What exactly is the role of a modern au-pair?

[new2cm]

I started this thread following a discovery I made during an AIBR thread.

This is what I thought an au-pair was:

A young woman between the ages of 16-26, going to a country to live with a family, with the primary aim to learn its language and its culture, by attending a recognised English course for a minimum of 10 hours a week. Like a student, but instead of the student paying the host for lodgings, the au-pair lives free of charge with a family, in exchange for doing free childcare and paid pocket money of up to £70 per week (in other words, £10 per day) for doing light household chores (e.g vacuum cleaning the children's bedroom, preparing the children's meals, tidying up children's bedroom, doing children's ironing).

Apparently, this is not the case. They are now employees, doing a nanny's job but being paid an hourly rate rather than a salary.

Does this mean that a modern au-pair no longer needs to attend college to learn English?

This has completely thrown me. I will google some more tomorrow morning but I am interested, seeing that I am a part-time childminder, I should know these things. and

Someone has pointed me to this thread:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/childminders_nannies_au_pairs_etc/939573-Au-Pair-Placements-is-an-au-pair-an-employee-or/AllOnOnePage

Sorry, question answered.

Does depend on the country they come from, as those with a BR3 Visa still have restrictions but most don't anymore. So yes, most are just live-in nannies.

@new2cm Au Pairs are not doing a nanny's job and are not employees. They live as a member of the family and should be regarded as such - joining in with family activities and sharing household chores. They are participating in a cultural exchange program which gives elements of being part student and part worker.

@nannynick Surprised you've said the above really as I think it's misleading to say most (au pairs) are just live-in nannies. Most nannies have qualifications in childcare and/or experience caring for young infants, whereas most people who come and work au pair in a family probably don't - though they can and sometimes do.

Au pairs in the UK are employees and are protected by employment legislation, although they are not subject to the National Minimum Wage or the maximum 48 hours per week under the Working Time Regulations due to specific exemptions.

There is no difference in law in the UK between an hourly wage for a fixed number of hours and a salary, and there is no difference in employment law or childcare law between a 'nanny' or an 'au pair' - the terms are simply not used.

Beware when googling that many au pair agencies operate on an international basis so may not accurately state the situation in the UK - for instance there is specific legislation in the USA and in France that applies to au pairs. Unfortunately a number of agencies (and, shockingly, the organisation that calls itself the British Au Pair Agencies Association) do not acknowledge the situation in the UK.

how i read what nick was saying was that people who are 'au pairs' are really doing a live in nannies job, not that live in nannies are really au pairs. i have found lately that a lot of people are saying they want an au pair and are paying for an au pair but when you read the discription its that of a nanny.

What should they be called? Domestic live-in employee?

There is nothing to say that a nanny has to have childcare qualifications, or childcare experience. Anyone can be a nanny, it's not until you get to Home Childcarers (as Ofsted call them) that there is any training requirement and even then only a short course is needed.

In the past, those on an Au-Pair visa were restricted in their hours of work, their age, that they had to attend a language course. Now there is no restriction for most, so if they don't need a visa to work here, are they still au-pairs? Are they not doing the same job as a live-in nanny?

That is sort of what I was trying to say, but I obviously didn't come over right.

What I was trying to say is that there is no official distinction between an au pair and a nanny, or between a (fixed hours) hourly wage and a salary so the labels 'au pair' and 'nanny' may be useful short cuts to describing a job (a nanny will generally do longer hours and be expected to take more responsibility than an au pair), but they don't actually mean anything. So the distinction the OP drew ("[an au pair is now] doing a nanny's job but being paid an hourly rate rather than a salary") is not really relevant.

wonder why people are still happy with the 'au pair' wage then when they are effectively doing a nanny's job/hours.

Why is anybody 'happy' with an exploitative relationship? Because they perceive it as better than other alternatives available to them?

I think the more relevant question is how can people be prevented from exploiting 'au pairs' by paying them an au pair wage but expecting them to do a full time, sole charge childcare job.

If you want my personal opinion it is that education is better than regulation, and there is a lot more that could be done to educate au pair emplolyers on what is best practice. I have started (but am currently diverted from) a project to do exactly that. I also think that the misinformation promulgated by the BAAA and many au pair agencies operating in the UK makes the situation worse: there I think a little regulation might be a good idea; currently there is none.

