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!

havent read the whole thread but as far as i know a nanny is generally qualified and an au pair is normally forign, going to college (which i think you need to pay for) and must be live in

I understood the main differences to be

Au Pair is generally short term (up to a year) and then they move on

Au Pair should not be left in sole charge

Au Pair shouldn't work more than 4 hours a day

An au pair plus is an au pair who works 35 hours per week (for approx £100) instead of 25 hours (for approx £70. Both do 2 evenings babysitting and should be free to attend language classes, and the deal is otherwise identical.

SS: you don't pay the au pair's college fees. Your financial commitment is limited to picking them up from the airport (or equivalent), paying their pocket money, and providing their room and board. You can offer incentives beyond this, but the general concensus is that you should adopt a carrot and stick approach.

Emmerdale, it isn't a similar job. Just as someone who is travelling around the world and gets a job strawberry picking isn't a farmer and doesn't know how to look after living creatures.

The differences have been explained repeatedly on this thread. Nannies are trained childcare professionals who can work full-time and be left in sole charge. Au pairs are young people who are travelling and will help out around the house in return for pocket money. If you only need someone to help around the house part-time then fine, go for an au pair, but don't disrespect nannies and claim they don't deserve paying for the important job they do. Look at Louise Woodward - she was a young, inexperienced girl who was expected to do a nanny's job in sole charge of two children including a tiny baby while the parents worked full-time. It went horribly wrong, because she didn't have the training, experience or knowledge to do the job she was being asked to do.

You know how irritating it is when a young child keeps asking 'why' every time you answer their question? Your replies to Gwenick sounded like that. Maybe that's not what you intended but that's how you came across. You weren't listening to what she was saying and kept putting the same point over and over again.

I think all Emmerdale's children are full-time school, so well within the remit of an au pair.

That's fine, but no reason for her to attack nannies and claim they aren't worth their wages.

Edam
That is well out of order. I did not attack nanny's.

Maybe I shouldn't have come back

or their wages

I didn't see any attack on nannies.

There seems to be an underlying culture on Mumsnet to not question or clarify the role of nannies at all.

Don't worry about it, Emmerdale. Ask away, as that is the only way that we all get to know what the accepted position is. Nods and winks are not very helpful, are they?

I guess the point here is that actually Emmerdales requirements were pretty close to what one would want an au pair for, rather than a nanny. So whilst it is great that she can go for the au pair option (which is also be a cheaper option), isn't this all about horses for courses? A nanny would be over qualified for what Emmerdale needs, since presumably she isn't looking for someone to plan out her children's day, introduce weaning foods, potty training, ensure the child is stimulated etc. On the other hand if Emmerdale had a baby and a toddler and wanted full-time care, then she would probably find the nanny proposition to be the better one. Isn't it similar to the way in which practice nurses do a lot of the routine appointments at a GP surgery, but there are times when you need the GP and not the nurse?

The thread's called 'how come I can get an au pair at the quarter of a cost of a nanny'. Which can be an honest question but taken together with first post: '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.' seems to be fairly critical of nannies. Followed up with 'And an Aupair as far as I can see can do the same job. A qualification is only a piece of paper but might not be any better than an aupair but get what 4/5 times the pay.' Fairly clear that Emmerdale's comments were derogatory.

if you need full time childcare whilat you go out to work then surely you need a nanny because it is illegal to leave an au-pair with sole charge.

Also doesn't continuity of care count for anything these days. i wouldn't want my DS being taken care by a new face and havinng to 'settle in' every year or so.

I just don't get it why do people always have to start arguments can you not just have a discussion? emmerdale is new give her a break

thats not at me i hope. not wanting an arguement AT ALL i don't think my OPINION is arguementative!!

no nannyjo its not personally aimed at anyone, just read the whole thread and seen it has turned into a argument again thats all

It's illegal to have an au pair in sole charge? That's a new one on me.

What's the added value of an expensive nanny for school age children? Especially with-it children like Emmerdales who know how to put their own laundry away.

i think there is a limit to 2 hours a day maximum sole charge. Thats what i was told by my boss therefore she imployed a nanny to suit her better

Methinks that's bollocks, Nannyjo...

There's a 2 hour maximum involved if you look after someone else's children outside of their home - you then need to be registered. But doesn't apply to nannies or au pairs who look after children in the child's home.

Emmerdale, it is disingenuous in the extreme to claim that you didn't know you were being controversial in suggesting that a nanny and au pair are exactly the same except that one is cheaper than the other! Au pairs aren't experienced or trained, nannies are, and the other differences are quite simple really. So I think you have had your question answered. And I don't think anyone was rude to you.

But not all nannies are trained. Some people just call themselves nannies and make that their career, but there's no guarantee that they have any specific training or met a quality mark on training that they may have done.

As others have pointed out, training isn't the be-all and end-all of being a good "nanny".

Why should we assume that self-styled nannies should have a monopoly on child care (including care of teens and preteens, it seems)?

Emerdale back to your original question. I have often wondered the same thing. If I ever needed to pay for childcare I could not afford a nanny and could afford an au pair.
Good luck with your decision and I hope you get someone lovely.