AIBU: should live-in be picking from fridge?

[tsunami]

AIBU - I have a nice live-in postgrad student, recently moved in to live under my roof in exchange for 16 hours of after-school supper & homework duty. The deal I made was that this student would have the room in exchange for the 16 hours, and on those days would then get to eat with the kids. But now he's eating breakfast in the kitchen, helping himself to coffee and now to lunch. He did ask if it was 'OK to help [him]self from the fridge' and I said h'm, within reason - not the big meal stuff. But now I feel I'm feeding him - even though he goes out to a bar work job in the evenings and earns his pocket money.
He's a poor student etc, and I don't pay him any cash but he gets his bed, hot water, heating, roof over head, uses our internet etc etc. I feel I'm being taken advantage of as I'm not his mum.
Perspective? Should I just get over it, as a few extra pints of milk, a bit of cereal, bread and cheese etc aren't going to kill me?

Dare I say, I think I have demonstrated that I read all your posts before commenting.

Tsunami, I'm thinking the danger may be if he stops pulling his weight with the DCs and is eating up your food budget and becomes more of a sponging son. You are both effectively students with small income so he can't be another dependent. Certainly, separate fridgeshelf and cupboard. What about fair contribution towards fuel bills/shared food? What would that be? £15/20?

An aupair does 25 hours in exchange for at least £75, room, full board etc (and often language lessons as well). he is just getting the room, with very little board and no money. You are being very very unreasonable. He should really be getting full board and about £40 a week. The fact he has a bar job is none of your business either, and should not change the wages he gets paid for you.
Sixteen hours a week childcare would cost at least £10 an hour if your hired someone in, and there is no way you could rent out a bedroom in a house for £160 a week.

Sorry, to be clear - I still think it's a wonderful arrangement, can see great benefits for you all, and hope that you're all very happy together!

kelly2000, he's not doing childcare, he's staying with them while he's studying

Eico,
The OP said he is expected to be looking after the children for 16 hours per week. A room, with little board is not a good deal for 16 hours a week.
The Op is being really unreasonable.

He is looking / entertaining the children 16hrs or just less a week? Even though op is there it takes the pressure of etc. Do nannys only get paid when there boss's aren't there? I don't think this is the case so op I do think you ABU to be annoyed he's helping himself to food!

An au-pairs, or nannies hours are when they are working even if the parents are there. If their time is not their own they get paid. So if a nanny has to stay overnight whilst the parents are away they still get paid even for when they are asleep.

You know what Kelly? If I didn't NEED an Au Pair, but was willing to put up with having another person in my house in exchange for a little bit of assistance with the DC who are old enough to not need 'looking after' but would really love having a big brother type of person around, then I would come to this sort of an arrangement too.

If the OP had wanted an au pair then she would have advertised for one, set the hours, and put in some proper duties.

I think the OP does need to be willing to provide things to make some breakfasts and lunches with as they are simple meals, and obviously feeding him while he's mucking in with the kids. But full on dinners are expensive, and I can see why the OP isn't willing to provide them.

16 hours would probably cover 3 of 4 days anyway, so it's not like he has has to fend for himself for many meals.

Chit,
the comparison to an aupair myself and others have been making is to show that the OP is being unreasonable. Expecting 16 hours childcare in exchange for room, and hardly any board is a bit much, and the OP was being unreasonable about the fact he was using stuff in the fridge and having breakfats in the kitchen. No she is not his mother, but she is his employer and as such he should be getting quite a bit more for the hours she wants in return (besides an aupair is a big brother or sister type person, they do not provide childcare like a nanny or cleaning like a cleaner or housekeeper so it is a fair comparison).

Childcare is about £10 an hour these days. So you're getting about £160 a week worth of work out of him. You begrude him a bit of extra food.

I hope he moves out so you'll have to pay someone alot more.

What if they're both in the same boat financially - students, low income - and she's giving him free room+bills (fuel, internet) in return for a rent-a-bro arrangement? Seems fab. I still don't think he's a nanny, sounds like he's helping DCs with homework while she cooks tea 4 days/wk (plus DCs aren't there first 2 hours). That's it. I think he's onto a good thing - free board.

