The only people I’ve ever been able to find to work the split schedule with driving are college students, and I have to hire multiple of them, and they change out every semester as their school schedule changes. They’ve also always been in high demand with multiple offers so it’s competitive to hire them. And they’re not available to cover ever random early release, snow day, etc.
I’m lucky that I live very close to several large universities so this is even an option.
Never been able to find a qualified nanny to take this schedule AND drive.
This has worked out short term when we are in between APs but for consistency and reliability, not to mention coverage for school closures and summer, APs are ideal. I don’t love having another person living with us but it’s still our best option.
I would—AND DO—pay my APs more, but it’s FAR more complicated than applying laws designed to protect domestic workers to a cultural exchange program. As this MA experiment demonstrates. The federal min wage, which the AP stipend is tied to, needs to be raised.

It is very difficult to find a reliable, legal nanny in DC to work a split shift, even when total hours are 40 a week and pay exceeds $20/hr with many benefits. We could not do it, even after exhausting all avenues including professional nanny services. I am saddened regarding the ruling in MA, as this is a real blow to struggling working parents.

I have a less dramatic split schedule than PP and also couldn’t find people willing to work my split schedule with unpredictable end times at any rate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Matahari Women's Worker's Center. They lobbied for the bill (which in a large sense was needed) and pushed for eliminating the proposed exclusion for au pairs. As a group, they lobby on behalf of nannies, who will benefit from the loss of a more affordable (albeit quite different) childcare option.

I don't think any APs were involved in the push for inclusion in this bill.

Also note that the lawsuit was from one of the AP agencies for clarity from the AG that it didn't apply to APs. Other states have included specific riders that it didn't where MA had those proposed multiple times and pulled (see above).

I agree, but I think the baby was thrown out with the bathwater.

MA HM here. I agree completely. i am a huge fan of a higher min wage, but this was never meant to apply to APs. And PP is right that it was a home childcare worker advocacy group who pushed this --- it had nothing to do with helping APs and everything to do with killing the AP program to increase the wages and employment options of nannies.

Although that's not so awful. The AP program is much like the H-1B1 visa issue. Employers want the cheap foreign labor in lieu of employing Americans. Now if families want on demand childcare in MA then they have to pay a premium for it.

Please get over yourself. It's not "on demand" childcare. It's *flexible* childcare. We need early morning and late afternoon. We tried everything we could last year to go without an AP, but even offering $40 an hour, I could not get anyone reliable to do the hour-each-way drive to my son's special ed school, so we had to go back to the AP program. I would MUCH rather not have an AP -- we have been hosting 12 years and at this point pay way more for an AP than we need to since we don't need many hours -- but we cannot get anyone other than an AP to do the morning drive. No American wants to do 6:45-8:45 that involves 84 miles round-trip. Not even for $40 an hour. So please stop the drama with the "on demand" childcare claim.

It's cheap childcare. If it were not then MA families wouldn't be pulling out in droves. They would have your same excuse. But no, they are out.

I have an AP as well because I could never get the convenience of an American for the rate I pay an AP. Period. Sure, if I wanted to pay $40/hr I could get someone to wipe my ass. For my 20hrs a week I need an AP, i could pay just about anyone $800 to do this. And yes, if this happens here and this is no longer the best bang for my buck, I will also hire a sitter and will have to pay $23/hr for PT hours. I know this as fact since we've had to do this between AuPairs.

You, my dear are full of shit.

Wow, such crude language. I will just say that I have tried over and over to find someone in our area to do this job, and no one wants to get on the MA version of the Beltway every morning at 6:45am, drive for an hour, drop off my child at school 42 miles away, and drive back. I offered $40 all last year, and while I was able to get people to sign up for the job, come the first snowy morning, they were calling in sick or delayed. I wish I were in fact wrong and that we could find someone to do this. I wish we didn't have to host an AP anymore, after 12 years of hosting - but alas, no one up here in MA wants to do this job. Or, at least, no one with a clean driving record who doesn't smoke. Maybe in DC it's cheaper and easier? Or maybe you're happy to hire someone without a clean driving record or a smoker? Whatever, I'm done trying to explain. You can believe whatever you want. I was just trying to help those on this site understand what us HFs in MA are going through since people were asking (and trying to join our FB page). But I am happy to leave you to your potty mouth now.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Matahari Women's Worker's Center. They lobbied for the bill (which in a large sense was needed) and pushed for eliminating the proposed exclusion for au pairs. As a group, they lobby on behalf of nannies, who will benefit from the loss of a more affordable (albeit quite different) childcare option.

