To wonder what constitutes being posh?

[BumWiper]

Because having an au pair seems to be considered posh.I have one out of need,not out of choice.
DC2 has SN and health problems which could very well mean a midnight ambulance trip (already once this week and its only Tuesday),so by having an AP it means precious time is not wasted in getting a babysitter,as DH travels a lot.Also there are many appointments,so it means I can go and not have the other children distracting me or annoying anyone.

But no,to others I have an AP because I'm posh.

More of a rant than AIBU.

I'm not sure they are covered by employment law - the are not employees they are on a cultural exchange where they receive pocket money and stay as a sort of "guest" in one's home in exchange for helping the mother with the family and home.

Am loving the lacrosse comment, I've made a point of ensuring my daughters play

Actually the ECJ ruled on a landmark case (Payir C-294/06) that au pairs were regarded as workers under employment law, which unless you are v posh and have several staff basically means they have the same rights as employees.

If you eat fish with a knife you are not posh

there is a legal distinction if you are paying one 70 quid and one 500. A very big legal distinction.

OMG! It looks like I must be posh (although I went to the local comp so I dont know how).

I can play lacrosse, ski in val, huge old house full of assorted dogs, and we have an au pair! Seem to have mislaid the husband though, although you are right about preferring the dogs. Actually I'm not posh at all, in fact I'm just a working LP who needs some help with the DC

That would be a taxation distinction. If the threshold chanted magicay overnight you'd have to deduct from the £70 as well.

Far too many people confuse the two. If you pay your a pair more then the tax situation changes but the difference in salary doesn't affect whether they are deemed employed or not.

Threshold changed magically even!

Isn't it actually quite cheap to have an au pair? My friend recently quit being a nursery nurse to be a SAHM but said she wasn't sure whether to just get an au pair for £90 a week. That seems remarkably good value for money for 1:1 childcare!

Its not 1:1 childcare. Does anyone actually read threads?

And no, it would be a lot more than a taxation distinction if you were using an au pair as a nanny yet paying them a fraction of the price. Which would be a very long way below the minimum wage, which would be very illegal.

Slight deviation from OP: Can I ask why there are so many programmes about girls/women doing finishing school, ladettes becoming ladies, average women wanting to be a Princess and having training. etc etc but none for men?

I'd quite like to see the average tracksuit wearing yobbo learn that scratching his ballsack and sniffing his fingers thereafter in public makes most people want to vom.

Oooh, sorry. Trodden on a toe or two already. I'll get my coat.

Minimum wage doesn't apply to live in workers, which is how one can pay £70/week in the first place for 25 hours.

Although of course if someone is working 50 hours they should get more than £70! But then they cease doing the job commonly defined as being that of an au pair and become a young, inexperienced, unqualified (and underpaid) nanny. Anyone can be a nanny, it's not a protected title, it refers to a job. There are no minimum qualifications if special requirements attached.

The law does not define what you must pay your childcarer, as it does in some countries. The law dictates that if you pay someone to do a job with all the control over their work that entails they are an employee. The law also dictates the amount at which you are liable to start making deductions from their pay. The law does not dictate what an au pair is nor how much you pay them. The difference between aj au pair at £70 and a live in nanny at £370 is the fact that one works more hours therefore is paid more therefore has deductions made. If that same live in nanny worked fewer hours and earnt less then the only difference would be the rules regarding taxation.

See my post of 14:06 on appropriate pay anyway.

my point being that people are saying that they know of "au pairs" that work longer hours than full time nannies, so clearly it is not the case that, as you say, "The difference between aj au pair at £70 and a live in nanny at £370 is the fact that one works more hours therefore is paid more therefore has deductions made.".

If you are using an "au pair " at 70 quid a week for full time childcare for young children then you are at the very least royally taking the piss, taking advantage, and I find it extremely hard to believe that in the UK (with its comparitively very strict labour laws) you are not breaking the law.
Perhaps I am wrong and slavery is alive and well in West London?

