Two Boston-area families with foreign au pairs and the agency that brought them over say they shouldn't have to pay them the $10 an hour the state requires for maids and other servants because au pairs are really here for cultural enrichment, not to work, and that taking care of their host families' kids is part of learning what America is all about.
In a lawsuit filed in US District Court in Boston this week against Attorney General Maura Healey, the families and Cultural Care Au Pair of Cambridge argue the state's insistence that foreign students be paid the same violates the federal laws and regulations that established an au pair program as a way to give foreign students a better appreciation of America by having them live with a host family while they're here:
The MA Act and MA Regulations relate exclusively to the labor code and “domestic workers” and have nothing to do with cultural exchanges or exchange visitors. Host Families, including the Host Family Plaintiffs, invest time and effort in treating their au pairs like family members who are guests in their home. They do so in order to enhance the cultural aspect of the exchange for both the families and the au pairs, but little incentive exists for investing such emotional capital if the au pairs hold the status and involve the cost of laborers.
Also, the suit alleges:
Because many, and probably most, Host Families will be unable or unwilling to pay a fee to the Sponsor in addition to the wage and education requirements and substantially higher State-imposed payments under state labor codes, CCAP and other State Department designated Sponsors will suffer material economic injury and in some instances will not be able to survive as on-going commercial enterprises.
The plaintiffs ask a judge to tell the state to leave them alone because Congress is the higher authority here:
Congress intended in enacting the permanent authorization act for the Au Pair Cultural Exchange Program to occupy the field with regard to the terms and conditions of that Program. The federal interest embodied in the Fulbright-Hays Act and the programs enacted pursuant to it, i.e., in fostering “a peaceful world in which freedom and justice under law will be the lot of all mankind,” precludes enforcement of state labor laws that defeat Congressional intent. Hence, field preemption separately and additionally precludes application of the MA Act and the MA Regulations to CCAP and to the Host Family Plaintiffs.
Attachment | Size |
---|---|
![]() | 182.65 KB |
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
Definition of Third World
By Anony-Mouse
Fri, 09/02/2016 - 5:11pm
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/third-world
Third World
noun
1.
the less economically advanced countries of Africa, Asia, and Latin America collectively, esp when viewed as underdeveloped and as neutral in the East-West alignment Also called developing world
Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 2012 Digital Edition
But did you look up "Third World" + "outdated"
By Capt. Obvious
Sat, 09/03/2016 - 10:57am
Give that a go. See if you can listen, and maybe learn. Or at least just listen and shut up for that length of time.
By the way, it wasn't like I didn't know what she was referring to, or wouldn't understand if she'd used some other kind of racial/ethnic code-- "urban", "Goldman Sachs", "drunken Mick"-- just that her use of such words is unfortunate in someone who is attempting to be so high and mighty.
I have to
By cw in boston
Fri, 09/02/2016 - 1:36pm
agree with Sally's posts. A colleague of mine and his wife had an au pair every year when their two children were young. They built a bedroom suite in their home, with private bath, for the young women, the women had exclusive use of a car, and free room and board. My friends actually took their responsibilities seriously, and would often spend Saturdays traveling to local New England historical sites and places of interest to show their au pair more about the area.
The au pairs varied in their interests, of course, but when one was homesick, the agency allowed her to return home immediately. The others were friends with other au pairs in the area and spend most of their free time socializing and going out.
It seems any salary agreement has to take into account the free room and board and use of a car during times when it didn't involve child care.
Free room and board
By Kaz
Fri, 09/02/2016 - 1:56pm
Before "free room and board" gets factored in, you have to answer this for me: If they didn't have an au pair, then would they be renting that room out to strangers? Because if not, if that room is specifically an au pair room that they built knowing they were going to hire an au pair, then that's the cost of doing business, not something you get to factor into the employee's wages. You're not "out" anything that the au pair owes you if you have an au pair living in that room because you weren't renting it anyways. It was your choice to house your babysitter and do any other thing you went out of your way to give them like access to the car. My bet is they don't get priority on the car, so they only get to use it when you're not using it which again means the most they're doing is putting additional usage on it which you could conceivably be "out". Then again, you don't have to give them personal use of the car if you don't want to. Maybe with a reasonable wage they'd be able to afford ZipCar or buying a used one and not be beholden to your whims when they're not on the clock.
And that's the thing really, isn't it? They're never truly "not on the clock" because if you need them, even in a moment's notice, then what are they going to do? Tell you no? You hold all the cards...their house, car access, paycheck, food, work visa...everything. So, when we tell you to pay them a fair wage, do it. Society holds that card, bitch. They need to get used to how that feels.
Not how it works Kaz.