I don't think any APs were involved in the push for inclusion in this bill.

Also note that the lawsuit was from one of the AP agencies for clarity from the AG that it didn't apply to APs. Other states have included specific riders that it didn't where MA had those proposed multiple times and pulled (see above).

I agree, but I think the baby was thrown out with the bathwater.

MA HM here. I agree completely. i am a huge fan of a higher min wage, but this was never meant to apply to APs. And PP is right that it was a home childcare worker advocacy group who pushed this --- it had nothing to do with helping APs and everything to do with killing the AP program to increase the wages and employment options of nannies.

Although that's not so awful. The AP program is much like the H-1B1 visa issue. Employers want the cheap foreign labor in lieu of employing Americans. Now if families want on demand childcare in MA then they have to pay a premium for it.

Please get over yourself. It's not "on demand" childcare. It's *flexible* childcare. We need early morning and late afternoon. We tried everything we could last year to go without an AP, but even offering $40 an hour, I could not get anyone reliable to do the hour-each-way drive to my son's special ed school, so we had to go back to the AP program. I would MUCH rather not have an AP -- we have been hosting 12 years and at this point pay way more for an AP than we need to since we don't need many hours -- but we cannot get anyone other than an AP to do the morning drive. No American wants to do 6:45-8:45 that involves 84 miles round-trip. Not even for $40 an hour. So please stop the drama with the "on demand" childcare claim.

It's cheap childcare. If it were not then MA families wouldn't be pulling out in droves. They would have your same excuse. But no, they are out.

I have an AP as well because I could never get the convenience of an American for the rate I pay an AP. Period. Sure, if I wanted to pay $40/hr I could get someone to wipe my ass. For my 20hrs a week I need an AP, i could pay just about anyone $800 to do this. And yes, if this happens here and this is no longer the best bang for my buck, I will also hire a sitter and will have to pay $23/hr for PT hours. I know this as fact since we've had to do this between AuPairs.

You, my dear are full of shit.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Matahari Women's Worker's Center. They lobbied for the bill (which in a large sense was needed) and pushed for eliminating the proposed exclusion for au pairs. As a group, they lobby on behalf of nannies, who will benefit from the loss of a more affordable (albeit quite different) childcare option.

I don't think any APs were involved in the push for inclusion in this bill.

Also note that the lawsuit was from one of the AP agencies for clarity from the AG that it didn't apply to APs. Other states have included specific riders that it didn't where MA had those proposed multiple times and pulled (see above).

I agree, but I think the baby was thrown out with the bathwater.

MA HM here. I agree completely. i am a huge fan of a higher min wage, but this was never meant to apply to APs. And PP is right that it was a home childcare worker advocacy group who pushed this --- it had nothing to do with helping APs and everything to do with killing the AP program to increase the wages and employment options of nannies.

Although that's not so awful. The AP program is much like the H-1B1 visa issue. Employers want the cheap foreign labor in lieu of employing Americans. Now if families want on demand childcare in MA then they have to pay a premium for it.

Please get over yourself. It's not "on demand" childcare. It's *flexible* childcare. We need early morning and late afternoon. We tried everything we could last year to go without an AP, but even offering $40 an hour, I could not get anyone reliable to do the hour-each-way drive to my son's special ed school, so we had to go back to the AP program. I would MUCH rather not have an AP -- we have been hosting 12 years and at this point pay way more for an AP than we need to since we don't need many hours -- but we cannot get anyone other than an AP to do the morning drive. No American wants to do 6:45-8:45 that involves 84 miles round-trip. Not even for $40 an hour. So please stop the drama with the "on demand" childcare claim.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Matahari Women's Worker's Center. They lobbied for the bill (which in a large sense was needed) and pushed for eliminating the proposed exclusion for au pairs. As a group, they lobby on behalf of nannies, who will benefit from the loss of a more affordable (albeit quite different) childcare option.

I don't think any APs were involved in the push for inclusion in this bill.

Also note that the lawsuit was from one of the AP agencies for clarity from the AG that it didn't apply to APs. Other states have included specific riders that it didn't where MA had those proposed multiple times and pulled (see above).

I agree, but I think the baby was thrown out with the bathwater.

