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?

I'm not sure why you have concluded that my lodger is a "stranger". Out of interest, how long should I have known him for before he isn't a stranger?

I find it odd that you view a mutually beneficial arrangement to be so exploitative. My lodger isn't in a position to be an au pair as he already has a full time job. Saying that he is employed for childcare implies a greater degree of reliability than he is required to provide. The arrangement is usually one whereby I ask him whether he will be at home for the next hour whilst I pick up ds1. If he is at home, ds2 stays at home carrying on with his homework/music practice/TV watching, if not ds2 comes with me. Ds2 obviously prefers to be at home rather than in the car. I wouldn't employ an au pair just for this though.

Similarly in terms of babysitting, my dilemma would be whether I have another babysitter in the house for the children. I would prefer not to leave say an 18 year old in the house with my lodger as well as my children, as it effectively would be a restraint on my lodger's privacy (he really doesn't need babysitting!). I think that it would also be relatively intimidating for the babysitter to have another adult in the house cooking their meal or watching television. Finally it could be confusing for the children who if interrupted whilst asleep may struggle to remember which adult is in charge.

If the lodger did go to a housing adviser he would be advised that as an excluded licensee he has relatively few rights. These don't include the right to expect me to clean communal areas (though I do have to keep them wind and rain free), and certainly doesn't include a right to be kept away from noisy children! How bizarre if it did? How would that work?

As my lodger isn't my employee I'm not entitled to request a CRB on him I believe, but am happy to be proven wrong. I know that he has been CRBed through work. In fairness I have seen CRBs on previous lodgers but only as I am child protection officer for an organisation that has employed them, not because they lodged with me.

I don't get all this talk of exploitation ... surely adults can come to any arrangement they like about lodging/food/childcare/payments and if both parties are happy, even if it's an usual arrangement from a traditional childcare view, it's for no one else to judge on exploitation/unfairness etc. It's not as if we live in Colombia, or that OP or ladymuck has hidden their passports and are using them like slaves (well I hope not...) If concerned person isn't happy, it is up to them to do something about it. It's none of anyone's else's business to judge that situation.

It is not a lodger's job to drop your kids off at school etc.
well then call him a super-lodger if you prefer. He sounds like a great solution in certain circumstances.

I guess some of the outrage come from traditional nannies (well paid, long hours, no housework) feeling threatened by these new classes of childcarers?

Novstar, exploitation can always happen, in any country. There are always vulnerable people around who can be targeted by others. (i'm not saying that this is the case here i don't know op's situation but i've seen some bad cases and i don't think it is bad that people question things)

Novostar,
In her orginal post ladymuck claimed that the 14 hours babysitting was in lieu of rent. She said the room was worth £100, and the lodger paid £60, and made up for the other £40 by babysitting/dropping the child off at school for a total of nearly 14 hours per week. Therefore it is not just a favour he is doing, if it was it would not be part of the deal. It is exploititive, and not mutually beneficial he is in effect paying £144 for a £100 room. We have employment laws in this country to prevent exploitation, so it is not right to say if the person being exploited thinks they are getting a good deal or is happy with it it is fine. If your employer tried to get away with paying under the minimum wage he would be stopped.

I wonder how many of them claiming that this sort of behaviour is OK because the person being exploited can leave if they choose would feel the same if their employer announced he was going to drop their wages to below minimum wage and if they did not like it they could work elsewhere. Considering the public sector strikes at frozen wages and penison cuts, I think there would be tibunals if this happened.

Again you are trying to put an employee interpretation on the arrangement which simply doesn't exist. He would be aghast to think so! He's getting a fab deal for London accommodation, the benefit of sharing in our wonderful family life whilst helping out as any other member of the household. Even if he somehow fell to be deemed to be a worker there are a number of exemptions to the national minimum wage including for those living as part of a family and for informal arrangements between friends.

The problem is once your child reaches the age of 9 or 10, and certainly once they're older and can be left alone, then I'm not sure that the traditional childcare models really work that well. A nanny doesn't offer anything at that age that another adult can't provide. The au pair model worked for a while, and certainly whilst there were visa restrictions, but in the modern EU the model is pretty outdated; people can come and work in a variety of jobs and may prefer to try and get something more in line with their eventual career. Most parents are now looking for something more flexible which works for modern life. In a market based economy such as ours then new models will arise.

No he is getting a raw deal for london. I know several people who are doing something similar in central London and they get a much better deal. Not one of them has to pay, and most get "pocket money" as well as full room and board for about twelve hours babysitting. I certainly hope you have not told him he is getting a good deal for london. I also hope that as he is not an employee and just a member of your household it is fine if he decides not to help you out with looking after your children. This idea that someone should be doing chores as part of the household is exactly where exploitation starts, and is exactlly why aupairs ended up being given worker status as people would hire one, and then pull the "oh, they are a part of the family so they should be expected to do all these chores" and get them to do far too much. You seen very keen to point out that he has no rights either as a lodger or as an employee so you can do what you like. And in your original post you did imply to people that the childcare was in return for the discounted room. Abd when you say parents are looking for something more flexible, it comes across as parents with eyes bigger than their financial bellies are looking for ways to pay as little as possible for childcare.

