Common Items Provided By Host Families vs. Perks

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When will the legal case be completed?

I thought I read that it settled a few weeks ago.

If it was settled all of the companies would have emailed immediately to tell host families wouldn’t they?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We pay $250/wk and she has a separate credit card she uses for all child expenses. I allow her to also use that for all her personal gas. She has a dedicated car as well. We invite her out to dinner when we go (she usually doesnt go, she has a social life) and take her on our vacations of she wants (most of them prefer to only go 50% of the time if it is somewhere "cool") we also go skiing in Utah every winter, but DO NOT pay for lift tix or rentals, just flight and hotel. We also give her off when we are off, so all fed holidays. Vacation totals 2 weeks in summer, 10 days Christmas, and a week at spring break. Our current AP is back in Germany with her family this Christmas.

Indomt think our package is that amazing, but also not bare bones. We have known APs who have incredible set ups, including a nanny for the younger kid and a live in housekeeper/cook.

You don't think $250/week plus gas, food and vacations ...PLUS 5 weeks paid vacation is amazing? Seriously, this program is out of control.

Exactly! And this is the fault of the families that started to sweeten the pot by offering more than the statutory stipend. The other stuff (living quarters, car access, vacation time) can be variable without ruining it for all the HFs. But once they started bidding up the stipend, the whole program becomes a free for all.

Why don’t we price fix you and your spouse’s salary too then? So we don’t ruin it for all employers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When will the legal case be completed?

I thought I read that it settled a few weeks ago.

If it was settled all of the companies would have emailed immediately to tell host families wouldn’t they?

Probably because they reached a settlement but haven’t handled any objectors. Law360 reported the CO case settled. But I thought there was a MA case as well.

[Anonymous]

It won’t be long before the privileged HFs compete with one another, and their perceived “special” status with mega bonuses, weeks of vacation, monthly trips to Disney world, ski chalet weekends, daily caviar appetizers, dedicated luxury cars, rooms, apartments, etc, disappears. In the end, you still end up with an ungrateful young adult who thinks your kids are spoiled brats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It won’t be long before the privileged HFs compete with one another, and their perceived “special” status with mega bonuses, weeks of vacation, monthly trips to Disney world, ski chalet weekends, daily caviar appetizers, dedicated luxury cars, rooms, apartments, etc, disappears. In the end, you still end up with an ungrateful young adult who thinks your kids are spoiled brats.

You sound both bitter and dim witted. In a good economy employers compete for good hires. HFs are also employers. No reason to demonize anyone.

[Anonymous]

Whomever posts the same condescending blabber all day long has too much time on her own dim-witted hands.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It won’t be long before the privileged HFs compete with one another, and their perceived “special” status with mega bonuses, weeks of vacation, monthly trips to Disney world, ski chalet weekends, daily caviar appetizers, dedicated luxury cars, rooms, apartments, etc, disappears. In the end, you still end up with an ungrateful young adult who thinks your kids are spoiled brats.

You sound both bitter and dim witted. In a good economy employers compete for good hires. HFs are also employers. No reason to demonize anyone.

I wish you luck as you raise your own household of mini-Trumps. May the richest one be most favored by their parent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It won’t be long before the privileged HFs compete with one another, and their perceived “special” status with mega bonuses, weeks of vacation, monthly trips to Disney world, ski chalet weekends, daily caviar appetizers, dedicated luxury cars, rooms, apartments, etc, disappears. In the end, you still end up with an ungrateful young adult who thinks your kids are spoiled brats.

You sound both bitter and dim witted. In a good economy employers compete for good hires. HFs are also employers. No reason to demonize anyone.

I wish you luck as you raise your own household of mini-Trumps. May the richest one be most favored by their parent.

Are you disputing here that au pairs are employees?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Whomever posts the same condescending blabber all day long has too much time on her own dim-witted hands.

It’s not just one person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When will the legal case be completed?

I thought I read that it settled a few weeks ago.

If it was settled all of the companies would have emailed immediately to tell host families wouldn’t they?

Probably because they reached a settlement but haven’t handled any objectors. Law360 reported the CO case settled. But I thought there was a MA case as well.

Yes that’s where I read it. It doesn’t look like they’ve filed for preliminary approval yet so the terms aren’t disclosed. Curious though why they would email the host families...it’s very likely a purely monetary settlement that the companies will pay to the certified class. The host families aren’t impacted by that.

[Anonymous]

Won’t the lawsuit give more protections to APs? That sounds like something to email families about. And possibly higher earnings for them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Won’t the lawsuit give more protections to APs? That sounds like something to email families about. And possibly higher earnings for them?

Nope. It would be a confidential settlement with payout to those party to the suit. Not changes to program for future participants. Supreme court has recently ruled that forced arbitration is A-Ok. Expect to see more arbitration clauses, no systemic changes in program.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Won’t the lawsuit give more protections to APs? That sounds like something to email families about. And possibly higher earnings for them?

Nope. It would be a confidential settlement with payout to those party to the suit. Not changes to program for future participants. Supreme court has recently ruled that forced arbitration is A-Ok. Expect to see more arbitration clauses, no systemic changes in program.

The settlement itself should be public because there is a class and they are entitled to know the terms and decide whether to object, opt out or stay in. But as for the terms, I’d expect just money; that’s usually how these things shake out because they have to be acceptable to both sides. A settlement is not a finding of liability or even an admission of liability. It’s an admission that both sides think their position has merit AND weaknesses and they’ve decided to find common ground rather than continue to litigate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Won’t the lawsuit give more protections to APs? That sounds like something to email families about. And possibly higher earnings for them?

Nope. It would be a confidential settlement with payout to those party to the suit. Not changes to program for future participants. Supreme court has recently ruled that forced arbitration is A-Ok. Expect to see more arbitration clauses, no systemic changes in program.

The settlement itself should be public because there is a class and they are entitled to know the terms and decide whether to object, opt out or stay in. But as for the terms, I’d expect just money; that’s usually how these things shake out because they have to be acceptable to both sides. A settlement is not a finding of liability or even an admission of liability. It’s an admission that both sides think their position has merit AND weaknesses and they’ve decided to find common ground rather than continue to litigate.

But don’t think they MUST have reached some sort of injunctive relief? After all the entire class turns over every 2 years...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Won’t the lawsuit give more protections to APs? That sounds like something to email families about. And possibly higher earnings for them?

Nope. It would be a confidential settlement with payout to those party to the suit. Not changes to program for future participants. Supreme court has recently ruled that forced arbitration is A-Ok. Expect to see more arbitration clauses, no systemic changes in program.

The settlement itself should be public because there is a class and they are entitled to know the terms and decide whether to object, opt out or stay in. But as for the terms, I’d expect just money; that’s usually how these things shake out because they have to be acceptable to both sides. A settlement is not a finding of liability or even an admission of liability. It’s an admission that both sides think their position has merit AND weaknesses and they’ve decided to find common ground rather than continue to litigate.

But don’t think they MUST have reached some sort of injunctive relief? After all the entire class turns over every 2 years...

Ha. No. They reached a settlement without admitting liability. They’re paying off the class - what injunctive relief?