MA HM here. I agree completely. i am a huge fan of a higher min wage, but this was never meant to apply to APs. And PP is right that it was a home childcare worker advocacy group who pushed this --- it had nothing to do with helping APs and everything to do with killing the AP program to increase the wages and employment options of nannies.

Although that's not so awful. The AP program is much like the H-1B1 visa issue. Employers want the cheap foreign labor in lieu of employing Americans. Now if families want on demand childcare in MA then they have to pay a premium for it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Matahari Women's Worker's Center. They lobbied for the bill (which in a large sense was needed) and pushed for eliminating the proposed exclusion for au pairs. As a group, they lobby on behalf of nannies, who will benefit from the loss of a more affordable (albeit quite different) childcare option.

I don't think any APs were involved in the push for inclusion in this bill.

Also note that the lawsuit was from one of the AP agencies for clarity from the AG that it didn't apply to APs. Other states have included specific riders that it didn't where MA had those proposed multiple times and pulled (see above).

I agree, but I think the baby was thrown out with the bathwater.

MA HM here. I agree completely. i am a huge fan of a higher min wage, but this was never meant to apply to APs. And PP is right that it was a home childcare worker advocacy group who pushed this --- it had nothing to do with helping APs and everything to do with killing the AP program to increase the wages and employment options of nannies.

I am PP who asked the question. I had no idea, this all makes sense now. I knew nannies will be happy about this change but I didn't know this was actually done on their behalf. Thanks for the info.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Matahari Women's Worker's Center. They lobbied for the bill (which in a large sense was needed) and pushed for eliminating the proposed exclusion for au pairs. As a group, they lobby on behalf of nannies, who will benefit from the loss of a more affordable (albeit quite different) childcare option.

I don't think any APs were involved in the push for inclusion in this bill.

Also note that the lawsuit was from one of the AP agencies for clarity from the AG that it didn't apply to APs. Other states have included specific riders that it didn't where MA had those proposed multiple times and pulled (see above).

I agree, but I think the baby was thrown out with the bathwater.

MA HM here. I agree completely. i am a huge fan of a higher min wage, but this was never meant to apply to APs. And PP is right that it was a home childcare worker advocacy group who pushed this --- it had nothing to do with helping APs and everything to do with killing the AP program to increase the wages and employment options of nannies.

Anonymous wrote:Matahari Women's Worker's Center. They lobbied for the bill (which in a large sense was needed) and pushed for eliminating the proposed exclusion for au pairs. As a group, they lobby on behalf of nannies, who will benefit from the loss of a more affordable (albeit quite different) childcare option.

I don't think any APs were involved in the push for inclusion in this bill.

Also note that the lawsuit was from one of the AP agencies for clarity from the AG that it didn't apply to APs. Other states have included specific riders that it didn't where MA had those proposed multiple times and pulled (see above).

I agree, but I think the baby was thrown out with the bathwater.

As a HF who uses 20hrs a week, I could easily swallow this if the agencies substantially dropped their fees. As it is, I'm basically paying our AP $10/hr. If the agency fee were to be cut in half, it would make more financial sense.

We had a nanny when the kids were little and we allowed her to bring her toddler. It cost us $15/he and she brought her own car and charged me the fed rate for mileage reimbursement. If I needed 40hrs again, not a chance I'd pay nanny rates for a babysitter, which is in my experience what APs supply.

The only reason we even use an AP is to have a driver, which we could live without.

Matahari Women's Worker's Center. They lobbied for the bill (which in a large sense was needed) and pushed for eliminating the proposed exclusion for au pairs. As a group, they lobby on behalf of nannies, who will benefit from the loss of a more affordable (albeit quite different) childcare option.

I don't think any APs were involved in the push for inclusion in this bill.

Also note that the lawsuit was from one of the AP agencies for clarity from the AG that it didn't apply to APs. Other states have included specific riders that it didn't where MA had those proposed multiple times and pulled (see above).

Does anyone has Info about how this whole mess started? Did current APs sued or past APs? Talking to current AP, she says the AP community is in panic even in her home country. So APs and HFs and agencies don’t seem to love the changes. Who is it benefiting? Who is behind the lawsuit?

Anonymous wrote:

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?

AuPair Boston
Now the main FB page for AP rematches is getting flooded with MA Aupairs whose HF are basically dropping out of the program immediatly.

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

Not this one, and nope, not safe to bet as Supreme Court case re: class actions in arbitration a near impossibility. The money is in the class actions, not individual arbitrations.