Fraktious - you are right they are now entiteld to 28 days hols and mine would certainly always have had that to which they were entitled but our last one was here 2008/09 and that must have been the last of the three weeks recommended holiday.

Paying an au-pair £70 for full time childcare is taking the piss siamo but that is not the nature of an au-pair. However, mine did 20-25 of light duties for 80 pocket money, flights home, all statutory hols, at least a third of their language studies paid, etc., etc.. and got to go to some very nice places in London with us. They also had fab accommodation in a very nice part of London. I don't think we took the piss at all. Please see some of my earlier posts.

Feeling a bit thick, but how is it not 1:1 childcare? If they live in your house and you only have 1 child which they collect from nursery/school and feed/entertain until you get home, for example? Isn't that the normal job of an au pair?

Unfortunately that is the huge downside of the minimum wage exemption. The employers are technically doing nothing wrong in terms of pay. But legally that person is still entitled to holidays etc.

The problem lies in the erroneous use of the term au pair. It is supposed to mean (in the spirit of cultural exchange which has no legal basis) room, board, pay, the opportunity for language lessons and a cultural experience in return for some light child are and housework. Understandably that was taken up by young, foreign nationals. Now unfortunately au pair has come to mean young foreign national doing a childcare job even when really they're not an au pair at all. People say they want an au pair - they mean they want 25 hours a week etc or they mean they want some young foreign person and it's difficult to tell the difference.

It doesn't make it right, I don't particularly approve of the removal of a regulated au pair scheme which was intended to give au pairs more protection although that removal has raised the issue if employment law many, many times particularly on here which is sort of a good thing.

Thats my point, married. I have been quite clear I think. Au pairs are not nannies, and should not be treated as such. However some people try to take advantage and do that. I am responding to all the people saying how cheap au pairs are for childcare and how they are great value compared to nannies and nurseries. I am pointing out that you can't compare them as they don't do the same thing.
Not sure how much clearer I can say the same thing?

OK, so you are saying I shouldn't expect them to collect children, cook for them or entertain them until I get home from work.

So other than the light household duties in the job description, what do they actually do?

But please don't underestimate how many decent familiies there are like ours who have welcomed au-pairs into our home and treated them in the spirit of the agreement, have met their families and watched them mature to go home to university courses and succeed at them with a little more life experience than they would otherwise have had. Without the arrangement those girls wouldn't have come and they weren't exploited in any way by us -they may not have earned the minimum wage but they had fabulous accommodation and all other expenses paid so the £80pw was pocket money and theyt usually did a couple of nights babysitting for friends at £6 ph which is what we paid if we wanted extra evening babysitting.

Most people agree on the non FT bit however au pairs, in the traditional sense, can be excellent value compared to an afterschool nanny for example or if you have a 3yo in school nursery then wraparound care.

Alternatively young foreign national sense you can get exceptional candidates with EY qualifications capable of doing the 50 hours for considerably less than a traditional British nanny would cost you which may be where the excellent value is coming from.

The key to the success of the second arrangement is managing expectations.

I'm not, married, thats exactly what should be the case.

Orbinator, not sure who you are talking to, as nobody said anything of that sort.

Frak has described the difference between nanny and au pair well but to give an example.... I have a baby and a toddler and have a live in nanny (but she actually goes home at weekends). My nanny has had sole care charge of dc from when they were 4 months and she has many many years of experience in doing this (plus some qualifications). I wouldn't entrust the care of my babies to someone without the requisite training. She looks after them, cooks and cleans the children areas (my cleaner comes twice a week). My nanny's contracted hours are 7am to 7pm Mon to Fri, for which she gets her own room, bathroom and use of a car. She earns £26,500 (but remember dh and I pay all the bills plus food as well) and a xmas bonus.

When both dc are in school we won't need such an experienced person and will just need someone to provide wrap around care. I can see that as the kids get much older we will have an au pair and they would probably do 5 hours a day (M to F), get the same benefits of our nanny but be paid a lot less (eg £70 pw) as the expectations and responsibilities are a lot less. But as I said, I just wouldn't entrust the care of my babies to the nice young foreign student who has feck all training or experience.