Does this job sound fair to you, or is it exploitative?

[BrickWasp]

Mum with a 1 1/2 year old baby looking for a live in nanny 6 days a week.
Working hours 4pm to 11/12pm (while mum works evening shifts)
Double room with all expenses paid at home (Wifi, gas, electricity, food, etc...)
Au-pair has the whole morning free for another job or for studies, she has to take care of the baby from 4pm (sometimes 5pm).
Cameras in the house on 24/7 with the knowledge of the au-pair.

Nanny or au pair?

What is the salary?

Sorry, I meant to say a nanny.

There's no salary, it's in exchange for the fully-catered bedroom including bills and wifi

Then yes that is exploitative. And illegal. And I cannot imagine a nanny accepting the job.

You can’t not pay someone a wage for a job.

To have to pay! Au pair will earn less than a nanny, but it's exploitation to not pay.

Of course it’s exploitative.

whaaaat? You have to pay someone who looks after your DC @BrickWasp how else are they going to live? Buy clothes, have a social life, pay for their phone? Catered room and bills is all well and good, and yes, a live-in nanny will earn less than one who lives out, but you need to pay a salary as well.

They are working eight hours a day, six days a week already - how could they pick up another job to earn actual money on top of that?

FWIW I would never take a job (even a paid one!) where I was working six days a week 4pm to midnight. This has to be a joke. Or a reverse?

48 hours of work per week for no money, just room and board? On what planet would this not be exploitation?

I mean, these are literally the working conditions of an enslaved person. You can't be serious.

Live-in employees now have to be paid National Minimum Wage. (Though there is an accommodation offset allowance that can be deducted.) Additionally, National Insurance and pension contribution needs to be paid, and payroll organised so their tax is paid (whether net or gross can be negotiated).

https://www.nannytax.co.uk/news/rates-thresholds-for-nanny-employers-24-25

But, I mean, even 10 years ago when I just had au pairs who only worked about 15 hours without sole charge they had to be paid £60-£100 per week on top of food and board. Because 1/ otherwise no-one would have accepted the role and 2/ it would be exploitative.

Thank you. I'm not the nanny in question, I 100% agree it's exploitative.
My friend met the mum through a random post in one of her community groups and she really wants to take the job. She doesn't think it's exploitative as she thinks a baby that age will sleep at 8 or 9 pm, she doesn't have children herself.
She thinks it's okay because she has the whole day to find a second job.

Totally exploitative - you can't expect someone to work a 7 to 8 hour day, 6 days a week for no more than bed and board.

You're not offering a great deal - au pairs generally always have the morning or afternoon off for language classes, work about 20 house a week and get paid - where I live it's about £100-£120.

If you did manage to get someone they'll be desperate, eg illegal immigrant might do it if really stuck, or they'll leave very quickly when they realise that other au pairs are being paid, working less, and working more sociable hours.

The person in question is very likely looking for an illegal immigrant that's desperate, she doesn't want to conduct a DBS check (the cameras replace that apparently) and doesn't want to go through a proper agency

I think you need to research what a slave is. This is a job that is being advertised and this person actually wants it despite having other options, as daft as it might sound

Very illegal.

But if she wants the job she should take it, do it for a year, then sue the employer for unpaid minimum wage - after a year she would be owed £24,918 in unpaid wages at that point (48hrs per week at minimum wage less the £9.99 per day maximum deduction for accommodation). She'd just need to keep written records of hours done and she'd be guaranteed a win.

Surely NOBODY would think this is reasonable? How does the nanny pay for anything for themselves? How do they fund their days off, clothes, social life, subscriptions etc? How do they save for the future? How do they pay for bus fares etc to get to job interviews?
Anyone expecting to find someone to do this job is likely a vile and unkind person, not someone I’d wish to have any dealings with at all.

Thank you for your reply. Even without a written contract? How would she go about proving the written record is factual?

I know, it really irked me, especially since the person offering the job is very well off and lives in a nice part of London (which she advertises as one of the advantages of the job).

The expectation here is that the nanny has the morning and beginning of the afternoon to find a second job.

It does sound exploitative if it isn't offering any wage. But if the mum wanted to get around min wage laws then why wouldn't she offer to pay min wage, then charge the same amount for rent and board? It would work out the same for her (I suppose she'd have to NI and pension, but it wouldn't be that much) but surely would meet the legal requirements?

I have a toddler a bit older and the job doesn't sound that demanding for that age - many toddlers are in bed by 7pm and after 4pm the dinner and bath/bed routine takes up most of the evening. It is less demanding than a daytime nanny job where you'd have to be taking them to groups and running around in playgrounds.

Yeah, if the parent was reported, they'd be fucked. Rightly so.

And, where will she stay on the 7th night if only live in 6 days a week? A hotel? With no wages to pay for that one night a week.

Utterly exploitive

So the expectation is that the Nanny will work a ‘real’ job until 4pm then put an 8hr shift in looking after a baby? Utterly exploitative. And I hope whoever takes the job, takes them for everything in a tribunal at a later date, because they deserve to be. The Nanny would be entitled to request evidence of work from the cameras I guess? The information commissioner’s office would be able to assist in obtaining that information.

I think the fact that they are willing to rely on the desperation of someone who may be in the country illegally is particularly distasteful but the law is clear on this also. An illegal immigrant does not have the right to work so an offer of employment cannot be made.

I’m also aghast at being prepared to leave your 1 1/2 yo with absolutely anyone and with no background checks to save money. The whole situation is beyond comprehension frankly.

Yeah, that's exploitative I'm afraid.

So the nanny would have to work during the day to earn money to survive plus work evenings for free and have only one day off a week. CF.

Very exploitative! We have a live in "mother's help" (not in the UK) and she gets room, food and salary. She does actually have a second job but I don't really consider that anything to do with me. I pay her for what I want her to do and what she does in her free time isn't my concern.

I agree with a pp that if the friend wants the job they should accept and then squeeze the "employer" for backdated salary when they leave. Although that might be hard to do if the friend becomes attached to the child. Not on the same level but when I was renting in the UK I accepted the landlord not putting my deposit in the deposit protection scheme because I knew that when he tried it on at the end of the tenancy (which he did) I could "remind" him of the law and get back what I wanted.