New Au Pair

OP - I'm sorry you've had so many negative comments on this thread. Some of the posts have been useful, but others have been just plain rude. You can get some people's backs up by announcing you have a "fantastic career" and they'll find any excuse to make mean jabs at you.

I'm a new mum with a "fantastic career". When I was pregnant I posted a similar thread about childcare. My question was "can I ask my MIL to look after the baby when I go back to work" and many posters made me feel like I had my head in the clouds. (But in the end, the answer was "yes" so I guess I win.)

Take what useful tips you can, and don't let the nasty comments hurt you.

My own take on what you're asking is:

1. Au pairs are probably a bit too inexperienced to look after a newborn. I say this as a new mum of a 4-month-old. I don't know about legals, but I personally wouldn't want to leave my daughter with one.
2. Newborns are a lot of work, and unless your au pair is very accomplished, you probably won't manage to do much work from home. To put this into perspective, I signed up to do a distance-learning course (certificate in medical education, PGCert) during maternity leave, thinking I'd have tonnes of time. But in reality I manage to do 1-2 hours work max, on a good day, and I'm not going to finish the course on time.
3. Don't take her passport. (I get that you were asking with a degree of incredulity rather than hoping you can really take her passport.)
4. I'd strongly advise putting off the decision until your baby is born. Your wife might change her mind about whether/when she wants to go back to work. During pregnancy I thought I'd be leaving my baby with babysitters/family all the time, while I go out and do fun things; but since she was born I've been reluctant to leave her for even 1-2 hours at a time with close family members.

Good luck with it all!

The passport thing is not unheard of but tends to happen in cases where the employee needs a visa to remain in the country and the visa is conditional on having a job. By keeping the passport the employer makes sure the employee can never quit. It is incredibly abusive and generally practiced on employees who are vulnerable as they may not speak the language of the country where they are working, they may not know employee rights in that country or lack the courage to go to the authorities for fear of being deported.

Many years ago there was a case in Greece where a couple were believed to have tortured and killed their employers in order to get back their passports.

I know people who employ au pairs for a range of different roles, but they're all within the au pair remit and all nice people. For example;

SAHM with 5 children. Three school age, one pre-school age, one baby. They share up the school runs, sometimes the au pair does it, sometimes she waits at home with the baby and/or pre-schooler while mum does it. Sometimes she'll have the baby for the morning while the others are at school/pre-school, takes her to a playgroup/singing group so mum can run errands. Works a total of 25 hours a week (or less) and attends language classes. She is 24, plenty of common sense. No qualifications. She is happy. Mum is happy. Kids are well looked after.

2 working parents with 4 children; 3 school age and one baby. Au pair does the traditional morning/after school care of the older three. The baby goes to a childminder. If the parents are late home the au pair will go and pick the baby up and watch him with the older ones for 30mins/an hour. If the baby is sick and cannot go to the childminder dad will work from home and the au pair will care for the baby (if she doesn't have pre-arranged plans). Works a total of 25 hours normally, is paid extra for any overtime. She is 26, qualified in childcare in her native Spain. She is happy. Parents are happy. Kids are well looked after.

2 working parents with 2 children; 1 school age and 1 pre-school age. Au pair works a total of 25 hours, but over three days. Picks up little one from pre-school at 12pm and the bigger one from school later. I'm not sure how old she is, but I'd say early 20's. She is happy. Parents are happy. Kids are well looked after.

It doesn't have to follow the traditional/standard before/after school care to be a fair and appropriate au pair role. I think the 'pool' of au pairs changed massively with the recession. There are now many older, qualified potential au pairs.

What do you hope to achieve by confiscating their passport? Preventing them from leaving if it doesn't work out??

yes it does cheer me up
i've only ever known nice people who employ genuine au pairs for older kids, within the original remit of the idea: young, gap year, easy duties with older kids

If it cheers you up I know loads and loads of au pairs and people who employ au pairs. The full range of different people and different roles. I don't know a single au pair who has had their passport taken. I don't know a single employer who would even consider it.

There are definitely people who abuse the term 'au pair' though. Without question.

In this specific case, with the details we have, it sounds like a perfectly fine au pair job.

