To ask if you realise au-pairs are seriously under threat after Brexit?

[Dontblameitontheboogie]

On another thread discussing a potential au-pair who would be starting this summer, I was struck that not a single poster pointed out that it’s far from certain au-pairs will be able to arrive or even stay after 29 March!?!

I thought this deserved its own thread, and in AIBU rather than the “Brexit” echo chamber. People may not even realise they could be affected.

Even in a “Deal” scenario, au-pair status isn’t guaranteed, as far as I know. They won’t qualify for pre-settled status, as they’re here temporarily and won’t be able to provide proof of ordinary residence. So technically they could be here illegally from 29 March. Access to health care would be a worry, as would re-entering the UK after trips home - or getting here in the first place.

The current au pair scheme is an EU-wide arrangement, that allows young EU nationals to temporarily live in another EU country without exercising Treaty rights. Some countries, like France or Germany extend the scheme to au-pairs from outside the EU too, but the U.K. doesn’t.

In case of a no deal Brexit, the Immigration Bill that was passed last Monday means that EU citizens wishing to come here must have a job offer worth at least £30,000k. Some exceptions I believe, such as nurses and doctors, but I haven’t seen any mention of au pairs anywhere.

Check out www.saveaupairs.uk for more info.

I'm not sure policies that will have the effect of cramming even more of us in the already crowded south east are a good thing myself. If people do wish to move there for greater opportunity then yes of course, but speaking as a northerner, I don't think what we need is policy construction to force people out and make us even more capital centric. The person who talked about Hull and JRM sounded worryingly prescient.

RoseAndRose au pairs aren’t employees and they earn pocket money, not a wage! They are more like a teenage older sibling than a nanny. They get other benefits instead, such as experiencing family life in a different culture, learning a language.

If you allowed this sort of arrangement on a permanent basis (paying well below the minimum wage) you’d open up a path to exploitation.

Of course there’s no reason why someone with a spare room couldn’t offer board, lodging and a small salary for housework and childcare. I’m sure people do. For it to be legal, I expect you’d need proper contracts, and the employer/landlord would have to pay tax on the rent, and declare the employee’s salary (including the value of the lodgings) to HMRC for tax and NI purposes, pay holiday pay etc. Then it would all be above board and not exploitation. I’m no expert, but I imagine this would cost a lot more than an au pair though - as it should, since it would be a totally different relationship, without the cultural/language/experience advantages for the au pair.

Other end of the country? Hopefully that’s a joke. So the teenagers going from Canada or Australia are fine to be away from “home” but UK teens can’t?

I much prefer a regulated nursery setting plus I wouldn't want a stranger living with us.

where did anyone even implied anyone should have an au-pair if they don't want one

Nurseries don't take primary school age children you know.. but a 5 and 7 years old are too young to be left alone, so an au-pair is ideal if you don't have family available to take the kids before school and until you come home - too early or too late for child minders.

I've got an au pair. I am a single parent and work full time. I pay him £100 a week for 25 hours and without his help I would seriously struggle. Having an au pair isn't a luxury and the weeks when I was without an au pair cost me double in childcare and babysitting costs. Let alone the house being a tip, Laundry piling up and no food in the house. So sod off anyone who thinks my life is a dream.

Teenagers coming from another country (and actually it’s 18-30 year-olds) make an active decision to seek an enriching experience travelling abroad temporarily. They’re not 28 year olds from Leeds who can’t find a job after they get made redundant so get forced to move to Surrey for less than minimum wage or face benefits sanctions. I am amazed people can’t tell the difference.

It is absolutely mind-blowing that there are people on MN who don't think an au pair is a luxury.

Ps the au pair is a live in family member. Not an employee. Therefore most of this thread is factually incorrect re their legal status.

Well yes, that's what the term means. But I think some people are commenting on the potential for exploitation (which there is). No doubt it works out well for very many people though.

Missillusioned as keeps being repeated on this thread, working parents cannot claim tax credits to help pay for an au pair.
So if a single parent nurse has to employ an au pair to cover shift work, she would have to be a high grade to afford it!
Plus have to space to give them a room to stay in as well.

