Didn’t Boies Schiller bring the first lawsuit? Safe to bet they will branch out to any more states with similar state laws.

Anonymous wrote:Super interesting dynamic going on on the Boaton FB page right now.

1. A massive influx of APs from other states now posting on that page looking to rematch with a MA family.
2. Starting to see current APs in MA posting that they are in rematch due to the law.

The AuPair program is quickly dying in MA.

Which Boston Facebook page are you referring to?

Super interesting dynamic going on on the Boaton FB page right now.

1. A massive influx of APs from other states now posting on that page looking to rematch with a MA family.
2. Starting to see current APs in MA posting that they are in rematch due to the law.

The AuPair program is quickly dying in MA.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But why wouldn’t it become applicable to all states? I doubt it will remain in limbo with the other 49 and DC for too long...

Legally, it may not extend to DC and other states. But you can bet CCAP is going to cover their ass by putting contract language in for every other state that protects the company and throws host families under the bus.

If you see the letters from other agencies, they sound a lot less weasely than CCAP's and just mandate that HFs pay minimum wage in MA (none of this "negotiation" language).

Also, I've heard a rumor that CCAP will no longer allow new matches in MA. May be only a rumor though.

I'm one of the MA HMs who is on this thread:

I believe that rematches are frozen to MA right now (to prevent the gold-diggers from ditching their families and trying to make more money in MA), but that OOC matches are allowed for EXISTING HFs. I know they have frozen matching for new MA HFs. I also know the LCCs are freaking out, because in CCAP, recruiting new families is how they make their money.

Anonymous wrote:But why wouldn’t it become applicable to all states? I doubt it will remain in limbo with the other 49 and DC for too long...

Legally, it may not extend to DC and other states. But you can bet CCAP is going to cover their ass by putting contract language in for every other state that protects the company and throws host families under the bus.

If you see the letters from other agencies, they sound a lot less weasely than CCAP's and just mandate that HFs pay minimum wage in MA (none of this "negotiation" language).

Also, I've heard a rumor that CCAP will no longer allow new matches in MA. May be only a rumor though.

Anonymous wrote:If the Massachusetts HM is still on.....

Is it true that CCAP dropped their agency fee by 5200 to offset the expense in MA? That's what I'm reading on an AP Facebook page.

Ideally, the agency fees should become very minimal like in any other countries, like $1000, that should be enough, considering AP also pay something.
They could skip all the useless training they do, AP will get come straight to family. Only question will be health insurance, not that the insurance they provide covers anything!

Anonymous wrote:If the Massachusetts HM is still on.....

Is it true that CCAP dropped their agency fee by 5200 to offset the expense in MA? That's what I'm reading on an AP Facebook page.

Not to $200. They did offer a $100 weekly refund, payable at the end of the contract, IF you keep your current AP through the end of his or her contract. They are trying to avoid a mass of rematch APs that they cannot place, and they are also trying to stave off a class action suit by families (which will likely happen anyway). Most of us don't expect that getting the $100/week will end up being an easy process. We have been hosting 12 years, and I have never seen CCAP hand over money without a fight.

If the Massachusetts HM is still on.....

Is it true that CCAP dropped their agency fee by 5200 to offset the expense in MA? That's what I'm reading on an AP Facebook page.

Anonymous wrote:But why wouldn’t it become applicable to all states? I doubt it will remain in limbo with the other 49 and DC for too long...

It's not in limbo in the other states. The decision was brought in the first circuit by the agency to determine whether the federal guidelines preempted the state (Massachusetts) law. The first circuit said it did not. Circuit courts do not collaborate with other circuits to resolve legal issues, and different circuit courts may reach conflicting conclusions about the same legal issue.[Cases decided in one circuit are NOT binding authority on other circuits. If the Supreme Court of the United States has not ruled on a legal issue, federal courts of appeals make their own conclusions based on their own case law within the circuits.

But why wouldn’t it become applicable to all states? I doubt it will remain in limbo with the other 49 and DC for too long...

Well, CCAP brought the suit themselves so assuming they won’t make this self-inflicted mistake a second time...and also considering what a disaster it is turning out to be and that not a single party thinks this result is beneficial to anyone...I am not worried about it happening in DC any time soon.

Not binding outside of 1st Circuit, but I would find it odd if the agencies didn't instruct host families in states with similar domestic workers' laws that this is something they need to consider. I'm concerned this will play out in other areas of the country.

Anonymous wrote:Yes, if you live in a state that has a domestic workers' bill of rights, and APs are not excluded, I think this is likely to apply to more than First Circuit states.

Nope. This decision is only binding on the First Circuit.

I just got on the Boston AuPair Facebook group. Now I'm not going to get ANYTHING done for the next 2hrs!

Yes, if you live in a state that has a domestic workers' bill of rights, and APs are not excluded, I think this is likely to apply to more than First Circuit states.