Proposed DC legislation re: domestic workers

[Anonymous]

Here is my email, in case anyone needs ideas. Cannibalized from the email that just came out from CC and earlier posts to this thread.

Hello Council members,

I am writing in regards to proposed legislation regarding domestic workers in the district. I understand the D.C. Council is currently reviewing proposed legislation that would add domestic workers to the D.C. Human Rights Act protections. I am requesting that the federal au pair program be explicitly exempted from the Domestic Workers Protection Act, as has been done in states like New York.

Au pairs are here on a J-1 exchange visa through the Department of State's federal program. The au pair program is a special federally regulated program that brings young foreigners with an interest in educational childcare/English learning to the U.S. for one year.

The host families provide full room and board, food, transportation, educational expenses, cell phone service, auto insurance, health insurance, etc. and pay a federally mandated stipend in exchange for childcare. Most families include au pairs in family vacations and trips, parties, field trips/outings, and american holidays, so it is truly a cultural exchange program that is mutually beneficial.

D.C. already has some of the highest cost childcare in the country and the au pair program is the only practical option for our family. I am a mom working ______, and living in NE D.C., and my husband is _______. Due to the nature of his career, I am essentially a single mom 15 days a month. The au pair program allows me to keep my full-time job since the flexibility of the program allows for morning help so that I can get myself to work on time, and provides me with a bit of evening support during bath and dinner time. This program fills a gap for many working families like mine, who need flexible childcare (one hour in the morning and several hours after school or in the evenings) that nannies and babysitters are unwilling to fill. I was unable to get my newborn son into a daycare here in the district due to the long wait list (and I am actually STILL on a waiting list for one daycare in my neighborhood and my son is now 2 years old). If it were not the au pair program, I do not know that I would be able to continue my career, based on the demands of my husband's job. Having this program and the amazing young woman we have been lucky enough to have join our family has been life-changing for us.

The inclusion of au pairs in the D.C. Domestic Workers Protection Act would fundamentally alter the cultural and educational nature of the program, disrupt the relationship between host families and their au pairs, and render the program unaffordable for many, if not most, working families in D.C. It would certainly become unaffordable for my family and would likely cost me my job, as childcare centers in D.C. have waiting lists upwards of 18 months. It is also unnecessary due to the comprehensive federal regulations of the U.S. State Department that have exclusively governed the terms and conditions of this federal program in D.C. for over thirty years. Federal protections are already provided which are designed specifically for au pairs.

I would like to know your position on this issue, and urge you to consider carving out an exception for au pairs, as the state of New York has done. (link to https://labor.ny.gov/legal/laws/pdf/domestic-workers/facts-for-employers.pdf)

"The only exception is au pairs hired through the federal au pair program and admitted into the United States under a J-1 visa, which are subject to special federal rules."

Additionally, I would like to be informed of any public hearings and possibly set up a time to meet with you regarding this issue.

Thank you for considering.

[Anonymous]

Good to note that after the recent ruling in Massachusetts, the state government there is scrambling to address the au pair issue retroactively which is obviously not ideal at all. A 6 month delay for implementation (to allow current HF to leave the program and rematch or send home au pairs home essentially), a deduction of 40% from wages for living expenses have been proposed. If there is no out right exemption in DC, then we need to at least get these options in front of the council as well or show them what chaos this can cause for families currently in the program. https://www.wbur.org/news/2020/01/06/au-pair-massachusetts-wages-worker-protections

[Anonymous]

What about the APs working side jobs at clubs? Is that how they’re supplementing their income?

[Anonymous]

Here is a link to a Facebook page where there are Washington state and Massachusetts host moms among others who are talking strategy for how to prevent what happened in mass. You have to prove you are a host family with invoice screen shot to get in. https://m.facebook.com/groups/519447878928400/?ref=group_browse

[Anonymous]

Given that DC is not a state and has a special relationship with Congress, I wonder if anyone here has information on whether this legislation, is passed, could get congressional push back? My understanding is that new laws coming out of the DC Council require some form of congressional review before they are actually law.

Given that the legislation, written as-is, would conflict with federal au pair regulations, I wonder if congress would push back? Perhaps on the advice of the state department?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Given that DC is not a state and has a special relationship with Congress, I wonder if anyone here has information on whether this legislation, is passed, could get congressional push back? My understanding is that new laws coming out of the DC Council require some form of congressional review before they are actually law.

Given that the legislation, written as-is, would conflict with federal au pair regulations, I wonder if congress would push back? Perhaps on the advice of the state department?

Actually, since it increases protections for APs and doesn’t change the J-1 visa program, it doesn’t conflict with federal regulations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Given that DC is not a state and has a special relationship with Congress, I wonder if anyone here has information on whether this legislation, is passed, could get congressional push back? My understanding is that new laws coming out of the DC Council require some form of congressional review before they are actually law.

Given that the legislation, written as-is, would conflict with federal au pair regulations, I wonder if congress would push back? Perhaps on the advice of the state department?

Actually, since it increases protections for APs and doesn’t change the J-1 visa program, it doesn’t conflict with federal regulations.

Not sure about this actually, because if APs are considered domestic workers, they are for sure considered in-home domestic workers, and the 21-day notice provision cannot be read to comport with the J-1 program. You would have to give them three-week notice or pay back pay, for example.

