How is it fair?

[princessfiona]

How is it fair?

1. To expect someone to work for 10-12 hours a day looking after your children for so little money?

2. Would you do it for so little money?

3. Even if they come from a country not as wealthy as UK or USA etc.

4. Do you think they should have a pay increase?

5. I know that it is allowed legally to pay under the minimum wage but does it mean that looking after your children is worth so little?

6. If your daughter went to another country would you want them to be treated in the same way and paid the same?

7. How much time off do they have? Whole weekends without babysitting?

Agree Moondog I thought that was an odd comparison too. Actually I can see where you are coming from princessfiona.

I was an au pair in America and do not recognise the cushy number that's described here. I was contracted to work up to 48 hours a week (actually very rarely did this number) for $100 (plus board/lodgings) a week in 1994. So just over $2 an hour. I often had sole charge of two under fives for a full day 7 am - 6pm with the 3yo at pre-school from 8.30-12. And this was the norm among the au pairs in my circle. Obviously I did it for the experience rather than for the reward - doubt it did all that much to further my career in IT.

However as a gap year it is one thing but as a career (ie nanny) it is another. I'm not sure its so much the pay that seems to be the issue but the general unwillingness to provide security/benefits such as sick pay.

Having said that though if you paid a nanny as much as you were paid yourself it would then defeat the object of working, I suppose.

Uwila I thought that from April there was supposed to be £50 a week tax free (so £100 for most two adult families with child care requirements) irrespective of income.

If you were on a low enough income to get child care tax credits there is no way you could afford a nanny anyway.

doubt it did all that much to further my career in IT.

oh you'd be suprised by how many employers (in all fields) look favourably on someone who's done ANYTHING constructive for a gap year!

Good for you, Gwenick. I'm glad it was a good experience for you. I've known a lot of women for whom it was an awful experience, and the thought of my daughter holing up with strangers as a lackey is, IMO, not s/thing I'd want for her. There are other ways to experience a culture. I did study abroad myself for 2 years and worked as a teacher.

Just as whilst I personally would not employ an au pair or nanny, some chose to. It's their own personal choice and business. And I don't judge them for that. I just answered PrincessFiona's questions truthfully.

Bozza, your scenario is a bloody disgrace. Who ARE this people??!
(Feeling particularly enraged at present having just returned from Dubai where you can't move for SE Asian nannies scurrying around after fat spolit Arab kids, getting cups of tea for snotty women, and being waved away by imperious men.
Grrrrr!!!!!!)

Bozza,
Your experience parallels that of a lot of women I've come in contact with. The 'nanny' or au pair was basically used as slave labour. Many of these women didn't have a lot of confidence or self-esteem and put up w/behaviour such as your American bosses b/c they felt cowed.

thanks bozza
I just dont understand why mothers think they can pay below minimum wages and expect others to look after their children all day
Why dont they give up work and spend the time with thier children themselves?
Especially if they say they cant pay the minimum wage?

BTW Please could someone to explain from other side.[parents]

sorry expat you misunderstand me - I didn't work as an Au pair - I was working in a school in the end - for less pay than a few Au pairs I knew (and they didn't have to prepare lessons, mark work and attend staff meetings 'after work hours). BUT the experience was worth it -

Eh, Moondog? What are you talking about? I have no grief about my working conditions...I was just answering PF's questions.

Ahh...in that case stating the obvious then.

princess - I think you're missing the key point about these 'below minimum wages' - they don't have to pay for their food or for the roof over their heads.

It's a bit like the difference between a pub landlord who lives ON the property, and one that still lives in their own home. The one living ON the property probably gets payed less by the brewery than the one living in their own home - because of the extra costs involved.

I suppose they could give the Au Pairs 'minimum' wages and then ask for their contribution for food and lodgings back straight away - but I doubt that would be very popular and also very silly!

ok

so you say that they are renting their room do you from the parents?

But why is it worth going to work if you cant afford a woman to stay at home and work with sole charge of your children?

Sorry but I still dont understand why some parents do it?

especially for 10-12 hours every day?

Am confused why?

'so you say that they are renting their room do you from the parents?'

Can you clarify what you actually mean by this statement, please, pf ?

'so you say that they are renting their room do you from the parents?'

Can you clarify what you actually mean by this statement, please, pf ?

sorry, for the dbl post

I don't think any "guilty" parents are going to answer your questions, PF, because I think they are a rarity in the UK.

All the families that I know with au pairs treat them fairly and keep to the standard au pair working hours (25 hours per week, plus two nights babysitting, 2 full days off). "Sole charge" is when they get children to and from school, and for short periods of time - not for hours on end. The minimum au pair pocket money is in the region of £50 a week, but I don't know anyone who pays this low. I don't think that many au pairs would accept such a low payment.

I pay my au pair 80p an hour below minimum wage which basically means that she has room & full board for £20 a week - bargain. It's probably worth £100 a week if I had a lodger instead.

I believe that nannies - who do work long hours - get paid a reasonable sum for their duties. I have a friend with a nanny, and she costs them well over £20k a year for working 8 - 6pm.

When working women use au pairs, it's not to look after children all day. It's to take them to school and pick them up again at the end. They then have 9 - 3 off to do their language classes, go shopping, meet friends etc. They may work from, say, 7 - 9am and 3 - 6pm to equal 25 hours.

Sorry Moondog, I didn't know I needed your approval to write what I wanted.

Princessfiona,
I work for several reason.
1- I do make more than I pay the nanny, but not a lot more after I'm finished paying taxes.
2- I hold my right to work and maintain a rewarding career very close to my heart. Why should I have to give up my career and so stay home so that my husband can maintain and flourish in his. I regard this as a fundamental subset of equality for women.
3- I like to work. It would be lovely if I could do this for say 5 hours a day and then go home to my wonderful kid(s). But in the real world people who show up oart time are regarded as half comitted and do not get the opportunites as those who put in the long hours.
4- I want my children to think that women and men have careers. And not that daddies go to work whilst mummy looks after the mundane housework.
5- I'm sure my complete list is much longer, but can't think of the rest just now.

I was answering gwenick ncmm

she said they have a roof etc so does that mean they are renting it?
If they paid them exrtra £20 then was paid back for roomand food.

I dont have a problem if aupairs are treated like yours Americascot yopu sound very fair and kind.

But why pay so little for sole charge for 10-12 hours?
So why pay au pair wages but expect long hopurs and no language classes?

Steady on, Ameriscot ! As far as I can see, moondog never said that you did ! She was just challenging your points which compared your 'working conditions' with regards to your kids as a parent and those of your Au Pair in the same capacity. She couldn't find the relevancy of your comparison to this debate. That's all. TBH, I thought your 'Well, i don't get paid for looking after my kids' attitude was a little bizarre too.

It was clearly a case of crossed wires and misunderstood posts. It's been said a million times before but it is easy done on here as we can't get our tone across very accurately.

I was answering the question about looking after children being worth so little. Well, I don't personally think so! It's got nothing to do with whether you employ an au pair or not. They get paid according to market conditions, as do all domestic workers, including babysitters.

It's nonsensical to put a monetary value of your child's welfare - of course, the answer is "priceless". Most people who look after this priceless commodity get paid zero, or close to it.

You pay your employees according to their skills and experience, in light of supply & demand. You could never pay them what your child's welfare is worth so it's a pretty futile exercise.