I was an NHS employee, professional role, but there was no way I could have afforded any type of child care without the help of tax credits to enable me to work (lone parent here as well)

What’s this obsession with whether it’s a luxury or not? Sure, many people can’t afford one, or even want one. That doesn’t mean those who do aren’t allowed to worry that absolutely no provisions have been made to keep their status after Brexit!

It’s like saying to someone who is worried they’ll lose their house to suck it up because others live in flats, and by the way there are lots of homeless people. It’s not the Pain Olympics.

Sometimes I feel like Brexiters are gloating because M/C families will lose out. They don’t seem to realise that W/C will lose way more, and many of the poorest will literally starve, much worse than they already do. I just don’t get it.

It’s not a fucking luxury, it’s affordable childcare so people can work. What is so hard to understand about that? Apart from the fact you can’t see past your prejudices. I bet you judge people who don’t work too.

It doesn't really matter that it's a luxury, but what's astounding is that there are a fair few posters on thread claiming that it isn't.

You have to wonder what world these people live in, and how they think the other half lives.

Lulumush

Except that as far as the HO is concerned they technically aren’t. And even if they were, sadly being a family member of a Brit, even a parent or child, means absolutely zilch for somebody’s right to live here.

So your reply is completely factually incorrect and very misleading.

I got someone who is between a live in par time nanny and an au pair (a mature student from the EU, doing a PhD). Not sure I am prepared to swap her for a long-term unemployed native candidate.

Please explain Katherina why childcare is a luxury. Do you think my 4 year old should walk himself home from school and look after himself until after 10 twice a week?

Quick question for everyone that's so anti au pairs....

No childminder in the area
All family work, so even if they lived close enough, they couldnt help out
No before/after school club

What do you recommend for childcare solutions?

And if you're suggesting working opposing hours to your partner's , why? Because then the children miss out when there is a viable solution.

In addition. With regards to the pay, most people don't have £80-120 a week to spend on literally anything they want, given all food and lodgings are paid for.

And you can't have a British national doing the same thing, it's against the law.

I had a good arrangement with a friend, she was a SAHM to children the same age as mine, and one baby. She covered the half hour before school and 1hr30 after school, and we paid her..... Soon got into trouble for that. Despite it helping us both out.

So go on, magic solution please.

Agree with many posts -
An au pair is someone living in your house for board and lodging ( and some weekly allowance - it is specified ) in return for some ( short) hours of childcare. They are not a Nanny. In return they have to have the time to study / go to college etc. So yes - having a spare room for the au pair to live in is a luxury , I understand that , but you have to treat an au pair well , they have to be given time to do study in the country and not onerous hours. Also - only to look after older children - they are not qualified nannies. Au pairs should not be exploited. They are what they are and when it works is it great. If no spare rom etc - then of course it won't work .

But biscuit you suggested my issue was that I couldn't get one. I was explaining that I didn't want one!

Tbh good. I’ve seen and commented rudely on the au pair adverts. 30 plus hours per week for £100, usually of a baby and toddler oh and can they walk the dog and do a spot of cleaning too. If those days are gone then the money will go on regulated childcare in the uk instead

Sometimes I feel like Brexiters are gloating because M/C families will lose out

And a fair few MC remainers don't think au-pairs are a priority either.

Kelsoooo - if there were no au pairs perhaps a childminder would pop up due to the demand

I'm not anti au pair but I'm astounded that people can't understand that it's a luxury. The private nursery I send my son to is also a luxury.
To be able to have an au pair you need to be able to provide accommodation. Not everyone has that luxury.

The vast majority of British families cannot even consider getting an au pair for various reasons....claiming an au pair isn't luxury just demonstrates a lack of understanding of how the average family lives.

KatherinaMinola
It is absolutely mind-blowing that there are people on MN who don't think an au pair is a luxury

luxury clearly doesn't mean what you think it means. Unless you start from the fact that children are a luxury to start with, so any childcare related to them is a luxury too.

But pray do tell us what childcare option would be CHEAPER than an au-pair?

My friends au pair is from Indonesia, certainly not in the eu!