Senate Bill No. 804 – VIRGINIA - Minimum Wage for Au Pairs

[Anonymous]

How is it fair that when au pairs get taken advantage of, and complain, they frequently get punished by getting sent home?

[Anonymous]

I think you are looking for the thread on rematch. This thread is about state legislation that might kill the program so there is no au pair program at all.

Anonymous wrote:How is it fair that when au pairs get taken advantage of, and complain, they frequently get punished by getting sent home?

[Anonymous]

+1000

Anonymous wrote:The problem we now face is the prospect of Senator McClellan intentionally killing SB7 to ensure there is no au pair exemption. Sure, the minimum wage won’t raise, but HB804 would remain, and au pairs would now be lumped into a new worker status that would make Virginia like Massachusetts. A very good result for the competing care companies that paid $300,000 in dark money to kill the au pair program:

“The 23-member Virginia Legislative Black Caucus is lobbying to kill the Sen- ate’s regional approach. In a statement issued on Tuesday, the VLBC announced its opposition to anything but a statewide minimum wage increase, implying members would join Republicans to kill the bill if the regional approach emerged from a con- ference committee seeking to reconcile differences between the House and Senate versions of the legislation.”

http://m.richmondfreepress.com/news/2020/mar/06/virginia-house-senate-disagreement-threatens-propo/

Because, again, this was never about domestic workers or your local care giver. It was always about killing a competing program.

Every family I have spoken to supports an increased minimum wage for domestic workers. Don’t let this be a Trojan horse for a competing service to kill the au pair program with dark money.

[Anonymous]

This concerns me. Why were we told to stop pushing to amend 804? Only to see the exemption die in SB7?

Anonymous wrote:SB 804, without an exemption, will lump au pairs together with other domestic workers and place them firmly under state regulation AND federal regulation. This is the current state of affairs in Massachusetts.

Thus, there was a push to add an exemption for au pairs, as they are ALREADY regulated under federal law. This was firmly rebuffed by the bill’s sponsor, Senator McClellan. The argument was that the exemption would go in SB7, which raises minimum wage.

So, today there is no exemption for au pairs in 804. If SB7, which DOES have the exemption, is killed, all that is left is bringing au pairs under state regulation through 804.

This was likely the plan all along - the out of state dark money funding this probably was betting that Virginia would have difficulty passing minimum wage increases. So they insisted that Jennifer McClellan NOT allow 804 to be amended, but instead allow it to be placed in the minimum wage bill, SB7. That is exactly what happen. Now she is threatening to kill SB7 based on a $1 an hour wage difference across regions in Virginia several years in the future. Sounds more like an excuse to kill a bill that has an exemption for the program the people paid her $300,000 to kill.

Once again, I don’t know ANYBODY who thinks domestic workers should not be paid a minimum wage, or that the minimum wage should not be increased. The real problem is using the Virginia legislature to kill a competing program with dark money. A program that is federally regulated. That is the problem.

SB7 and its companion HB395 are in conference today. We will see what happens. It’s up to the NoVa representatives in the conference to keep the exemption for au pairs in place, and the rest of the NoVa delegation to support such a bill out of conference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This concerns me. Why were we told to stop pushing to amend 804? Only to see the exemption die in SB7?

Anonymous wrote:SB 804, without an exemption, will lump au pairs together with other domestic workers and place them firmly under state regulation AND federal regulation. This is the current state of affairs in Massachusetts.

Thus, there was a push to add an exemption for au pairs, as they are ALREADY regulated under federal law. This was firmly rebuffed by the bill’s sponsor, Senator McClellan. The argument was that the exemption would go in SB7, which raises minimum wage.

So, today there is no exemption for au pairs in 804. If SB7, which DOES have the exemption, is killed, all that is left is bringing au pairs under state regulation through 804.

This was likely the plan all along - the out of state dark money funding this probably was betting that Virginia would have difficulty passing minimum wage increases. So they insisted that Jennifer McClellan NOT allow 804 to be amended, but instead allow it to be placed in the minimum wage bill, SB7. That is exactly what happen. Now she is threatening to kill SB7 based on a $1 an hour wage difference across regions in Virginia several years in the future. Sounds more like an excuse to kill a bill that has an exemption for the program the people paid her $300,000 to kill.