We tend to have a similar lodger type arrangement, except possibly mine get a worse deal.

Lodger (23) takes ds2 to school each morning (so prob 2.5 hours a week), "looks after" ds2 after school for an hour a day, and babysits one or 2 evenings a week. In return for this he pays me £60 a week for board only and has to buy all his food and cook for himself (though if I am cooking a largish easy to share meal then he is welcome to share). Going rate for roomshare in a family house is about £400 a month, house is clean, well situated and he doesn't have to worry about bills, maintenance etc.

I think that the age of the child, and the degree of supervision required, is fairly significant in these equations. It isn't as if ds2 needs his constant and undivided care and attention. Often he just needs to have an adult in the house from a safety perspective but he is quite happy to get on with homework, music, lego etc whilst lodger does his work or is on the phone/watching tv/cooking etc.

We set clear boundaries on food very early on (this is our 6th lodger since having dc), as I find having to include another adult in cooking quite stressful. Current lodger tends to "borrow" stuff that he doesn't think about when shopping (it seems to be the first time he has had to cook for himself!) eg cooking oil, table sauces etc and as he never buys bread, occasionally needs to borrow that too. In the op's shoes I think that it is easier to get this clear now than to allow it to simmer for too long.

I suppose that I also address the kitchen aspect by ensuring that the lodger has their own cupboard, and fridge shelf/freezer space. And I would never view myself as his employer, though would admit to being his landlady.

I can't grasp people who think this guy is really hard done by IF the OP lives in London or some other expensive urban centre. My bedsit cost me £75 per week when I was a grad student 15 years ago. I doubt seriously it would be any less now. Plus food, plus the stress of being on my own managing it all. As an inexperienced childcarer this guy would not be earning £10 per hour, for a start, but even if so it's hard to see how rent and some food plus the bills he would need to pay would cost him much less than £150 per week if he were on his own. I would have traded some babysitting time for the security of not running up loads of costs/getting into debt when I was a student.

harriet,
he is in effect paying £160 a week to live in a house with children (sorry, but this puts off a lot of lodgers, I am certain they are not extra quite because they have a paying lodger). He does not get all his food, only some. he is gettign a very raw deal.
A friend of mine does this, she gets full en-suite room, all food, bills paid for and £50 a week pocket money in return for 12 hours a week (basic childcare -she keeps an eye on them whilst she studies). This is in central London, and it is the norm for this sort of arrangement.
ladymuck,
yes your tennant is getting a very raw deal, £60 plus looking after a child for about 13.5 hours a week (assuming each evening babysitting is three hours). Given that this level of childcare would be about £10 per hour (the fact DC only needs basic supervision does not matter), and he pays you £60 a week, you are charging in effect him £195 a week for a room which you claim would go for about £100 a week.

Remember: he's not on here complaining about his terms! he doesn't seem to mind what he's agreed to - I hardly think he'd be living with the OP if he didn't think he was getting something out of it and there were so many other better opportunities elsewhere.

Of course he isn't getting a raw deal - your figures of £10 per hour are totally absurd. When we do use babysitters we don't pay them that much, and I know of no-one in London who does! Even going through the local nanny and babysitting agency who supply qualified child minders/nursery workers/CRB checked people only charge £7 per hour - usual rates for teenagers etc are £4.50-£5 an hour.

I think that you are confusing the role of a lodger who shares some household duties with that of a full or part time nanny. The age of the child does matter. No way would I have used this arrangement with an under 5 in the house. But when the children are at an age where they can be left alone for some time, but not lots, then I think that it is a sensible compromise, and usually works well (as I said earlier we are on 6th lodger, most of whom have had a professional job as well).

Similarly it is unfair to compare the situation with that of an au pair. Whilst formally an au pair is classed as a worker under employment legislation that is a relatively recent development. And in practice such a role will vary from one which is almost "full time" when combined with language studies to one which is almost incidental to the person's other activities possibly including a job or studying. Imposing a formal "employer" relationship into any domestic set-up is often nonsensical, and will of course come up with such absurdities as you suggest (eg that my lodger is somehow exploited by dropping off my son to school on his way to work, or by being left alone in the house with sleeping children).