By Pete Nice
Fri, 09/02/2016 - 2:47pm
Like I said above, you can get a nanny, but you have to pay them more. The nanny doesn't live with you either. The nanny comes and goes when you want them to. The Au Pair has the right to that room when they aren't working in your home. This is outlined in the contract you sign with the agency. If someone from Sweden wants to come to Boston to get nanny pay but pay Boston rents, they are free to do that (international workers come to Cape Cod all the time under similar visas). Many of them like having free room and board and working X hours a week for $Y an hour instead They agree to their prices and sign a contract before they do it. In places like Boston, this is sometimes the cheapest way to come to this country.
From what I'm told, the Au Pair by contract has time off and you can't make them work during that time. If they are abused, I assume the Au Pair can contact the company and file a complaint, and I've heard many of them quit or leave on their own because they are homesick or for some other reason. Some help out and might help prepare dinner with or for the family, or others might go their room or go out with friends. Some families have cars that the Au Pair has total control over, some don't.
I also don't see how not renting that room before someone moves in has anything to do with the value of that room. That room has a value whether you collect income on it or not.
The Au Pair had
By cw in boston
Fri, 09/02/2016 - 2:40pm
her own car. The parents bought a car for the use of the Au Pair. I'm sure the women would help out beyond their working hours in case of a real emergency (who wouldn't?) but she had specific times off, and days off.
The point about the ensuite room was that she had her own private space. She wasn't inconvenienced by sharing a bath, and had her privacy and alone time when not working. My friends were very serious about providing a good living arrangement for the woman who was taking care of their children.
This is my knowledge of Au Pairs from Europe. I'm sure some parents may not be as conscientious as my friends and I'm sure not every Au Pair works out. But this isn't comparable to hiring a full-time nanny or housecleaner or landscaper.
No one takes their passports, and they are free to leave if the arrangements don't work out for them.
Poverty is not a laughing issue
By fefu
Fri, 09/02/2016 - 11:44am
Glad you can have a laugh over people not getting paid what they deserve as determined by minimum wage laws.
I decided not to have children because I can't afford them. We need to do a lot more as a society to help parents so they can have adequate child care that is affordable. This should not be at the expense of child care workers who deserve a livable wage for their work just like everyone else.
So--only rich people should have kids. Got it.
By Sally
Fri, 09/02/2016 - 4:00pm
Your personal choices are your own, obv, but saying that people--poor people, middle class people--shouldn't have kids unless they can "afford to" is pretty laughable. We agree on the idea that the govt should do more but yes--I still find the notion that the au pair system is fundamentally cruel, unfair, or exploitative laughable. #savetheswedes #germannanniesunite
RU insane?
By Bugs Bunny
Fri, 09/02/2016 - 11:11pm
Do a lot more "as a society" to provide affordable
Child care? Should've just not had kids instead of looking for welfare.
Reading comprehension
By anon
Tue, 09/06/2016 - 10:58am
You need to develop some.
Read her comment - she isn't having any because she can't afford it.
White people with money
By Will LaTulippe
Fri, 09/02/2016 - 11:28am
Are utter (expletive) garbage.
As for the passport point raised above, I need to go hand out flyers in Terminal E in Spanish, Portuguese, and whatever other languages these prospective domestic employees speak that reads "The only people who should ever have your passport in their hands are a customs agent or somebody from whom you want to buy alcohol. Don't hand your passport to anyone else."
I mean, how do you "take" somebody's passport? At gunpoint? I doubt these rich suburbanites became rich suburbanites by playing stupid games like pulling guns on people. So I have to believe that foreign workers are either handing their passport over, or it's straight up getting stolen in their sleep. What can we do to better protect them?
Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu
By Kaz
Fri, 09/02/2016 - 11:25am
uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck you.
Sincerely,
The rest of us
------
Can someone please help me file this as an amicus brief?
Fixed that for them
By Scratchie
Fri, 09/02/2016 - 12:52pm
Room and Board....
By Anony-Mouse
Fri, 09/02/2016 - 1:16pm
A share of rent around Boston with room-mates is probably at least $500/month, plus utilities, etc. More in a nice neighborhood/house, so let's call it $700/month. Food at say $10/day is $300/month, so room and board is worth at least $1000/month.
Min wage is around $10. Assume 50hrs/week (which may be high based on others comments here, but I'm sure it varies a ton), so that's $650/week with time and a half, or around $2600/month.
So room & board in a nice place is worth roughly 40% of min wage. Before we keep accusing people who hire nannies as being slave-drivers, what do Au Pairs make now? Seems like if they make even $6/hr plus room and board, they're being paid very fairly.