And do you expect to be protected by the minimum wage laws when you go out to work, or are you happy for a market based economy to apply to your wage.

I think that you have a good arrangement and would make sure to keep it that way. I would let him help himself to food - you want him happy so he is happy to help you when you need it. Ultimately a small price to pay. By the way you are not the only one doing this and some agencies now call these students demi-pair ...

Ladymuch, did you know your lodger before he moved in? I think if this is getting commen its an ideal way for any type of pervert to get in your home as there is no check on lodgers.

People have said rents are expensive in london but also so are nannies.

redglow it's been around for ages. When I was 9/10 my friend had a lodger who dropped her at school/took her home (teacher) and when I was a teen and we no longer had a nanny my parents had a lodger (via church) who lived with us for 2 years in the basement flat and did occasional babysitting etc. It was better than an au pair really as she was older, more responsible and better at helping with homework! A few friends did it as students too.

OP

Slighty confused from your posts, but just feed the man!

Where do you expect him to eat breakfast if not in the kitchen?

Ladymuck wow well done for getting your 'lodger' to pay you

He is able to see for himself what the London market is like. He is a finance graduate earning a London salary, and is not feeling in any way hard done by. If you are a nanny then he will be earning far more than you are earning. I very much doubt that he could get a role which involved 12 hours babysitting that suited him and gave him free board, but we'll have to differ on that. Certainly he is hoping to move to Kensington or Chelsea, so if such a place came up he's be delighted. I am pleased that they are out there, and might even be tempted by one myself at some point! He's not looking for a childcare role per se, we're a convenient and friendly welcoming household, and he is a very pleasant chap so it works all round. We've always been seen as a good place to stay, and we're happy with that.

Our mutual rights and obligations arise out of our relationship with one another. In much the same way as the OPs does. Provided both parties are happy, then it works well. When either party feels exploited (and note that in this case it is the OP who feels that way), then the issue needs to be addressed.

Am I unhappy if he can't do some babysitting for me? Of course not. He is out tonight for example and I'll have someone else sitting. No big deal, he doesn't have to "make up the hours" in any way. If he was never available to help out, then effectively I see it that I'm getting rent for putting up someone who I never see, so again no big deal. If he refused to help out then that of course would be different:- mainly due to the earlier issue that I explained in that it would be awkward to have another babysitter looking after my children whilst he was also in the house. So yes in that case we would probably ask him to look for alternative accommodation and use local teenage babysitters as needed.

Redglow, yes I have known all of our lodgers before they have lived with us. With one exception who was a friend of a good friend. She worked in a nursery, but was an absolute nightmare to live with.

Redglow, Kelly2000: would it make any difference to your thoughts if my lodger was related to me, say my adult son, or my nephew or godson? You seem to have a very balck and white view of how adult relationships can work, whereas in practice there are many shades of grey.

ladymuck,
No I am not a nanny (but nannies I know earn a huge amount -own apartment, several hundred pounds a week, all bills, certainly more than the average graduate, although in fairness many of these work in other EU countries). And he certainly could get plenty of places where they give free rooms for 12 hours childcare, I know several students who do this, and in fact post of them also get pocket money.
As i said if it is a favour to you as you cannot afford childcare for your own children then fine, but if it was a case that he had to babysit for you or you would ask him to leave then you are exploiting him. He certainly should not be paying you £60 a week if babysitting is expected of him. That is certainly not the going rate for this sort of set up in London.

Actually Kelly my question for you was whether you would see it differently if my lodger is my nephew or godson?

Fwiw the dcs are in independent schools, we've had nannies in the past, though not recently so I'm surprised if they're earning City salaries, and would expect them to be pricing themselves out of the marketplace soon! £10-12ph still sounds more normal, but I bow to your expertise. I'm amazed that we still have people who want to live with us if there are so many fantastic deals to be had. Out of interest are there agencies advertising these deals anywhere? The ones where one can get free bed, board and pocket money for 12 hours babysitting whilst still being able to hold down a fulltme job elsewhere. So many single people in London are working fulltime and are paying rent, as well as food bills and council tax, clearly unnecessarily given what the "standard" arrangements are. Why?

If your lodger was your nephew it would be the same. I also fail to see why the fact you are happy to pay for your child's schooling, but not their childcare means you are not exploiting him. Why is it anyone else's problem if you cannot afford independent schooling and babysitting, but want both.

As i said the nannies I know do not work in Britain generally as the wages here for everyone are so low. But wages for nannies can be huge, much better than the average graduate in the UK.
And how much your lodger earns is nothing to do with you, but if he cannot afford to get a room let alone a small flat in Chelsea of kensignton then he is not earning a huge amount.

The students I know who are doing babysitting in exchange for rooms etc did go through chidlcare agencies, and some through informal childcare sites. The reason why most people do not do this is that they can afford not to. It is what you do if you are a student, and want cheap accomadation. If your lodger has to pay and do babysitting as part of the deal, he is getting a very raw deal for London.