Charlie when you do the maths an au pair isn't necessarily worse paid than a nanny with no qualifications or experience.

Au pair does 25 hours worth of work which probably includes an hour a day of general cleaning and tidying that may not take an hour. They get, to simplify the maths, more of less £75 a week plus board amd lodging, so £3/hour plus board etc.

Someone with the same profile who has agreed to, and is doing, a 60 hour sole charge week may well be getting £200-250. If you subtract the 25 hours for £75 plus board and lodging you're left with £125-175 for the additional 35 hours. This equates to an effective overtime rate of between £3.50 and £5, which is in the range of what an au pair would get if they had to work more.

But the fact remains that legally, with the exception of A2 nationals, the distinction between them has been erased and it's now everything to do with expectations and nothing to do with what the (non-existent) au pair scheme is. Those expectations needed to be negotiated and managed upfront so the au pair knows what they're getting themselves into.

The modern au pair may be from Australia, Canada or NZ, they can't go to study English. They may be a qualified teacher or nurse in their own country eminently capable of extended sole charge and wanting to improve their English. They may even be British and wanting to get a foot on the childcare ladder or have somewhere to live while they study. Childcare is best seen as a spectrum with au pairs and nannies at all points along it, rather than boxes of 'you're an au pair, you're a nanny'. The difference is in the job they do and au pair is a convenient abbreviation for approx 25 hours, childcare (probably before/after school), light housework and a couple of babysits.

Now I totally agree with mra that there's a lack of information and regulation but it's difficult to apply. Standard employment law applies, people (and maybe some agencies) are starting the realise that. People are also starting to realise there are no longer working restrictions for most au pairs so are asking more, but they're forgetting that pay should be proportional to duties carried out. The first is okay, the second is not. The other thing which is frequently forgotten is that while there's no restriction on what an au pair can/can't do common sense applies to what they should amd shouldn't. Unless they're experienced they shouldn't be expected to take sole charge of an infant for extended periods, for example, in much the same way you shouldn't expect an unqualified British teen to.

Are au pairs a cheap form of childcare, yes. Why? It shouldn't be because they're foreign, it's because they work a limited number of hours and live in. As soon as you up the hours you need to up the pay. As soon as they live out you need to pay minimum wage.

We've been through this so many times.

OP where I personally think the reality lies is somewhere between what Mr Anchovy says and what Treesa is saying. It is safer to offer them many of the benefits that you would offer an employee such as the holiday pay and also not abuse the recommended hours of work, to make time for language classes if they want them, and to make sure that they do some activities as part of the family. I don't think the au pair role is at all abusive when it works like this - people focus on the salary figure but there are other costs too in terms privacy, the amount of training and management they require and should be given etc.

In the event of a dispute, I think if the au pair could prove that she was working full-time, sole charge without any of the above cultural benefits or interatction with the family or support, a tribunal would absolutely decide she was an employee with all of the benefits (such as the net minimum wage requirements) and that the parents were trying to 'hide' behind the au pair job title. I'm sure the law would protect someone in this case.

I am not convinced a family that could prove it had made an effort to adhere to the au pair 'scheme' would face the same sanction by a tribunal if an au pair tried it on (as one girl threatened to do so to an MN'er a ocuple of years back.) I may well be wrong and Mr A would likely disagree with me but this is how I see it.

Don't reckon anyone's likely to put their hands up to be the frist test case legally though!

My understanding of the net minimum wage requirement is also slightly different - to me I don't see how live-in nannies are exempt because it says on the direct gov site that you're exempt when you're sharing in family life or some such. Which live in nannies don't do to the extent an au pair would.

The sharing in family life exemption is a bit badly worded though. Noone can pinpoint exactly what constitutes an acceptable level because it's clearly not everything but obviously someone who wasn't allowed to use the washing machine/Internet/kitchen isn't.

What exactly is a leisure activity? Or household chores that you'd expect another adult to pitch in with?

Many people operate on the basis that if you're living in the house you need to pull your weight - does that meet the requirements even if you don't invite them to granny's birthday party?