And claim outrage all you want, but they are also getting to see at least a bit of the world for a year in a way that a lot of people might value. That's not BS; look at how many kids take gap years, or go backpacking, etc. I'm sure more 20-somethings would do that if they could.
Seems people here are being very harsh on the families who hire au-pairs. I think it's an interesting discussion, but au-pairs certainly are not slaves or serfs.
Disclaimer: I work very tangentially with some people involved in au-pair agencies, but not closely enough to know much about the business.
Wait, so min wage is more
By anon
Fri, 09/02/2016 - 6:04pm
Wait, so min wage is more than enough to afford food and shelter in a decent neigborhood? That's cool. No need to raise it to $15 then.
Also I love how Swirls and Kaz and Scratchie are all states rights about minimum wage laws, even though states rights are something invented by racists or whatever.
Don't change uhub.
Not States Rights
By SwirlyGrrl
Sat, 09/03/2016 - 9:05pm
Human rights.
And, also calling total bullshit on claiming that it is okay to exploit others because "OMG childcare is soooo expensive". If you want a better system, work for it or create a cooperative or other arrangement. Otherwise, check out the costs of childcare and plan accordingly before you have kids.
Living cost calculations
By karenz
Sun, 09/04/2016 - 12:10pm
Missing:
- T-pass and Uber for when you work earlier/later than the T operates
- Taxes - subtract 30-35% of those gross wages
- Health insurance
- If you are working a minimum wage job, it is highly unlikely you will get 40-50 hours/week from one employer, who would then classify you as full-time and have to pay benefits. You will fight for 20-25 hours/week at each crappy job you have to work, and good luck getting managers to work around the schedule at your other job.
- First, last, and security deposit, which in the rosy "cheap living" scenario above, would be $1,500, or 150 hours of working the $10 minimum wage you describe
- You should be perfectly healthy and not have ongoing health issues and not need medical care, prescriptions, dental care
- You should have an acceptable working wardrobe and comfortable, durable shoes to deal with your physical, demanding labor
- Eating - good luck finding time to prep cheap meals to bring to all your jobs
One has such a horrid time finding good help
By anon
Fri, 09/02/2016 - 3:00pm
these days, doesn't one?
Interesting timing on this
By anon
Fri, 09/02/2016 - 4:37pm
Interesting timing on this given Baker just sold land belonging to the people of the Commonwealth at a cut-rate that to 1% 'ers living next to the Massachsuetts State House so the millionaires could expand their luxe homes to include private rooms for their au pairs.
No, he didn't
By adamg
Fri, 09/02/2016 - 5:38pm
He wanted to, but after word got out and made him look kind of stupid, he canceled the deal.
Poor Maura Healey. She's
By anon
Fri, 09/02/2016 - 5:29pm
Poor Maura Healey. She's becoming a lightning rod.
aupair $10 an hour
By Diann Wilde
Fri, 09/02/2016 - 5:44pm
These people ought to be ashamed of themselves. Is there any possible way a parent thinks taking care of a young child is not hard work? Are they naive enough to think that so called "hanging around" with a baby or toddler in a yard or park is the equivalent to a break? I have worked in the early childhood field for 30 years and have also raised my own children and know fully that working with young children requires commitment, stamina, patience, a sense of humor and eyes in the back of the head. Teachers of young children--and this includes the au pairs--deserve respect and decent pay, period.
Often au pairs are asked to do "light house-keeping" and other tasks that render them so busy that it makes it hard for them to work successfully with the child or children. I would like to see these host parents be required to submit an agenda of all the cultural information they will impart to these (typically) young women. They should be asked to document field trips, concerts, museums, discussions, literature and anything else that will contribute positively to the person's experience in our country. Parents should not be thinking they're getting cheap labor just because these people are young and want to be in this country, however briefly.
It's a federally-regulated visa & stipend
By bostonmom
Fri, 09/02/2016 - 11:18pm
So the posters here don't seem to understand that the families have absolutely no say in what they pay Au Pairs. This is a State Department Visa program with a mandated wage set by the federal government and a strict 1 year visa (option to extend for max 1 year) with 1 month to travel before heading home. In addition to room & board (they need to have their own bedroom) families also pay tuition for the au pairs to take college classes while they are here. There are also strict limits on the hours an au pair can work, and the type of duties they can perform. This is the case regardless of which agency you use.
My fifth au pair just left after her year-long stay here and recently emailed us, saying "it was the best year of my life". Our other au pairs have come back to visit us. For the au pairs, it's a way to spend a year in America, living with an American family, as part of the family and then spend a month traveling with friends they've made in their year here.