Once again, I don’t know ANYBODY who thinks domestic workers should not be paid a minimum wage, or that the minimum wage should not be increased. The real problem is using the Virginia legislature to kill a competing program with dark money. A program that is federally regulated. That is the problem.

SB7 and its companion HB395 are in conference today. We will see what happens. It’s up to the NoVa representatives in the conference to keep the exemption for au pairs in place, and the rest of the NoVa delegation to support such a bill out of conference.

I am the PP who doesn't live in VA but following. I did a quick search and I don't see any mention of au pairs in 804 or SB7. What I am missing? are you guys in VA getting info from your au pair agency on what to do? Because it sounds a bit confusing do just figure out on your own what bill to fight for without the legal background.

[Anonymous]

No, we are not getting info from our au pair agency. The au pair agencies screwed this up in Massachusetts and have not done a good job here in Virginia. Nor have their lobbyists. NoVa happens to be filled with host families that include lawyers and other professionals who can navigate the law.

SB7 is tracked here:
http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?201+sum+SB7

The substitute with the exemption is here:

http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?201+ful+SB7H1

804 does not mention au pairs, but defines them in a way INTENDED to cover them.

I am a host parent. I will not let out of state dark money tell Virginia parents where they can get care.

[Anonymous]

From out of state, you say? Tom Breedlove, is that you:

https://www.accountingtoday.com/opinion/massachusetts-court-rules-au-pairs-fall-under-domestic-employment-law

The article above was written by Tom Breedlove, Senior director, Care.com HomePay

Where, oh where, could that $300,000 of dark money have come from? Oh, that’s right, Care.com and the NDWA, which is trying to kill the au pair program in Virginia, go hand in hand:

https://www.care.com/press-release-carecom-ndwa-hand-in-hand-commitment-at-cgi-p1186-q62523119.html

[Anonymous]

You clearly are not part of the program and are just here to troll. The au pair program is regulated by the state department. You can learn about it here:

https://j1visa.state.gov/programs/au-pair

As for your “question”, under “Protections For Exchange Visitors” at the link above, you will find this:

“The State Department has activated a helpline to ensure the health and safety of its exchange participants, including au pairs. All participants have a right to be treated fairly and to report abuse without retaliation or threat of program cancellation. Among other prohibitions, no sponsor may threaten program termination, or otherwise retaliate against an au pair solely because he or she has instituted a complaint or taken action to gain assistance from an outside entity regarding a complaint. Au pairs can contact the State Department at any time via the hotline [phone] or at [e-mail].”

Further, as noted in a response to you above, rematch is available. Moreover, au pairs have counselors (LCCs) available to them, and they can be housed with the counselor or other host families until they are rematched.

Do nannies found on care.com have this level of support or protections?

Let’s look at this from the host family perspective, too. Shouldn’t families be allowed to decide who cares for their children? The vetting in the au pair program FAR outpaces the alternatives:

https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/care-com-puts-onus-on-families-to-check-caregivers-backgroundswith-sometimes-tragic-outcomes-11552088138

Which is why the CEO of care.com stepped down last August:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/care-com-founder-to-step-down-as-ceo-months-after-wsj-report-11565089901

So that is why parents are fighting this legislation. The protections for au pairs already exist, and are better protections for both caregivers and families than the competition (care.com) that families would be pushed into using if the au pair program becomes untenable.

Anonymous wrote:How is it fair that when au pairs get taken advantage of, and complain, they frequently get punished by getting sent home?

[Anonymous]

Reality is that many au pairs don’t get a rematch in the relatively short time that they are allowed to find a rematch. And so they get sent home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Reality is that many au pairs don’t get a rematch in the relatively short time that they are allowed to find a rematch. And so they get sent home.

That is not the reality, that is a really small minority who go home usually due to other issues that caused the rematch, but you don't care, do you, you here just to troll.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reality is that many au pairs don’t get a rematch in the relatively short time that they are allowed to find a rematch. And so they get sent home.

That is not the reality, that is a really small minority who go home usually due to other issues that caused the rematch, but you don't care, do you, you here just to troll.