I agree with mranchovy. It is shocking. The most shocking of all, is that girls from overseas will be expecting one thing (being treated as a member of the family) and the English host family another (that is, a live-in nanny).

I personally believe that it is imperative for agencies to point this out to potential au-pairs, especially those who cannot speak English.

From what I can gather, a modern au-pair is nothing short than a domestic servant. I appreciate what HarrietTheSpook is saying, but I have met so many au-pairs who can barely speak English, let alone be aware of the complexity of English employment laws or have a funds to pay for such legal action.

I find the lack of reguation surrounding au-pairs even more shocking. x infinity! It will take time to get over that. When I look at how much is expected from childminders and registered nannies, and how much they have to fork out to be fit for registration. On my next SWOT analysis for my childminding part of my business, I will put down au-pairs under the T.

Why should parents pay for a nanny or a childminder, if they can get an au-pair for £2.43 per hour to look after their children and do their housework, and probably a lot more chores?

But this is why employers need to be responsible and clear and communicate. Most host families don't take it to the employer/employee extreme but it is important to keep that distinction. They are not your niece/daughter/cousin, they are your employee.

Why is it so shocking that there's a lack of regulation? I find it more shocking that until very recently we were completely flouting the rules on the free movement of workers by restricting EU nationals working as au pairs and denying them their rights. They wouldn't need to pay for legal action - ACAS and the CAB are free - and the burden is on the employer to provide a contract etc. The current situation is infinitely better for the au pair where the family respects 'the law.

90% of agencies don't care about au pairs as it's the parents who pay the fees.

By why is it so shocking about the lack I mean why in particular should au pairs benefit from additional protection when as EU citizens or on a tier 5 visa they could be doing any job ( in most cases)? A2 nationals coming specifically to be an au pair are subject to more regulation.

How many non English speaking au-pairs would know about ACAS or CAB? In fact, how many English speaking UK residents know of ACAS and CAB?
I somehow doubt the host family would tell their au-pair and I doubt even more that the agency would inform them of these organisation.

I am not worried about the clued-up the au pair who walks into their placement with their eyes wide open, and knows the score. That's fair enough.

However, knowing the definition of au-pair in French and German speaking EU countries, there will be many young EU nationals from those countries, who, a fortnight into their stay, must be thinking "what the hell?" and the host family thinking, "oh hell, we have a duff au-pair."

As you say, the au-pair must read the contract very carefully so she is fully aware of the situation she is agreeing to enter. I realise the onus and fault is on the au pair if she doesn't read the contract carefully. However, thinking back to how I was in my late teens and early twenties, all eager and carefree, its like......its like watching/reading some of these AIBU threads on Mumsnet. Someone once described them like the analogy of "watching a car crash about to happen."

Thank you all for taking the time to explain to me the current situation. I have learnt a lot over the last 48 hours - I really appreciate your thoughts and views.

See I agree that's where the agency should be doing the job of protecting the au pair. But they don't. And it's not like a nanny agency where word spreads and the nanny will never go back and will tell all the local nannies to avoid - au pair agencies are typically only used once.

But many au pairs do find out about ACAS/'the CAB - often from experiences of other au pairs or from people they come into contact with. I've sent an AP down to the CAB before now after she told me her host family weren't letting her have any holidays and weren't paying her when they're away. But sadly it is, as you say, a lack of awareness in the general population as well and a misconception that au pairs don't really have any rights.

Families should never just think they have a duff au pair. You see it time and time again on here people get told that they should have made it clear what their expectations are, that an au pair does need managing like an employee and they will need a certain level of input and training. If you don't do it you make a rod for your own back. Like any working relationship once the ground rules are established then you can grow around each other and be more flexible but it is much easier to set it out and move from employer to friend than to set off as best friends and suddenly have to put a very unfamiliar employer hat on to deal with an issue.

If you are in a situation where you have contact with people who are or are about to become au pairs then let them know the score. Hopefully they'll then pass that knowledge on to host families. As mra rightly says education is the way forward on this one.