Anyway, there is a huge demand for this type of arrangement - from the people who are looking for places to live cheaply. Essentially the change in au pair status from "living as part of the family" to being classed as a worker has done them no favours at all. 10 years ago we probably would have had an au pair. Now it is easier for us to find someone in their early twenties who is starting on their professional career in London and wants cheap digs. It doesn't help our dcs language skills as much though.

With anyone sharing a house there needs to be some groundrules - the op is working out where hers are. From our experience we tend to let lodgers feed themselves, but then dh is rarely home in time to eat with the children so we already have at least 2 "sittings" each evening.

ladymuck - so your man/lodger takes your child to school, looks after him for the odd hour afterwards and babysits and he pays you £60 a week for the privilege

you have a VERY good deal !!!!

He doesn't pay me for the privilege of looking after my son! He is paying me a reduced rent for his room. Given that the majority of his "duties" do not impact on his daily life (eg he drops ds2 off on his way to work, and babysitting simply involves whatever he would have done at home that night TV, skype etc), he thinks that he is getting a good deal.

Of course if this option wasn't open to me, then yes I would have to look at some sort of au pair arrangement which would be far more costly for me. But that doesn't mean that my lodger is being in anyway exploited. It just highlights that the au pair arrangements were never intended to be fully commercial contracts: the relative market value of the lodging isn't included in the negotiation, which is rather bizarre when you step back and look at it. An au pair living in a £1,500 pcm room in Kensington would be no more skilled than the one in a £200pcm room elsewhere, and yet would still get a similar level of pocket money, regardless of the huge disparity in the value of the rooms.

Lady muck does have a really good deal!

you see my point though - you get someone to help with childcare and you actually make money from it

though obv your lodger does get a cheap room

it just made me smile thats all, that op lodger gets a free room for a few hours childcare - where you get paid for someone taking to school/looking after your child

main thing, is as long as both in the house are happy with whatever arrangement :)

I think these lodgers will put au pairs out of business.

I think I would like one.

ladymuck,
If he was a lodger your household duties would be your responsibility, you are expected to keep his room maintained (not cleaned, maintained), make sure the communal areas are clean and tidy, and make sure he is not disturbed by noisy children etc. he is not expectd to help you out if he is just a lodger.
It is not a lodger's job to drop your kids off at school etc. If he does it as a favour as he thinks you cannot afford childcare, fine ,but unless he is free to refuse to do it then you cannot claim he is just helping out as a favour. Regardless of whether he can use skype when he is babysitting or not the time is not fully his, if it was he would be free to not drop the kids off, and go out of the house during these hours etc.
You claim the room is worth £100 a week, but he pays £60 and provides the other £40 by watching your kids for nearly 14 hours a week, so almost half the legal minimum wage for someone his age. You claim £10 ph for getting someone to look after your children is far too expensive, but even if he was paid minimum wage you would have to pay him £84 a week for forteen hours, plus N.I etc so in effect he is paying £144 for a £100 room.
I am sure if he contacted a housing or employment advisor etc, they would tell him that this is a very raw deal for him.
Also if he is receiving payment (even in this form) isn't he still supposed to be CRB checked, go through various formalities etc as you are technically paying to receive childcare ? Even if a criminal record check is not a legal requirement if you are moving a stranger into your home and they are looking after your children on their own would it not be good idea?

Plus why is getting the rights of workers bad for aupairs, the only difference is that it is harder for people to exploit them. Aupairs shoudl get room, board, £75 -100 per week for 25 hours basic childcare and very light housework, it is not complicated so if anyone thought this was too much money in return for too little they are going to be exploititive and the worker status rules help prevent this from happening, or give the aupair a better chance at legal redress.

Kelly you are so right with what you have just said, I agree dodgy leaving your kids with a. stranger , 14 hours a week is more than just a favour.