--the question involved in-town social activities. It's really weird and offensive that you assume all au pairs prefer risky activities and all HFs are neurotic. Our AP is more risk averse than we are--she's a mature young woman with asthma who works in the health care industry in her home country and "gets it" and I can assure you she would not take kindly to the OP's LCC's suggestion. I know you're trying defend au pairs but you're actually being profoundly condescending.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our LCC(!) organized a beach trip for 10 APs and suggested car pooling in 2-3 cars. I asked my AP to take only one AP in our car and it is one who we know and trust to have been relatively responsible. I also told the LCC that I thought she was probably putting HFs on the spot by suggesting this with out check with HFs first, and she subsequently sent a note saying they would be limiting it to two APs per car.

I am glad to see the LCC is talking the cultural exchange portion of the program seriously, if it becomes the indentured slavery some parents seek, the program will surely be killed.

The median age for new cases in Florida is 21, because young people feel immortal and invincible. But they aren’t, they’re getting sick; some are hospitalized and some are dying, all due to trips to improper social distancing.

This LCC is incredibly irresponsible and callous. They didn’t even check with the HF to find out if any have valid needs to continue quarantining (ie. doctor told them to do so!), and the initial response when HF threw a fit was to decrease passengers per car?! No way, everybody is in their own car, masks are worn at the beach, and if they feel they must talk on the way, a conference call (cells on the dash, plugged in) can do that just fine.

If HFs want to restrict freedom of movement of adult women, HFs must pay for the vacation (e.g., rent car, rent separate room).

If the AP wants to leave HF she can. She's an adult! Living with other people requires accommodation and compromise on both sides esp at current moment. HF should go extra mile (renting car and room is nice as you suggest) but AP also has to be flexible. It's a crummy situation all around. But "restrict freedom of movement of adult women" is a silly way of talking. The adult women can leave the family if they choose. That's "freedom of movement."

+1 it is funny how some nannies keep posting here to make HFs look unreasonable, go to the nanny forum and there discussions about the same issues: Families complaining that their nannies are not social distancing or nannies complaining that their family is not social distancing. It is not about restricting movement of adult women, it is about risk tolerance and everyone is different regardless if your are HF, AP, nanny or MB. If it is not a good match everyone is free to get out of it!

There are 7 families looking for every au pair in rematch, hopefully, she can move on to a calmer, healthier environment. You cannot force an AP to take their vacation in your home, if it is legal for her to leave it. That is the definition of indentured servitude.

Where are you getting vacation? You raised that earlier (assuming your the pp who was talking about hotel rooms) but that's not really the question here--the question involved in-town social activities. It's really weird and offensive that you assume all au pairs prefer risky activities and all HFs are neurotic. Our AP is more risk averse than we are--she's a mature young woman with asthma who works in the health care industry in her home country and "gets it" and I can assure you she would not take kindly to the OP's LCC's suggestion. I know you're trying defend au pairs but you're actually being profoundly condescending.

I don't know, you sound super-patronizing... maybe you you should check your privilege? The question was about going on a beach-trip, which I assumed was a vacation. However, the same would be true of a weekend - which is time off. HFs cannot legally restrict the movements of their APs on their off-time - if they are engaging in legal activities. HFs cannot stop APs from traveling. They are free to rematch over this -and then we will not have an AP at all, in most cases given the demand. We have a very mature AP who "gets it" and takes reasonable precautions. However, because we also "get it" re labor/trafficking laws, we are appalled by HFs who essentially are saying you cannot leave our homes, we give zero effs about the "cultural exchange," and you cannot take accrued vacation time if it means leaving our homes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our LCC(!) organized a beach trip for 10 APs and suggested car pooling in 2-3 cars. I asked my AP to take only one AP in our car and it is one who we know and trust to have been relatively responsible. I also told the LCC that I thought she was probably putting HFs on the spot by suggesting this with out check with HFs first, and she subsequently sent a note saying they would be limiting it to two APs per car.

