How come I can get an Aupair at quarter cost of a Nanny

[emmerdale]

I am bit gobsmacked and wonder is there something wrong somewhere.

I have been looking for a Nanny or an AuPair and did major research (at least I think I did). Have posed the same questions to Nanny's and Au Pairs.

You may have read my other thread so you will be aware that I don't need really need anyone full time.

But a nanny is going to cost me X and the AuPair Y and the AuPair is looking for a fraction of the Nanny salary and is still prepared to do the housework ect...

Am I missing something or should I be ecstatic that I can employ an AuPair to do more than a Nanny at a fraction of the cost.

By the way I do not think this would be exploitation as the AuPair offered to do the housework in the first place.

Seems strange though!

Mishmash, she says she wants to employ the au pair.

sorry must have missed that

And she asked why there was a difference in rates and lots of people tried to reply - ie you shouldn't leave an au pair in sole charge, that a nanny was trained, that a nanny could live out or in etc etc

Looking back at emmerdale's first post, it was hard not to get the impression that the potential au pair was likely to be going beyond ordinary au pair hours / duties. If the au pair was being considered for the same job as the nanny and was not therefore a true au pair, that would seem tpo be exploitative. That's why emmerdale's initial post concerned me. This may be a wrong impression but she does not seem to have provided much detail in subsequent posts...

Can't see that she got the chance of giving more detail when she seemed to be getting a bit of a rollicking

I sort of agree with that as well, mishmash, but I can also see why people might have taken against her first post. I could be wrong but my feeling was that there was an element of "ha, ha I can get away with paying someone b* all to look after my kids and do the housework" and I suppose I am conscious that there are pretty desperate people out there. If that is a wrong impression and she is talking about a kosher au pair then I and others may have got the wrong end of the stick.

Mishmash make a valid point here. Emmerdale did just ask a question. She hasn't hired anyone yet. For a newcomer to world of employing live-in childcare (or even live-out), the lines between the various titles (au pair, nanny, mother's help, etc.) can be be very fuzzy shades of grey.

Me too ssd.
If that were the case then I have wasted over two years of my life training (not to mention other courses following my initial training), learning about how children 'work' (for want of a better word), how to manage them effectively, how to give first aid, how to treat them with the respect we all deserve (although I feel I would have done that anyway), how to get the best from them and teach them what they need to know, how to communicate with them on their level in a way which is easy for them to understand, the list is endless.

Yes, I feel I have a very natural flair for working with young children - it's always been what I wanted to do and I would probably have been very good at my nannying jobs without a qualification. I feel, however, my natural skills have been totally enhanced by my training and I learned a lot of things I otherwise would not have known by spending much time observing children and seeing the world from their eyes. I am qualified to be a nursery nurse in any setting and I feel that for that also, my training has been worth the effort.
Now I could go on forever, and I hate getting into these type of threads, but, I do feel strongly about this as I feel it was putting down as worthless what I strived to achieve by training. I feel by training, I can do my job so much better as far as the children are concerned.

There are lots of lovely au-pairs out there and if you find a good one, then that's great. There are horses for courses, and if an au-pair is what you require, then you should hire one.
If a nanny is what you require, then you should go down that route and be prepared to pay for the time and effort she will put into the safety and well-being of your children as well as keeping their things in order.

As far as I can see she asked a question - 'what is the difference?", Gwenick answered her in an informative, chatty and pleasant tone, and Emmerdale kept asking the same question over and over again and not acknowledging Gwenick's answer to her questions. which is why IMO people got frustrated.
Also when Emmerdale pointed out the difference in cost and said "something's wrong here' I think that suggested that nannies were overpaid, which is bound to raise hackles.

havent read all thread but you do know that aupairs arent supposed to have sole charge of littlies?

I agree with Ghostofnatt

Am I missing something or should I be ecstatic that I can employ an AuPair to do more than a Nanny at a fraction of the cost.

I got the impression that she was asking for advice, didn't like the advice so argued against. Maybe I'm wrong and if so I apologise, but I am sick and tired of hearing that nannies are not worth the money when you can get someone to do the same job for less.

I think she was acknowledging Gwenicks answers just asking more questions and putting her point across.

I do think that there is a big difference between nannys and au pairs and I think most of the other posters are right and have explained this well.

I don't think emmerdale meant to be controversial or ignore people, she just didn't know the details, now, hopefully, she does.

Um, I think she asked the same question over and over again and that Gwenick kept answering her!

Lets not argue amongst ourselves! Hopefully everyone now knows the difference between an au pair and a nanny

Sorry but I just don't think she meant to be difficult, (even if she was) that is all I am saying. I think she has been well and truly told now so I am sure she knows what the differnce is.

I don't think she meant to be difficult. But I think there is becoming a blurring of the two. An au pair traditionally was a young girl coming to learn English and help out around the house with older children. Now with all the new EU members, a lot of very capable and experienced OLDER girls are coming over and calling themselves au pairs/nannies. If they are not trained, I'd say they were mothers' helps, but that doesn't seem to be a term that's used much. So they stick to nanny/au pair. But they do MORE than a traditonal au pair, and often more than a nanny in that they are prepared to do housework. They work for more than an au pair's salary, but considerably less than a nanny's (I'm talking NNEB qualified or whatever it is called these days).