The whole taking the passport thing makes me wonder about the OP's attitude, but the job, as described so far, is fine.

i've just been reading up a bit more about this, and frankly it sounds like the return of the pre-war maid

i can see how the idea of witholding passports gets hold. this sounds like the system in a lot of arab countries, where they import maids, pay them peanuts and keep them in near slavery

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2695891/The-silent-abuse-suffered-by-nannies-and-au-pairs.html

not saying that is the ops intention, but this trend towards 'au pairs' sounds an abuse of the term and excuse to circumvent labour laws and minimum wage in many cases

It would probably depend on whether I could speak the language san.

If I could speak the language then of course I could just get a job as a live-in nanny.

If I was there to learn the language and needed to live as one of the family, needed to work much reduced hours because of language classes etc. then an au pair role might suit me better. I wouldn't be happy to take on the full responsibilities of a nanny in a country where I couldn't speak the language tbh. Also, if I was having a gap year I'd probably enjoy the reduced responsibility of an au pair role.

Au pair is a title. If I were doing an au pair role, I would expect to be paid as an au pair.

It's the same as if a lawyer got job in Tesco. They wouldn't expect to be paid a lawyers wage would they? You get paid for the job you are currently doing, not the qualifications you have.

outraged, if you moved abroad as a qualified nanny (assuming eu country) wouldnt you just be a live in nanny still?

before my kids were born, it wouldnt have bothered me too much the idea of an unqualified young person in charge of my baby

after my kids were born, errr no sorry, i will pay a bit more and not be totally cheapskate about it.
live in nanny, great.
'au pair' who is actually a qualified nursery nurse in her own country, great but sorry i would not pay her 'pocket money' if she was that qualified and experienced, she would just be a live in nanny who happened to be foreign.
au pair young person, not to be left in sole charge of under twos, traditional idea of au pair - great for my older kids, with my precious newborn? no way.

The difference between a nanny and an au pair is responsibility.

A nanny is sufficiently qualified and experienced to be able to take full responsibility for young children for extended periods of time e.g. a full 8am-6pm working day plus commute. They should be completely able to deal with any situation that may occur. They will take responsibility for organising the child's day, keeping on top of tidying/laundry etc. They will take responsibility for planning and cooking healthy meals etc.

An au pair is not expected to take full responsibility for young children for extended periods of time. Even if they are sufficiently qualified and experienced, they are not being paid enough to shoulder this responsibility. This does not mean that they are completely incompetent and will immediately lose/eat/steal your child if left alone. It is completely fine for an au pair to have;

• full responsibility for short periods e.g. a couple of hours at playgroup or at home while the parents pop out or while babysitting.

• partial responsibility for longer periods e.g. an eight hour day, but where they have someone to fall back on in any kind of emergency.

Everyone has to make their own decision about what they're happy with. But it is not helpful to make claims that 'au pairs CANNOT care for under two's' because they quite evidently they can. It is not helpful to spout nonsense about 'unqualified teenagers' etc.

I'm a qualified and experienced nanny. If I move to another country and take a job as an au pair in order to have time to learn the language I won't age down 10 years and forget everything I know!

Au pair is a job title. Some people need to take a deep breath and get some perspective.

THANK YOU OutragedFromLeeds ! Most people on here probably wouldn't have been handled their baby and judged fit to look after them if hospitals had chose to judge them on experience yet, they allow themselves to judge anybody who doesn't have a diploma in child education or so to be unfit to spend a couple hours with a baby without killing him and assume the worst about Au Pairs. I don't get it.

I didn't say it is a problem.
You were all talking about as if the 3 of them would be all day at home, thats why i mentioned it.

ooh that was a weird cross-post!

I think maybe some people don't really understand what an au pair is. It's just a title, it doesn't describe a type of person.

Au pairs range in age from 18-30 (and possibly older). I think most commonly they are in their early 20's.

Au pairs range from experience babysitting their own siblings to having worked in a nursery or school in their own country or having been au pairs before.

Au pairs range from no qualifications at all to advanced childcare qualifications in their own country.

It's quite possible that this au pair is a 27 year old, qualified nursery nurse with plenty of baby experience in her own country.