Why do you keep calling everyone a troll who may have differing observations and opinions on this matter? This is a discussion forum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reality is that many au pairs don’t get a rematch in the relatively short time that they are allowed to find a rematch. And so they get sent home.

That is not the reality, that is a really small minority who go home usually due to other issues that caused the rematch, but you don't care, do you, you here just to troll.

Why do you keep calling everyone a troll who may have differing observations and opinions on this matter? This is a discussion forum.

Because if you sound like a troll, you are one, if you create a fiction of the reality and you try to deceive on purpose then you are a troll. If you keep posting the same argument over and over again without taking other factor into account you are a troll.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reality is that many au pairs don’t get a rematch in the relatively short time that they are allowed to find a rematch. And so they get sent home.

That is not the reality, that is a really small minority who go home usually due to other issues that caused the rematch, but you don't care, do you, you here just to troll.

Why do you keep calling everyone a troll who may have differing observations and opinions on this matter? This is a discussion forum.

Because if you sound like a troll, you are one, if you create a fiction of the reality and you try to deceive on purpose then you are a troll. If you keep posting the same argument over and over again without taking other factor into account you are a troll.

What percentage of APs go home because LCC can’t find a rematch within the 14 day time limit? You don’t know, so please stop making up stuff to suit your argument.

[Anonymous]

Please remind me how this rematch discussion relates to any of the pending legislation in Virginia.

I believe there is room for ample discussion about how rematches are handled. I certainly have some thoughts, based on my personal experience. It did not go well, but that had nothing to do with anything in the bills being considered in Virginia.

I think a discussion about rematch warrants it’s own thread. Feel free to start one. Let’s keep this one focus on the Virginia legislation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many, many APs have been abused for far too long.

True. Our AP was abused by going on vacation in Europe, Asia, and the Caribbean. She was forced to drive her own dedicated car (a ford - slummy!). She was forced to spend all of her evenings and weekends shopping and hanging out with friends. She suffered through having her ADU cleaned by our housekeeper, hand-rolled pasta dinners, etc. We miserly paid for an unlimited call, text, and data plan and gym membership. We selfishly let her her siblings stay with us for two weeks. We rudely took her out for dinner, family excursions, and sundry. The horrible ogres that we are, we gave $1000 towards her education (even though we were required to pay only $500). She provided 45 hours of childcare, which she bargained for before we matched. Call CPS!

Right! Yeah, ours have been so abused by going on a cruise to the Bahamas, having their own suite which we could rent for $800/month, unlimited data phone plan, Christmas in manhattan, all meals out paid for which usually is weekly, a new car to drive, but sure, she has to drive kids around for 20 hours a week so definitely call the authorities. She could easily rematch and leave her 'abuse-ridden home' if she wanted to and be placed somewhere else to be abused within weeks with free airfare anywhere she wanted to go where she matched with a family. But, yeah, omg, call CPS. She's in real danger.

Those posts are funny, doesn’t it dawn on people that while you may not be abusing your APs many may well be. Plenty of host moms here come for advice, explain their OP situation and as soon as they are told what they do isn’t in line with the program they either say it doesn’t matter because their AP is okay with it (even though AP don’t really have the freedom to say no) or get all arsy saying obviously everyone here is a nanny troll.

While you may be a good family, plenty are not. While you may go above and beyond for your AP, plenty do not, while you may respect the contract to a T plenty do not. It’s not hard to imagine that your AP’s experience isn’t the experience of every AP and that plenty of AP are taken advantage of, even if that’s not the case of your APs.

If no APs in the history of APs had ever been abused girls like Sophie Lionnet would still be alive and not dead, she was an extreme case but when such cases exists (and this one is VERY recent) pretending like abuse doesn’t exist because you don’t abuse your APs is of very bad taste. Kuddos to you for not abusing your APs, wouldn’t it be great if everyone had the same attitude to the program (and maybe then this lawsuit wouldn’t even be a thing) but it’s obviously not the case so I can’t see how acknowledging that some APs do get abuse and need more protection/stricter laws while also acknowledging that not all APs get abused is so hard to some.

Well said.