In my experience of German au pairs, they are definitely coming with the expectation of being 'part of the family' and it being a cultural exchange in addition to the babysitting component. I don't think they have any idea that they are an employee in the way it's been discussed on here although as Snap says don't underestimate any au pair's ability to find out about CAB. Their agencies have no clue about them being technically employees and to the extent that English agencies are aware of it, they don't communicate it. The Au Pair World website 'contract' is really inadequate too - if that is the way that most people are recruiting their au pairs and then using this document

The only reason we know about these things and choose to make our invation letter cover the things which would be covered in a typical contract is that we experience as nanny employers and some idea of best practice in employing childcarers. (In addition to me being a mumsnet geek.)

OP: I think any worries that people are just going to 'switch' to an AP and they're going to edge nannies and cms out of the market on price alone is a bit overblown. I'm sure other people will come on and contradict me but I honestly don't know any APs looking after infants, for example, for long periods of time. Most of them are doing the standard amount of hours and have a pleasant enough relationship with their families. I reckon I have met more unhappy nannies over the years than APs. But this is just me.

APs often need a lot of looking after themselves - much more guidance on how to do things, and a certain amount of investment from YOU in making sure they're settled and happy. Some are also on the look out for a jolly as well (do a search.) Between that and the privacy issues, it's definitely not a low maintenance childcare option.

sorry failed to finish the sentence -

it's scary if people are using the Au Pair world document as the main basis for their contract because it covers very few of the essential areas.

I'm finding this thread very intriguing and the fact that some people think that au pairs are alternatives to nannies or child minders is really beyond me.

An AP only does 25 hours a week, spread over 5 days so 5 hours a day and NEVER sole charge.

Yes there are those people out there that expoit their AP's I hear horror stories from my AP but the flip side is also there that AP's cause misery in the houses they go to.

I've read accounts on here of AP's that have left the house for good without telling the 'house mum' what legal rights do you have in this particular case? None so it works both ways. Not that I'm saying thats how it should be far from it!

The fact is an AP comes to the UK to live and be a part of a family and when they come through an agency an 'invitation letter' is expected from the 'house parents' to the AP stating what is required of them, hours to work, days off and pay. As an AP when you receive this your agency should provide you with a translated version so you know what to expect. Then if you dont like the terms you can refuse to come over.

I've had discussions about this with my AP when she tells me about some of her friends who have to clean all the time, I asked her if they were aware of this before they came and 9 times out of 10 they were. SO my question is this if you know what to expect why are you complaining when you get here? You agreed to it in the first place.

An AP should be an extra pair of hands and be treated as a member of the family not an employee.

Yes they dont know the rules/law etc BUT if I wasnt happy in a job it is MY responsibility to find out what my rights are and if the job is that awful you are not being 'kept' in the house against your will so you should leave.

AP's are not slaves and I honestly would be horrified IF anyone ever treated them that way which I do find incredibly difficult to believe.

My kids love our AP and my DD who is just 5 very proudly tells her teacher that the AP is her big sister. Thats the kind of bond we should be trying to achieve.

The law regarding AP's is not particularly clear as agencies still call it a cultural exchange and never mention the employer/employee rule. So I'm guessing this does need to be cleared up.

I hope the majority of us with AP's enjoy a wonderful relationship. I have had my fair share of excellent, mediocre and downright rubbish AP's but I accept that everyone is different and I am not always going to get on with everyone.

This is as far as I got with my project. Anyone want to help out?

Oooh I need something to occupy me on maternity leave. Will gladly help out from Friday

Also APs have been coming to England for yonks and haven't they always been cheaper than nannies? I think the edging out would have happened by now.

If anything, once people cotton on to the fact that they need to be offering these girls employment rights the same as nannies, some could well be more likely to go for a CM who is trained, the care is outside the home (so no loss of privacy), still less expensive than a nanny, etc. If an au pair is at the top at pay range and it might also be nec to register as an employer.

The au pair agencies must have some reason for not making the au pair's status clear and I bet financial (concerns that hiring an AP starts to look too high maintenance) comes into it somewhere.

"An AP only does 25 hours a week, spread over 5 days so 5 hours a day and NEVER sole charge."

Alas, that's not necessarily true. An "au pair plus" can work up to 35 hours per week and not necessarily on childcare. 35 hours per week - That's the typical average EU working hours.

The term "au pair plus" should be replaced with "domestic assistant" IMO.