Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's rather unbelievable that the State Department would care nothing of the safety of these young au pairs. The entire responsibility rests the shoulders of the LCC to see if the host applicants appear to be "nice" and law abiding citizens?

Yes. She comes over tslks to the family and signs them in.

Where is their due dilegence to protect the au pair from potential criminal abuse?

Why aren't we demanding required host family back ground checks, in order to preserve the integrety of the au pair business agencies?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's rather unbelievable that the State Department would care nothing of the safety of these young au pairs. The entire responsibility rests the shoulders of the LCC to see if the host applicants appear to be "nice" and law abiding citizens?

Yes. She comes over tslks to the family and signs them in.

Where is their due dilegence to protect the au pair from potential criminal abuse?

Anonymous wrote:I understand that in traditional workplaces it would be ludicrous to ask a boss for a background check. But then again, in most corporate positions, you know your boss has been background checked because it's standard procedure.

Nannying has the potential to be an isolating job, you're entering someone's home, there is no easy out if something goes horribly wrong. And if you're a live-in or an au pair, you don't necessarily have anyone close who can be your contingency plan.

I've worked for five families and never background checked any of them, but with one family my life was literally in danger and I had to leave the home immediately. A little due diligence on my part would have shown me that this was not a situation I should have ever entered. I was stranded on the other end of the country, had nobody to call, and ended up staying in a homeless shelter for a day or two while I fought for my final paycheck. Since then, I have always made sure I have several months' worth of savings, at least one exit strategy, and if my current family hadn't have been semi high-profile I would have requested a background check.

Wow. What happened to you, could happen to any nanny.

The only way reduce the risk to be referred by someone you completely trust, or get background checks and reference letters with contact info.

Anonymous wrote:It's rather unbelievable that the State Department would care nothing of the safety of these young au pairs. The entire responsibility rests the shoulders of the LCC to see if the host applicants appear to be "nice" and law abiding citizens?

Yes. She comes over tslks to the family and signs them in.

I understand that in traditional workplaces it would be ludicrous to ask a boss for a background check. But then again, in most corporate positions, you know your boss has been background checked because it's standard procedure.

Nannying has the potential to be an isolating job, you're entering someone's home, there is no easy out if something goes horribly wrong. And if you're a live-in or an au pair, you don't necessarily have anyone close who can be your contingency plan.

I've worked for five families and never background checked any of them, but with one family my life was literally in danger and I had to leave the home immediately. A little due diligence on my part would have shown me that this was not a situation I should have ever entered. I was stranded on the other end of the country, had nobody to call, and ended up staying in a homeless shelter for a day or two while I fought for my final paycheck. Since then, I have always made sure I have several months' worth of savings, at least one exit strategy, and if my current family hadn't have been semi high-profile I would have requested a background check.

Anonymous wrote:It's rather unbelievable that the State Department would care nothing of the safety of these young au pairs. The entire responsibility rests the shoulders of the LCC to see if the host applicants appear to be "nice" and law abiding citizens?

*on the

It's rather unbelievable that the State Department would care nothing of the safety of these young au pairs. The entire responsibility rests the shoulders of the LCC to see if the host applicants appear to be "nice" and law abiding citizens?

I'm the OP and to a person coming to a new country to live with people she's never met before first of all she needs to know if she'll be safe. And I talked to APC and APIA and none of them required us to go through a background check.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also (I'm 11:50), I'd have zero issue with my au pair asking me to do a background check. Our agency (Cultural Care) actually requires them.

What kind of background check do they require and who does it?

I don't know, but you're welcome to call and ask. I assumed that it checks arrest records and that sort of thing. I've asserted elsewhere whenever this background check thing comes up, though, that while I agree that it should be part of the application process, I don't think it would really reveal much of anything of use. Think about what an au pair would really want to know about a family - are they going to be kind? Get the spirit of the program? Require her to do more work than they said they would require during the matching process? Are the kids going to be well-behaved? Etc. Really hardly anything will be revealed by your standard background check.

Anonymous wrote:Also (I'm 11:50), I'd have zero issue with my au pair asking me to do a background check. Our agency (Cultural Care) actually requires them.

What kind of background check do they require and who does it?

Also (I'm 11:50), I'd have zero issue with my au pair asking me to do a background check. Our agency (Cultural Care) actually requires them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another reason why State Dept. should shut down the Au Pair program.

What are the primary reasons?

1. US Labor laws do not apply to Au Pairs.
2. Essentily, APs are indentured servants.
3. 45 hours a week is too much. Their. Hours should be no more tjan 30 hours/wk.
4. All weekends should be off time.

Agree with all four points.

US Labor laws don't "apply" to au pairs because they are in a very specific program with its own laws.

Not really sure what you are trying to say with #2. "An indentured servant was a worker, typically a laborer or tradesman, under contract to an employer for a fixed period of time, typically three to seven years, in exchange for their transportation, food, clothing, lodging and other necessities." So yeah, au pairs are in a "contract" for a fixed period of time in exchange for food, lodging, other expenses. They also get paid a stipend. And the host family pays about $8,000 in agency fees.

Disagree on points 3 and 4.

On what are you basing your statement that "45 hours a week is too much?" That is, as you know, the maximum they can work. Many families require much less. Our au pair works for 20 hours a week, for example. Fortunately, host family applications require clear statement of approximately how many hours an au pair has to work. If they really don't want to work 45, then they can not match with those families. Or if they find it's too much when they get here, they can rematch. There are many many more young adults who want to be au pairs than there are host families willing to take on the time and expense. Already 45 hours is just barely enough to cover a two--fulltime-working-parent household, so if you reduce that maximum any more, even fewer host families will be interested in having an au pair. Meaning many many more disappointed au pairs.

One of the big sells to host families is the flexibility. AGAIN, au pairs are free to match with the situation they want. If they don't want to work weekends, they can decline matches with host families that require it. There are many host families that use up all their hours during the week, so they should have no trouble finding a host family that doesn't require weekends.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another reason why State Dept. should shut down the Au Pair program.

What are the primary reasons?

1. US Labor laws do not apply to Au Pairs.
2. Essentily, APs are indentured servants.
3. 45 hours a week is too much. Their. Hours should be no more tjan 30 hours/wk.
4. All weekends should be off time.

Agree with all four points.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Another reason why State Dept. should shut down the Au Pair program.

What are the primary reasons?

1. US Labor laws do not apply to Au Pairs.
2. Essentily, APs are indentured servants.
3. 45 hours a week is too much. Their. Hours should be no more tjan 30 hours/wk.
4. All weekends should be off time.

HP for an AP. I'd have no problem with it.