£90 pay per week for Au pair but they have been also asking for English course, bus pass, car use, gym subsciption.. what to do?

[meadowquark]

I am currently recruiting an Au pair. My advert says £90 per week plus free sim plus car/bike use if wanted. The position is a standard of 25 hours (more 20 hours to be precise), does not require driving and is in London zone 4. Various au pairs so far have been asking, can they drive? (cost of additional drive), can I buy gym subscription (£45/month), travel card (£66-£150/month), also can I pay for English classes? (£60+/month)

I don't know where to draw the line and where to say yes or no.
Anyone with experience please??

TIA!

Those funny signs were British pounds!

where are the AP's from? Might that be a reason?
I was offering £80 pw (zone 5) plus phone (£6 with 3 network) and had many applicants.
I was particularly looking for spanish and only a handful wanted anything extra.
Most were happy and didnt even ask for any added perks

We pay 100 per week, plus gym membership. Central London near tube. We were inundated with applicants and now have a fantastic au pair, so I would say pay as much as you can afford to attract the best applicants.

Someone up thread said they were only paying 60 per week which seems very low.

We pay our childminder about £6 an hour, and she provides dinner (after school).

Au pairs are getting room and board, and POCKET MONEY. I'm sorry, but it is insane to suggest they should be getting £90 and a travel card and language classes and a mobile phone. It would be cheaper to have a childminder, and they wouldn't live in your house.

And I also live in zone 4 in South London.

It's not insane to advise someone to match the average offer. The average offer usually includes travel are of some kind and a basic phone package.

A childminder at 6 would cost 120 for 20hrs a week. So for one child it probably is slightly cheaper.

If the OP has two children the childminder would cost 240 a week. The au pair won't cost that even with a phone and travel card.

If the OP has three children the childminder would cost 360 a week.

The childminder won't do your laundry, walk your dog, babysit or hoover your house either.

Hoolies most people don't pay for all of those perks, but at least some.

The advantage of an au pair is that you get flexibility, one to one care, and they can do nursery duties and some housework. Plus of course they can look after multiple children at no extra cost.

Outraged for two children at £240, you are not paying for food, or bills, and you don't have someone in your house. For three children I can see it would be cheaper. Perhaps then the benefits are reasonable.

Incidentally, I have been an au pair, I cleaned the whole house (including the toilet), did some cooking, lived quite far out of the town I was in, and got no perks. I just think it has gotten a big ridiculous personally.

If the au pair is being paid 90 a week. With 10 a week oyster top-up and a 10 a month phone, that's a weekly cost of 102.50. An au pair will not cost 137.50 a week in food and bills. Even with two children an au pair is cheaper, plus you get the babysitting, light cleaning, care for sick children, dog walking etc. that a childminder doesn't do.

I'm sorry that you were taken advantage of when you were an au pair, but I think it may be skewing your view (and your maths) about what is an 'insane' level of pay/perks.

I don't think it is reasonable not to offer transport (travel card or a car) to an au pair. They shouldn't be prisoners in your home.

I also think that they need to have some sort of regular activity outside the home: 20 or 25 hours work a week with your DC is not enough to keep them occupied. English lessons and a gym or sports club sounds like a minimum to me.

My own comparison: breakfast care 5 x 2 children = 50 week, afterschool care 52 x 2 children. 154 weekly for 2 kids.

My au pair cost estimation: 90 (pocket money), 10 (travel), 3 (phone) = 103 week. Extra food probably 30 week. Extra electricity, heating, water, wear & tear let's say extra 25 week (we work FT so heating is off during the day). Total of 158 week.

Not much economy between the two. Au pair gives more convenience, but then reduces privacy, holiday pay, there may be emergencies (never with afterschool club). If anything, au pair is more risky to take on and hence could be more costly.

I am only choosing au pair because I want to give DS1 a break from his regular care (behaviour issues there) and work travel possibilities. As I am choosing a male, I am not expecting much support in household.

I was also thinking if I could get a lodger who starts work later in the day and not pay rent in exchange of morning school run - a win win situation. But wouldn't know where to start looking in order to get a reliable, working, mature person.

I pay £80 for 25 hours per week, zone 6. £10 mobile top up every OTHER month and travelcard (evenings and weekends) - but only because I already have it communting to zone 1 every day of the week.

We will be renting out our spare room for £160 a week to an international student studying here. 10 weeks of the year they aren't around, but it averages as 560 a month. In fairness we do give them breakfast (or at least they are allowed to help themselves.

So, for £160 + 90 with no perks, we are talking £250 a week. That's about £10 an hour for 25 hours. If I were doing it I probably would pay for a phone so I could contact them.

It isn't slave labour. At least not in my view.

Obviously students can go out and do stuff. I did language lessons and went out with my friends. It was fantastic. My pocket money paid for my travel, and my phone calls home. Easy.

I don't think anyone has said it is slave labour.

We're talking about the difference between 90 a week and 90 a week plus 12.50 in perks.

12.50. That's what we're disputing. Is it 'insane' and 'ridiculous' to offer perks worth 12.50 a week? Of course not.

That isn't quite what the OP said, and some of the replies were talking about gym membership, travel, a phone etc.

The difference between £90 and £102.50 isn't much, I agree.

But language lessons paid for, gym membership, extensive travel - that, personally, I think is excessive. But hey, I'm not competing for an au pair!

I pay £100 for an au pair plus position, that's 35 hours a week. We also include a uk mobile phone which is £20 a month for unlimited, text, data, uk calls. We provide an oyster but with £10 to start them off as we don 't need them to take the kids on public transport, we also provide a bicycle. No lessons, no gym membership obviously all their food and board. Had lots of applicants and our AuPairs all seem happy and usually ask to contract extend ( we only do 6 month stints but often they ask to extend to 9). We are zone 4 London.

I pay £80 for 25 hours a week including 3 hours a week cleaning and £120 a week for 35 hours a week including 5 hours cleaning. I have never offered anything over and above. If they occasionally take the children on the bus I reimburse but don't give and have never been asked for an Oyster card and I don't give a phone, I used to but it was never used and for the odd text here or there it hasn't ever been an issue. Au-pairs don't seem to mind as the first two stayed for 1.5 years and current one has been with us for 2.5 years. It's only on MN that I have ever heard of au-pairs getting such good perks. So long as the salary is reasonable, which yours is and you are kind, reasonable and respectful and live in an area with other au-pairs you should be more than able to find someone suitable.

I'm in zone 2, I pay £85 and no perks. Everyone here does the same. Loads of applicants and nobody asking for extra. I would turn away anyone asking for extra tbh, it's the standard au pair offering and I don't want to get past the tax threshold.

I finally hired an au pair, a Spanish primary education graduate :) As I said initial offer included 90 and free sim card. I have not offered anything on top, but have in mind to offer some Oyster top up or possiblly giffgaff deal as a kind gesture if I feel the person is worth it.
He seems to be pleased.