"The reason why most people do not do this is that they can afford not to."
Oh come on, if a single person could get free board and lodging in some of the most expensive parts of London in return for 12 hours of watching TV, and could still hold down a City job, then why wouldn't they? Most single blokes would just love someone else to cook for them - they'd happily pay!

PS still not sure you're getting the impression that I can't pay for babysitting - have made it clear that I can and do, eg tonight. As I have explained repeatedly, once I have someone living here with me, it then it would be awkward to have another babysitter in the house at the same time. When the lodger is out, or away for the weekend, then like most other people I pay a sitter.

Just give up on this, Ladymuck. She isn't interested in a dialogue.

I am sorry, but normal people would rather live with friends or by themselves than get a slightly cheaper room by living with a family and babysitting their children. Most single blokes wuld rather have their own place where they can bring back boyrfriends, or girlfriends and platonic friends. And if you are earning decent money in the city you could certainly afford a room or flat in Chelsea or Kensington. Like you said in the area you live rooms only go for £100 a week, so you would have to be pretty hard up to accept doing 14 hours babysitting in exchange for £40.

And the fact you think that getting a lodger to do £84 worth of babysitting for a £40 discount and seem to think this is not exploititive is giving the impression you are in financial difficulties. It would only mean he got £16 above the minimum wage per week if you gave him the room for free, as is normal in London, but you seem desperate to get the cash from him and admitted you would ask him to leave if he did not babysit for free. That is what gives the impression you cannot afford to pay someone normally. If you can why be so tight as to coem up with such an economically beneficial deal to you, but such a raw one for him. And the fact that you keep claiming he earns well, makes it seem as if you think it is ok to exploit him.

"As i said the nannies I know do not work in Britain generally as the wages here for everyone are so low."

You've got to be joking. For a full time live out nanny 50 hrs per week, colleagues/friends in the London area are paying £2,800-3,200 per month. This is very standard. Plus the £2K agency fee in most cases to hire these people.

harriet, I stand corrected (although I have friends in other EU countries who earn that plus their own apartments and all bills - sickening really :)). But you do see a lot of people only paying £10 or so per hour too. There seems to be a real jump.

Novastar,
because I do not agree with ladymuck, you say I am not interested in dialogue, your arguement could easily be applied to ladymuck herself. I am sorry, but I do not think paying £60 plus doing £84 worth of babysitting for a £100 room is a good deal, and it certainly is not the norm for this sort of arrangement in central London. We well have to accept we disagree.

It's alright, no need to apologise. We just have different views.

Most private families can't afford the salaries I quoted. "Only" £10 p/h gross works out at £500 pw to the family. That's still a hefty bill for most people. Anyway, once we get started on nanny salaries things are going to REALLY downhill...

HAVE A GOOD WEEKEND EVERYONE.

Have a good weekend Harriettthespook. Hope Tsunami, rent-a-bro and the DCs are very happy together. Sounds like they are

Just looked back at this thread, havn't been around much this week due to family matters but I have to comment on the remark about nannies not liking these arrangements.

As a nanny I do not feel threatened by anyone doing a bit of child supervision; For a start I, like many professional nannies do not live in my workplace and have my own home. In order to satisfy potential employers and ofsted I have to have expensive and intensive police checks, pay for public liability insurance and update my peadiatric first aid every 3 years despite the fact that I've cared for children for 30 years+ and have glowing references plus ongoing contact with chiarges now grown up and have never had a situation I couldn't deal with.

Allthough I cannot see a problem with those who know their lodger really well, like redglow the thought of inviting a lodger to look after your children seems a bit risky to me but then it's cheaper than hiring proper childcare isn't it? As to how I would feel if it were a nephew son ect. that is entirely different. When I go to look after the children of my family members it becomes a labour of love: No charge

And as Kelly said it's not just nannies who find the arrangements exploitive.

It's down to how domestic relationships work. We're no longer in a situation where the traditional model of the au pair or nanny is the only feasible one. The Uk has had au pairs plus, demi pairs and all sorts of other arrangements for several years now. And we'll continue to see more variations on the model over the next few years given that there is no need for an au pair visa - people are free to work across the EU. Even in other EU cities, the nannies earning £35k+ will soon be a thing of the past just due to market forces. There are too many unemployed graduates across the EU for these relatively unskilled jobs to stay at that level.

For my own situation it is interesting how different the picture looks if one tries to translate a rental situation into a childcare situation. My own situation is that we have people who live with us, paying rent, and out of that we get some free childcare just from having another adult around. Had we primarily needed childcare and hired an au pair or nanny then the financial arrangement would look quite different. At some point market forces will cause the gap to be bridged, and given London rental prices I can guess which direction it will head.

Iam not worried about these lodgers takeing work of me, everybody I have worked for would never have somebody untrained with no references and no police check look after their children.

If it was a nephew yes it would be different I have known my nephew all his life and his background.

If you are willing to take the risk fine but do not go on saying what a great arrangement it is and it will do proper trained nannies out of business most people would not take the risk however small the chance may be of something happening.