I think the majority of people would agree that said person, having been reference checked, could be trusted to look after one baby at a playgroup for 2 hours.

The hysteria over an unqualified, inexperienced teenager is ridiculous. There are au pairs who fit that description but that isn't what an au pair is.

I don't see why people on here seem to assume that all Au Pairs and the OP future Au Pair is going to be a teenager with no qualifications.

There are all type of Au Pairs inexperienced one very experienced one, very young ones and older ones. I have many Au Pair friends who are over 25 and have nursing qualifications or are teachers in the country and just wanted a year off to explore a new country. You don't know anything about OP's Au pair so why always assume the worst ?

Like Janetwim I have much more experience with kids/babies than my host mom and actually like most parents she wasn't trained to pediatric CPR and was quite glad when her baby choked to death that I was there to do the right thing so it's only an assumption that Au Pairs would not be able to deal with the baby (as good as parents would ) in case of emergency.

errr....I meant au pair not nanny above! Freudian slip

It doesn't necessarily have to be a 'naice' career. I have a friend who is a social worker. She works from home one day a week, which is purely a paperwork day i.e. doesn't have to done at a specific time. No international conference calling required. I wouldn't say social worker is a 'naice' career particularly, would you?

I'm sure the nanny will take the baby out once it is old enough to go to playgroups and stuff, which will definitely be 6 months+. Au pairs are quite able to have short-term sole charge of babies. So again, not a problem.

Well he must have a really 'naice' career, very flexible etc.
Ok some people do have these kind of jobs.
But if you provide a good job with a fair pay and decent terms you don't need to imprison your employee. This is what attracted the negative comments.

And that baby wont be all day home! Surely the au pair will have some time alone with the baby because she will take him/her out.
Unless the baby is a prisoner too!

Our former au pair had was 19 when she first arrived and was left 3-4 hours a day with a 5 month old baby. But then again, out au pair finished some sort of a midwife high school in her country and had more experience with my baby than I did. And she nannied and babysat since 15 so that definitely gave her even more experience. So yes, even teenage au pairs can have sole charge of a baby. She knew stuff about babies I had no idea about. So I disagree with all of you saying that au pairs aren't capable of taking care of under 2s.

I'd rather have a 19 yo au pair with experience with babies than a 25 yo "nanny" with almost zero experience and no qualifications. And we know how often that happens.

'No they are not alone, but if you are looking after them, you can be at their side in seconds. However if you are in the middle of an international conference call you are not free to go to them if the au pair can't stop them crying or screaming in pain or whatever.'

Totally true. But the OP hasn't said that his job involves international conference calls has he? We don't know what his job is. So let's not jump to conclusions.

The situation described would not work for many people who work from home. It may not even work for him once the reality of a baby hits. But it CAN work for SOME people (probably those not required to make international conference calls!).

And maybe, just maybe, they'll employ an au pair who is up to the job. Let's remember the massive range of ages/qualifications/experience covered by the 'au pair' title. I'll bet there is at least one who could stop a baby crying just as effectively as a new dad

Fair enough. We can agree to disagree. All my lot have played by themselves for extended periods of time in different rooms aged under 2. And have never destroyed the soft furnishings.

Legally, your child would not be considered 'home alone' were you to leave them in a separate room though. I think the majority of people don't consider their children to be home alone when they are in a different room. You are of course entitled to think differently, but I think it's worth acknowledging that you are maybe in the minority with this opinion?

"If you're in a different room to your children are they home alone?! Of Course not!"
No they are not alone, but if you are looking after them, you can be at their side in seconds. However if you are in the middle of an international conference call you are not free to go to them if the au pair can't stop them crying or screaming in pain or whatever.

With respect, I disagree for all the reasons I have already said.

I also wouldn't leave a child under about two and a half in a different room for longer than about a minute unless they were asleep. And probably older than that if I value the soft furnishings at all!

'The op has been very careful to state more than once that the au pair would never be alone in the house with the baby. That is not the same as not being alone with the baby.'

It is the same. If there is someone in the house then the au pair is not doing sole charge care. She is not alone with the baby. If you're in a different room to your children are they home alone?! Of Course not!