I am glad to see the LCC is talking the cultural exchange portion of the program seriously, if it becomes the indentured slavery some parents seek, the program will surely be killed.

The median age for new cases in Florida is 21, because young people feel immortal and invincible. But they aren’t, they’re getting sick; some are hospitalized and some are dying, all due to trips to improper social distancing.

This LCC is incredibly irresponsible and callous. They didn’t even check with the HF to find out if any have valid needs to continue quarantining (ie. doctor told them to do so!), and the initial response when HF threw a fit was to decrease passengers per car?! No way, everybody is in their own car, masks are worn at the beach, and if they feel they must talk on the way, a conference call (cells on the dash, plugged in) can do that just fine.

If HFs want to restrict freedom of movement of adult women, HFs must pay for the vacation (e.g., rent car, rent separate room).

If the AP wants to leave HF she can. She's an adult! Living with other people requires accommodation and compromise on both sides esp at current moment. HF should go extra mile (renting car and room is nice as you suggest) but AP also has to be flexible. It's a crummy situation all around. But "restrict freedom of movement of adult women" is a silly way of talking. The adult women can leave the family if they choose. That's "freedom of movement."

+1 it is funny how some nannies keep posting here to make HFs look unreasonable, go to the nanny forum and there discussions about the same issues: Families complaining that their nannies are not social distancing or nannies complaining that their family is not social distancing. It is not about restricting movement of adult women, it is about risk tolerance and everyone is different regardless if your are HF, AP, nanny or MB. If it is not a good match everyone is free to get out of it!

There are 7 families looking for every au pair in rematch, hopefully, she can move on to a calmer, healthier environment. You cannot force an AP to take their vacation in your home, if it is legal for her to leave it. That is the definition of indentured servitude.

Where are you getting vacation? You raised that earlier (assuming your the pp who was talking about hotel rooms) but that's not really the question here--the question involved in-town social activities. It's really weird and offensive that you assume all au pairs prefer risky activities and all HFs are neurotic. Our AP is more risk averse than we are--she's a mature young woman with asthma who works in the health care industry in her home country and "gets it" and I can assure you she would not take kindly to the OP's LCC's suggestion. I know you're trying defend au pairs but you're actually being profoundly condescending.

I don't know, you sound super-patronizing... maybe you you should check your privilege? The question was about going on a beach-trip, which I assumed was a vacation. However, the same would be true of a weekend - which is time off. HFs cannot legally restrict the movements of their APs on their off-time - if they are engaging in legal activities. HFs cannot stop APs from traveling. They are free to rematch over this -and then we will not have an AP at all, in most cases given the demand. We have a very mature AP who "gets it" and takes reasonable precautions. However, because we also "get it" re labor/trafficking laws, we are appalled by HFs who essentially are saying you cannot leave our homes, we give zero effs about the "cultural exchange," and you cannot take accrued vacation time if it means leaving our homes.

This is offensive. If you actually knew the first thing about human trafficking you would not be throwing this accusation around so cavalierly.

Early in the pandemic I told our AP I'd personally buy her a ticket home any time she wanted so that she didn't feel stuck here. She was grateful for the gesture but prefers to finish her year with us--in part because (wait for it!) we are being careful about COVID!

As noted, even in situations where the HF didn't offer a ticket home, APs who wish to leave their families now have the ability to do so in a heartbeat due to demand.

There is simply no reason for HFs and APs to live together if they can't come to a reasonable agreement re COVID risk. The AP program is not merely an employment program; it involves living with a family. Sharing living space in a pandemic means that both parties need to be comfortable with the other's actions.

Stop throwing around terms--trafficking--that you don't understand. It detracts from the seriousness of that crime and in the long term undermines the fight against it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My daughter has asthma. We have been taking social distancing very seriously (no camps, social distancing, etc)..

We ask our au pair to limit social Interactions to outside based activities - not to ride in the car with anyone else, not to go inside people’s houses, etc.

