To think that this advert for an live in au pair is grossly underpaid?

[salsmum]

I was just browsing on a job site and this advert came to my attention, AIBU to think that this is asking an awful lot of a potential au pair for £80 a week? and I thought carers were underpaid!.

Au pairs aren't supposed to have sole charge of under threes. So these people are definitely taking the piss. Plus that's a lot of hours for the amount they're offering.

The standard au pair role is for 25 hours per week.

In London, an 'au pair plus' should be getting at least £100 per week (for 35 hours) and that's with children three and over.

I wouldn't be surprised if they have lots of applicants though - there are so many young people from Spain, Greece etc that are crying out for any kind of work, as there's none in their home countries.

Yes, being an au pair should be a safe way for a young person to live in a foreign country and learn a language, with the comfort and security of a family to support them - as if they were staying with their own family. And in exchange they offer help around the house and with children - as they would if they were at home. That's what I think it should be anyway!

How long before the advertiser finds this? It'll be like that thread about the hipster blogger with the baby called Pear all over again..... [marks place]

That's a nanny or au pair plus role, it's underpaid.

An au pair should work 25-30 hours a week and should be one of the family.

They're brave to put a photo of themselves on it, when offering such shitty terms!

I think that sometimes people go into childcare arrangements without doing enough research or thinking it through. The rate is going rate for an au pair, it's just the dcs are too young. I certainly wouldn't leave someone inexperienced in sole charge of v young dcs.

It's not right but I can also understand the "you must stay in your room" thing from an emotional perspective. I have a live in nanny, and it probably took me 3.5 years to get used to my home not bring my own and having a certain lack of privacy. Even then, she only lives in during the week!

So, overall, no I wouldn't condemn them. I just think they will find out the hard way that what they are proposing just isnt practical (never mind fair on the nanny). Hopefully they find out without too much damage caused all round.

Totally not what au pair is meant to be about - they're meant to be part of the family, not shut away

Agree that the line about the cleaner 'that' cleans is very telling.

How on earth is the poor au pair, in London of all places, meant to be able to afford to take herself off out of the way when the family want time alone on £80 a week?!! She'll be stuck in her room like Harry Potter!

Although this couple arent as twatty as the first...

Wouldn't she be able to get it topped up with tax credits though?

Fowler's Modern English Usage (which is not terribly modern anymore) says that 'that' should be used for restrictive relative clauses, and 'who' for non-restrictive cleaners.

E.g., 'My cleaner, who cleans my house on Wednesday'
cf.
'The soldier that died on Wednesday'

'That' is used when the subsequent clause defines the noun, 'who' when it merely provides some detail.

Could someone please post a live link to the ad in the op, please?

at both adverts! Can't believe its considered ok to pay someone such shitty money for a fair bit of work! I mean obviously no one on this thread has said "Oh yes these peoples' expectations are totally reasonable" but those posting the adverts obviously think they are reasonable! OMG!

This coukd be me having extreme PFB-itis but I cannot imagine leaving DS with a teenager who could have very little experience if children and possibly isn't a fluent speaker of DS' native language.

The second family's littlest girl is only 1.5

The second couple want 45 hours a week including some weekends - so that implies that the 45 hours is spread out over 5 week days. With the scope for more work

9 hours a day minimum?! When would the au pair get to go to language school? Or would she just watch a Rosetta Stone DVD in her room for the few snatched minutes she had off . I'm quite sickened by this actually

The first people sound so horrible. Its the whole you need to be out or in your room stuff!! I hope they do find this thread!

I've actually messaged the second family. I felt compelled to. I used to think mn veteran and all that I was pretty unshockable but this actually makes me feel sick.

What other outgoings could you have that are so important and immovable that you must pay for them rather than for proper childcare for your children. I'm on the side of benign neglect but this totally takes the biscuit. It's irresponsible, exploitative and wrong.

Thanks for the link!
That's not an au pair. That's a nanny.

What a pair of entitled twats.

Nanny job for (low) Au Pair salary. I agree, they have totally missed (or are ignoring) what Au Pair is supposed to be - a member of the family. The 'sit in your room and don't disturb the family' does not work with the Au Pair arrangement.

Oh wow. What special special people. I can totally understand not wanting to share your living space, but that's why we don't currently have a live in. What gits.

I suspect both families will be messaged.

The first family isn't so bad, if the pay were better.