Au pair salary

Because otherwise they would be a slave?

That’s a daft argument. By that logic all minimum wage is wrong.

it’s been brought in because people were massively taking the piss and using them as unpaid nannies. Presumably you’re also allowed to give them more free hours where they can do what they like?

Why is it a good gig though? If your daughter decided to eg go travelling would you like her to live in a house with a family and basically be on call for them? Sounds like hell to me!

You’re the one who said no jobs other than au pairs gets free accommodation with their job. Examples of such jobs are offered. You then claim to have worked offshore, so you’d have known that you don’t pay to stay on a rig, surely?

And now you’re dismissing the comparison because offshore workers are paid well? So it’s fine for rig workers on £50-100k pa to get free board, but such ‘freebies’ are beyond the pale for an au pair on £800 pm?

You do seem really annoyed that it’s no longer the 90s and that you can’t employ a young foreign national on exploitation wages. Young lassies should be grateful for a bit of pocket money when they’re getting the privilege of staying in one of your bedrooms for free, huh?

It’s because of employers like you that the rules are in place!

As has been pointed out repeatedly, if you don’t like it, use a different childcare arrangement.

You should rent out your spare bedroom for £900 (don’t forget to declare the income), use the extra cash for child minders and that way you won’t have to have someone living in your home who you resent for having an ‘amazing’ deal.

Get someone through Workaway.

Most au pairs have essentially served as cheap and convenient labour in the home and for childcare. Most have worked far more than they were ever paid for. Everyone knows that. There is a reason why this area has been regulated.
European young people today aren't keen to do it anyway. They can do better and the world is a bigger playground for most than being an aupair in UK.

Ok, well she’s not at my beck and call. But it if I assume 800 rent/200 bills/200 food and 800 take home that’s equivalent to 2k a month net salary for 20 hours a week

you might not but a lot will, and there’ll always be that possibility hanging over her that they’ll use her living arrangements as a bribe. If you choose an au pair it’s what you’re taking on op, you could just hire a childminder but I think people get an au pair FOR the live in side of it, not that they have an au pair and the side consequence is that she happens to live with them and it makes her lucky

No, because they’re on minimum wage!

Minimum wage exists to prevent exploitation and thus prevent slavery.

Au pairs are as entitled as any other workers to not be exploited or enslaved.

If you’re struggling with the logic, it may be because your position is incoherent.

I really do think you should go ahead and get a lodger instead of an au pair, since you rate the privilege of having a bedroom in your house so highly and resent your au pair for not paying rent.

I agree, I think it’s a real shame it’s kind of disappeared as an option for young people who want to do it. I worked with quite a few au pairs in the early 2000s and they had a lovely time. I was working for the households as well, and they would have lots of time to go and explore the UK, nice rooms, several hours work-but be able to pick up more if they wanted.

I dont think any of them saw themselves as exploited, they all saw themselves as having a lovely time and I remember one that I work with her brother was very annoyed he struggled to get the same kind of gig.

Your aupair is lucky.

you should know that for a lot of young people it isn't a happy gig.

I was a mother's help in the 80s in London. 50 pounds pw, full board, 4 kids - 2 teens, 2 under 5. I did all the housework, picked up the little ones from pre-school, played with them, took them for walks. Didn't get much to eat apart from dinner - ended up buying my own snacks so I wouldn't starve.

I was dating an Aupair when I was younger. She was sexually coersed by the husband, and I helped her leave and find another job, she's now doing really well for herself.

It was never sex but, he used to make her pleasure him out of coersion late at night when the wife had gone to bed. They would continue and watch the movie whilst he would low-key cuddle her and persuade her to do the deed. She would then receive gifts from him frequently to keep it their little secret. When we met she told him she wouldn't do it anymore. This is when he turned nasty and started threatening her, that she would be sent back home etc He was worried about her telling his wife.

She showed me the messages and the threats. I wanted her to go to the police but, she wouldn't because she didn't want to be sent back home.. She also didn't see it as him being in the wrong because he wasn't physically forcing her. He would buy her expensive jewellery etc to make her keep quiet. The worst thing is that she loved the children and his wife but, felt trapped. I often think now that she should still report him but, hope karma had its revenge.

She had two other friends aupairing in other houses on this Surrey mansion estate, and they had similar stories. I am sure back then it was a very common setup.

As for the job, she was literally working like a stay at home mum/cleaner. They had 3 kids and she looked after them as soon as they woke up until they went to bed. Cooked their dinners etc and whilst they were at school was expected to clean the house. Most weekends they would ask her to babysit, where she wasn't paid but, would be able to order a takeaway at their expense.

From my point of view she was working as a modern day slave.

Why do you use it as a childcare option if you feel it’s so expensive for what it is?

OP you’re getting a hard time on here. I agree with you. In principle the Au Pair option worked back in the day for young people to experience another country, maybe improve language skills, do some study, all within a family environment with housing provided and a bit of pocket money. Generally limited to across Europe.
The modern migration game ruined it with the visas being used to get entry and the au pairs being used as sole care for children.
I’d agree that it could still be a great option for a late teen to spend a year in a different city abroad in a decent family home with a few hours of helping parents in return for pocket money of maybe £100. But it just got abused. So here we are.
Do they still have those schemes where European teens could go and work in US summer camps for the summer for flights and board and pocket money? Same sort of deal and still not exploitation or needing minimum wage.

Then you'll only be paying for a couple of hours a day then, surely?

When we had au-pairs, in the noughties, we lived in SW London, in a beautiful house. The au-pairs had the top floor: double bedroom, bathroom, little sitting room. All food. £80pw spends and definitely never more.than 15hpw. The accommodation and its location were far nicer than the muck-in house shares I could afford in my first years in London when I certainly wasn't on min wage and had about £15pw spends after expenses.

The au-pairs were 18/19, made super friends through the Swedish au-pair network and the Swedish Church nr Edgeware Road. I believe we did offer a cultural exchange - their parents visited and stayed, wenhave been to their weddings, etc.

At the time I was working and taking professional qualifications, so fairly low pay. I was v v lucky to have £80pw spends.once I'd paid the au-pair and other expenses.

Not all au-pairs were mistreated or taken advantage of although I agree it was a cheap form of childcare for older children with the benefit that the children received that childcare in their own home -;much of the expected 15 hours between 3.30 and 6 were free if the dc had teas or after school activities.

It worked well for us and the au-pairs.

I think its because of the extra inconvenience of living at your workplace?

its made me realise it’s a pretty good gig no bills, no expense no rent…..

It’s also a lot of work and being responsible for other people children while being trusted in someone’s home is a huge responsibility, which deserves decent payment. Au Lits do it for the experience of being in another country. It is not too much to expect that then enough that they can experience the other other country,

So a worker who is naïve/uneducated should be exploited? The fact that they might not be clued up on finances/labour laws is not a reason to structure the industry in a way that pays them unfairly. Young women's work has been devalued for decades in au pairing and it's about time it changed. As much as at its best it is enriching and a cultural exchange and a good experience, it is also work. The "pocket money" model of renumeration has been really insulting and dehumanising but accepted as the status quo as it is very advantageous for families of course and teenagers and very young women weren't empowered to ask for more. I'm sure it's an unwelcome change for you but I don't think you're making a good case for why this change is actually wrong in theory.