We know that she may get tired of this and rematch at some point, which would be really tough, but I can’t put my family at risk because we were worried about Losing childcare.

Maybe it’s your AP, who has been hanging out at our house every weekend since the beginning of the pandemic. Please know that you cannot control your APs. If I were you, I would let the AP go and take care of my children myself.

Guessing from the last line, I'd bet money it's the "no playdates" poster from another ridiculous thread, or her soulmate. OP, you're right to be concerned about this. Multi hour car ride with three other people is about as high risk as it gets. Can you lend her a car to drive separately or give her money to rent one or make some comparable good faith effort to solve the problem while also acknowledging what a crummy situation this is for her?

I am glad you did not bet because I am not the "no playdates" poster. I am actually someone who has loved the program for many years and I am a big proponent of "my house my rules." But this time, it's different. It's not about whether your AP ignored your rules and now you have the inconvenience of sitting down with her to have a reset conversation. If you are a risk group, this could a matter of life and death. All I was trying to say is that this is not the time for "What you don't know won't hurt you." It may. We learned after the fact that our AP's friends have been lying to their HFs about spending time at our house. Now, we are very careful, etc... But let this be a warning to all HFs who think that their APs are only spending time outdoors, wearing masks, and socially distancing from their friends. They may do this, but they also may not. And you won't know. If you are willing to take this risk, that's fine. If anyone in my family had compromised health, I would not want to take any risks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My daughter has asthma. We have been taking social distancing very seriously (no camps, social distancing, etc)..

We ask our au pair to limit social Interactions to outside based activities - not to ride in the car with anyone else, not to go inside people’s houses, etc.

We know that she may get tired of this and rematch at some point, which would be really tough, but I can’t put my family at risk because we were worried about Losing childcare.

Maybe it’s your AP, who has been hanging out at our house every weekend since the beginning of the pandemic. Please know that you cannot control your APs. If I were you, I would let the AP go and take care of my children myself.

Guessing from the last line, I'd bet money it's the "no playdates" poster from another ridiculous thread, or her soulmate. OP, you're right to be concerned about this. Multi hour car ride with three other people is about as high risk as it gets. Can you lend her a car to drive separately or give her money to rent one or make some comparable good faith effort to solve the problem while also acknowledging what a crummy situation this is for her?

I am glad you did not bet because I am not the "no playdates" poster. I am actually someone who has loved the program for many years and I am a big proponent of "my house my rules." But this time, it's different. It's not about whether your AP ignored your rules and now you have the inconvenience of sitting down with her to have a reset conversation. If you are a risk group, this could a matter of life and death. All I was trying to say is that this is not the time for "What you don't know won't hurt you." It may. We learned after the fact that our AP's friends have been lying to their HFs about spending time at our house. Now, we are very careful, etc... But let this be a warning to all HFs who think that their APs are only spending time outdoors, wearing masks, and socially distancing from their friends. They may do this, but they also may not. And you won't know. If you are willing to take this risk, that's fine. If anyone in my family had compromised health, I would not want to take any risks.

HA, I am the PP who made the obnoxious remark about betting money. I totally misread what you were saying, and I'm sorry. I agree with what you are saying. This all comes down to risk tolerance and a lot of bad choices, but you are right...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Our LCC(!) organized a beach trip for 10 APs and suggested car pooling in 2-3 cars. I asked my AP to take only one AP in our car and it is one who we know and trust to have been relatively responsible. I also told the LCC that I thought she was probably putting HFs on the spot by suggesting this with out check with HFs first, and she subsequently sent a note saying they would be limiting it to two APs per car.

I am glad to see the LCC is talking the cultural exchange portion of the program seriously, if it becomes the indentured slavery some parents seek, the program will surely be killed.

The median age for new cases in Florida is 21, because young people feel immortal and invincible. But they aren’t, they’re getting sick; some are hospitalized and some are dying, all due to trips to improper social distancing.