[Anonymous]

IMO the key takeaways for me are:
1. Au pair regulations at 22 CFR § 62.31 already include many of the protections domestic workers are seeking with this legislation and enforcement is a separate issue
2. Attempting to apply state minimum wage laws does not universally benefit au pairs because a) many families do not use full time hours b) they must now withhold more taxes and therefore their net pay would actually drop c) au pairs are federally prohibited from working overtime
3. This is overly burdensome for working families— a contingency DC purports to care about — without any substantive benefit to APs, and in some cases a net loss of wages.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:IMO the key takeaways for me are:
1. Au pair regulations at 22 CFR § 62.31 already include many of the protections domestic workers are seeking with this legislation and enforcement is a separate issue
2. Attempting to apply state minimum wage laws does not universally benefit au pairs because a) many families do not use full time hours b) they must now withhold more taxes and therefore their net pay would actually drop c) au pairs are federally prohibited from working overtime
3. This is overly burdensome for working families— a contingency DC purports to care about — without any substantive benefit to APs, and in some cases a net loss of wages.

What percentage of the au pairs would agree with your opinions? Perhaps they should have an opportunity to voice their own opinions.

[Anonymous]

I believe that the proposed legislation does not currently have any restriction on a family's ability to deduct *reasonable* portion for room and board cost from their wages.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I believe that the proposed legislation does not currently have any restriction on a family's ability to deduct *reasonable* portion for room and board cost from their wages.

I don't think you can just assume you can do this. In Massachusetts, there is a bill proposing this change, but it is not effective unless passed. Pretty sure you'll get sued. Also, the agencies will I'm sure have to standardize protocol for everything- logging hours (since APs have wildly different schedules), payroll taxes, worker's compensation (we had to get a plan for a nanny- guessing this will also now apply?), it'll be a total mess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IMO the key takeaways for me are:
1. Au pair regulations at 22 CFR § 62.31 already include many of the protections domestic workers are seeking with this legislation and enforcement is a separate issue
2. Attempting to apply state minimum wage laws does not universally benefit au pairs because a) many families do not use full time hours b) they must now withhold more taxes and therefore their net pay would actually drop c) au pairs are federally prohibited from working overtime
3. This is overly burdensome for working families— a contingency DC purports to care about — without any substantive benefit to APs, and in some cases a net loss of wages.

What percentage of the au pairs would agree with your opinions? Perhaps they should have an opportunity to voice their own opinions.

Hello Ms. AP, would you like to make more money for the same work?

Doesn't take a rocket scientist to guess the answer.

Now, "Hello Ms. AP, sorry, you are no longer matched with a family in DC because even though you would've made more money, the family can no longer afford the program. Now you are matched with a family in Alabama for the same amount of money you were supposed to make in DC before the legislation change."

Let's see the answer to that conundrum because that is what is going to happen. There will just be fewer APs here. So it boils down to "would you like to make $200 or not be in the AP program at all?"

They all know the terms of the deal when they sign up. It is not a career for them or a stepping stone to anything in the US unless they become a student or get married. I will not argue that the entire AP program could use some overhaul, but that is not what is happening here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IMO the key takeaways for me are:
1. Au pair regulations at 22 CFR § 62.31 already include many of the protections domestic workers are seeking with this legislation and enforcement is a separate issue
2. Attempting to apply state minimum wage laws does not universally benefit au pairs because a) many families do not use full time hours b) they must now withhold more taxes and therefore their net pay would actually drop c) au pairs are federally prohibited from working overtime
3. This is overly burdensome for working families— a contingency DC purports to care about — without any substantive benefit to APs, and in some cases a net loss of wages.

What percentage of the au pairs would agree with your opinions? Perhaps they should have an opportunity to voice their own opinions.

A lot of APs are upset about MA decision. Do we need to poll APs in DC? How do you want to verify that they’re APs? There’s been at least one AP who voiced that it wouldn’t help them, but nobody seems to even be thinking through the reality that current APs aren’t likely to effected. It’s future APs (or APs wanting to extend) that would be impacted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IMO the key takeaways for me are:
1. Au pair regulations at 22 CFR § 62.31 already include many of the protections domestic workers are seeking with this legislation and enforcement is a separate issue
2. Attempting to apply state minimum wage laws does not universally benefit au pairs because a) many families do not use full time hours b) they must now withhold more taxes and therefore their net pay would actually drop c) au pairs are federally prohibited from working overtime
3. This is overly burdensome for working families— a contingency DC purports to care about — without any substantive benefit to APs, and in some cases a net loss of wages.

What percentage of the au pairs would agree with your opinions? Perhaps they should have an opportunity to voice their own opinions.

Hello Ms. AP, would you like to make more money for the same work?

Doesn't take a rocket scientist to guess the answer.

Now, "Hello Ms. AP, sorry, you are no longer matched with a family in DC because even though you would've made more money, the family can no longer afford the program. Now you are matched with a family in Alabama for the same amount of money you were supposed to make in DC before the legislation change."

Let's see the answer to that conundrum because that is what is going to happen. There will just be fewer APs here. So it boils down to "would you like to make $200 or not be in the AP program at all?"

They all know the terms of the deal when they sign up. It is not a career for them or a stepping stone to anything in the US unless they become a student or get married. I will not argue that the entire AP program could use some overhaul, but that is not what is happening here.

With more taxes and taking out room/board, most won’t see an increase.

[Anonymous]

Again, I don't see how you can assume you can take out room and board when Massachusetts is grappling with that currently and it seems almost unlikely that bill will allowing a 40% deduction will even pass.

And even if this is a loophole that is established, how do you determine what room and board is? Is a basement bedroom worse than an upstairs? What if they have a private bathroom? Private exit? Separate cooking space? What about based on location desirability? A house in Dupont has to be priced higher than a house in Anacostia. How do you determine market value of a spare room? Group home advertisements in your area? Does the agency make the determination? Is that creating an incentive for APs to live in subpar situations because they'll have less deducted from their paychecks?