So if you can find one of these, and you suit each other, I'd say that was great. But I don't think you should expect a very young girl with little English to have sole charge of a baby.

Does that help, Emmerdale?

a true au pair - ie someone on an au pair visa - has permission to stay in the country, to work a limited amount of hours (I believe it's about 20-25)helping out a family, in return for bed and board and spending money. They also need to register with a college of some description to combine this with study. They are not meant to be full-time carers of your children. Having said that, with the expanded EU there are a lot of people who no longer need a visa to work here and are happy to do something roughly equivalent to an au pair job, for au pair pay, and possibly do a lot more hours - and technically and legally there is no reason why not (I think). If they are not from an EU country and do need a visa, and they come into the country on an au pair visa, then they should not be working more than whatever the limit is, and can only stay in the country for a limited time

Surely it doesn't matter what they do, provided they are paid an acceptable wage and the employer sorts out all the tax and NI for them?

whoops - see Tanzie made pretty much teh same point

I've had an aupair (swiss) and been an aupair (switzerland) I have never had a nanny. I actually hired an aupair with the purpose of getting a little help around the house and having a bit more freedom as a young couple with a 3 year old.

We paid £45 per week but I only worked a couple of hours here and there, and I actually helped her get a job where I worked to help her meet people, I really wanted her to enjoy the experience and make the most of it - we didn't treat her as an employee which is probably why she's now my SIL after falling for my brother!

I think that it is best to work out the specifications for your particular job and then decide who is best suited to it.

As others have said, au pairs are not meant to spend long hours looking after young children. Even if they agree to it up front, they are going to very quickly realise that it is a bum deal for them. The main reason for becoming an au pair is to learn English and to do something exciting for a few months.

I have a very traditional au pair set-up, in that I am a SAHM and use the au pair for light cleaning, school pickups, playing with the children and babysitting.

I think an au pair can work for a WM if the children are all at school. Then the au pair would be working from, say, 8 - 10 am and 3 - 6 pm, and would have the middle part of the day free for language classes and anything else she wants to do. You could also consider an "au pair plus" to work 35 hours a week (EU and Commonwealth countries only) - but she would still need a chunk of time in the day free, so this would work out for, say, 7 - 10am and 3 - 7pm.

As for money, £50 is low. Even if the girl says she will accept this, she will soon get disillusioned when she sees how expensive things are here, and when she makes friends with other au pairs. I find that it is best to give her all her pay in cash and not rely on little tips, treats and bonusses. I pay my au pair £70; I will get an au pair plus from September, paying her £100.

The other thing to keep in mind for an au pair is that they are very mobile, and I think that it is a rarity for any to stay for a year or more - especially if their English is too good for free language classes and they don't want to fork out £300 for the paid ones. I actually prefer short-term placements - basically working around the school terms - because by the time they start getting fed-up with your domestic scene, it's almost time to go, but it does mean more work sifting through the applications. I would feel nervous using an au pair for childcare while you are at work, unless you have access to good emergency childcare or a very nice employer.

Emmerdale,

Reading your first post on the other thread, I'd say that an au pair could well work for your situation - a couple of hours in the morning (taking them to school and a quick clean of the downstairs) and a few hours in the afternoon (picking up the kids, supervising them in whatever chores or homework they have, feeding them and playing with them).

You might want to think about specifying that she is an au pair plus in the school holidays - many language schools work to school terms anyway, so this shouldn't be a conflict in itself.

I would definitely try to pay her £70 or £80 for this level of responsibility, though.

Emmerdale - why don't you trial the au pair, leave her for a couple of hours, ie just go round to the eighbours where you can keep ears and eyes on her. Set her a couple of easy tasks, eg give kids tea and supervise some painting / drawing. See how she gets on.

A friend of mine offered me her "nanny" after she relocates to the US. This "nanny" is 19 yrs old, has no childcare qualifications but says she has experience. She is very gentle and loving to my 2 yr old, but when I asked her to babysit last night I was called home early, because DS had woken up and "was very sad".

That's fine because I would rather she called me home if she felt she couldn't handle it, but it made me realise the difference between people who have committed to childcare, and might have had better coping mechanisms / strategies because they had been trained to look after grizzly toddlers. When I got back she was clearly panicked after having been alone with an awake child for 10 mins while I rushed home.

She had however ironed all our clothes when we were out - which is fab, but I think I would rather that she was better with children ...

I was almost afraid to come back. It wasn't a question of the 50quid and I certainly would not have expected the AuPair to work for that and would suggest higher amount. But what I saw was a massive contrast for (and I know I will get slated) a similar type job. My children are all school going so I don't think there would be a problem with "sole charge" because it would not be full time anyway.

I do understand that there are differences in qualifications-no qualifications etc.. but the AuPair seemed just as capable.

I guess that is all I wanted to get across. Not to start an argument as that is not in my nature but I guess I got annoyed over some of the response.

What is an AuPair Plus?