This LCC is incredibly irresponsible and callous. They didn’t even check with the HF to find out if any have valid needs to continue quarantining (ie. doctor told them to do so!), and the initial response when HF threw a fit was to decrease passengers per car?! No way, everybody is in their own car, masks are worn at the beach, and if they feel they must talk on the way, a conference call (cells on the dash, plugged in) can do that just fine.

If HFs want to restrict freedom of movement of adult women, HFs must pay for the vacation (e.g., rent car, rent separate room).

If the AP wants to leave HF she can. She's an adult! Living with other people requires accommodation and compromise on both sides esp at current moment. HF should go extra mile (renting car and room is nice as you suggest) but AP also has to be flexible. It's a crummy situation all around. But "restrict freedom of movement of adult women" is a silly way of talking. The adult women can leave the family if they choose. That's "freedom of movement."

+1 it is funny how some nannies keep posting here to make HFs look unreasonable, go to the nanny forum and there discussions about the same issues: Families complaining that their nannies are not social distancing or nannies complaining that their family is not social distancing. It is not about restricting movement of adult women, it is about risk tolerance and everyone is different regardless if your are HF, AP, nanny or MB. If it is not a good match everyone is free to get out of it!

There are 7 families looking for every au pair in rematch, hopefully, she can move on to a calmer, healthier environment. You cannot force an AP to take their vacation in your home, if it is legal for her to leave it. That is the definition of indentured servitude.

Where are you getting vacation? You raised that earlier (assuming your the pp who was talking about hotel rooms) but that's not really the question here--the question involved in-town social activities. It's really weird and offensive that you assume all au pairs prefer risky activities and all HFs are neurotic. Our AP is more risk averse than we are--she's a mature young woman with asthma who works in the health care industry in her home country and "gets it" and I can assure you she would not take kindly to the OP's LCC's suggestion. I know you're trying defend au pairs but you're actually being profoundly condescending.

I don't know, you sound super-patronizing... maybe you you should check your privilege? The question was about going on a beach-trip, which I assumed was a vacation. However, the same would be true of a weekend - which is time off. HFs cannot legally restrict the movements of their APs on their off-time - if they are engaging in legal activities. HFs cannot stop APs from traveling. They are free to rematch over this -and then we will not have an AP at all, in most cases given the demand. We have a very mature AP who "gets it" and takes reasonable precautions. However, because we also "get it" re labor/trafficking laws, we are appalled by HFs who essentially are saying you cannot leave our homes, we give zero effs about the "cultural exchange," and you cannot take accrued vacation time if it means leaving our homes.

This is offensive. If you actually knew the first thing about human trafficking you would not be throwing this accusation around so cavalierly.

Early in the pandemic I told our AP I'd personally buy her a ticket home any time she wanted so that she didn't feel stuck here. She was grateful for the gesture but prefers to finish her year with us--in part because (wait for it!) we are being careful about COVID!

As noted, even in situations where the HF didn't offer a ticket home, APs who wish to leave their families now have the ability to do so in a heartbeat due to demand.

There is simply no reason for HFs and APs to live together if they can't come to a reasonable agreement re COVID risk. The AP program is not merely an employment program; it involves living with a family. Sharing living space in a pandemic means that both parties need to be comfortable with the other's actions.

Stop throwing around terms--trafficking--that you don't understand. It detracts from the seriousness of that crime and in the long term undermines the fight against it.

I am pretty sure you don't know the definition of trafficked, either. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trafficking-aupairs/foreign-students-recruited-as-au-pairs-face-abuse-in-us-report-idUSKCN1L60B8#:~:text=The%20National%20Human%20Trafficking%20Hotline,into%20commercial%20sex%2C%20it%20said. There are indeed au pairs who are trafficked as domestic workers - not allowed freedom of movement - not paid expenses, etc. Stop ignoring the real seriousness of the multiple crimes comprising trafficking, which can indeed apply to au pairs- your ignorance undermines the fight against trafficking. The AP program is also NOT an employment program. It is a cultural exchange. Participating in a cultural exchange does not mean you can chain your AP in the basement because of COVID.