The reality is a large part of their pay is in the form of room & board and tuition. All in, it amounts to more than $10/hour, especially in Boston where living & tuition expenses are so high.
Don't confuse people...
By Michael Kerpan
Sat, 09/03/2016 - 7:03pm
... by injecting facts into the discussion.
Not all Au Pair families have to pay tuition.
By Pete Nice
Sat, 09/03/2016 - 10:36pm
N/T
Au Contraire
By BostonMom
Sun, 09/04/2016 - 10:15pm
tuition is mandated as part of the visa program:
http://j1visa.state.gov/programs/au-pair#hostsempl...
Ok, then how much are they paid?
By cinnamngrl
Mon, 09/05/2016 - 11:38am
Because I have tried to research this and I can't find it anywhere. When I did this work it was $175 to $225 with room and board. $350 to $400 without. what are they paid now?
According to the link:
By Pete Nice
Mon, 09/05/2016 - 12:31pm
I meant a number.
By cinnamngrl
Tue, 09/06/2016 - 10:30am
I meant a number.
According to the 2012 INA Nanny Salary and Benefits Survey: The national average hourly rate for babysitting or short-term assignments is $16 per hour. The national average gross weekly salary for full-time live-out nannies is $705. The national average gross weekly salary for full-time live-in nannies is $652.
the live out salary of $705 is 17.62 per hour which is the same on several websites. What I cannot find out, is verification that live-in nannies are getting $652.
That being said, minimum wage seems to be much less than the average nanny is getting. This means that these parents are basically selling the visa.
It does seem morally wrong to pay these people less than minimum wage. The tuition reimbursement number is outdated. Where can you get 12 credits for $1000?
Well the company in the lawsuit seems to be on par nationally
By Pete Nice
Tue, 09/06/2016 - 10:56am
CulturalCare AuPair:
Agency gets 8K a year.
AuPair gets $200 a week (with the benefits listed in link: 3 meals a day, up to $500 education credits, free room, 2 paid weeks off, max hours a week.)
https://culturalcare.com/pricing/
After looking at the minimum wage site, it looks like the argument from Massachusetts is going to be that FSLA states that workers must be paid the higher min wage if the states is higher (which it is here). The Agency is going to argue that it is a federal plan which outlines the costs in the actual law (but does reference FSLA pay standards which would mean the Au Pairs may be entitled to the higher rate).
That's my amateur look at it anyway.
Also, it would be unfair if the AuPair gets $200 a week in Boston but also gets $200 a week in Topeka with COLA, but then again, the room and board are free so there is no COLA for AuPairs.
I dunno.
wow
By cinnamngrl
Tue, 09/06/2016 - 4:45pm
the family pays the au pair $375 a week but she only gets $195 a week and she is supposed pay the difference between $500 and the price of 6 credits at an accredited college.
What family would want to do this? minimum wage is only $25 more a week. Why would you choose this kind of arrangement? No wonder they want the court to give them an out. I don't know how this agency stays in business. What happens when the au pair arrives in boston and find out that nannies make 3 times as much basically because they are citizens.
This post has gone off the rails.
By bulgingbuick
Mon, 09/05/2016 - 8:02am
It's as if some craft beer drinking yuppie parked in a bike lane outside of the new Southie Starbucks awaiting his au pair picking up an order for Boston Latin teachers.
Something people aren't realizing here
By Kaz
Tue, 09/06/2016 - 10:59am
This isn't about whether the two host families in the lawsuit are doing right, or whether Sally got paid well/fairly, or whether BostonMom's Au Pairs all have a reunion specials at her house every month.
This is about setting a standard which any Au Pair agency and family will be allowed to get away with. The restaurant that pays its waiters a full wage and lets them keep their tips is the exception, not the rule. We allow tipped wages and to remain cost-competitive when everyone is paying their waiters less because the rules allow for it, everyone races for the bottom. And by everyone, I obviously mean lots or most, not literally everyone since you'll find the prime example restaurants paying so much more than minimum wage and paternity benefits for the busboy, etc.
So, I'm sure the primo agencies force families to treat their Au Pairs right and empower their Au Pairs to say things like "no, that would be more than we agreed to" and pay for them to go to college or drive a car around, etc. Great. I'm glad those families exist and get mutually beneficial and all with their Au Pairs.
But if we allow them to shirk the minimum wage laws, then the next family along that puts out an ad on Craiglist, isn't decent to their Au Pair that they sucker into coming over from Honduras, or whatever will be taking their lack of pay and compensations and overworking their hours and everything else because it's cheap and easy to use and abuse some foreign worker that they can just ditch as needed for a few bucks an hour. Let's raise the bar high enough that legal exploitation would come at too high of a price for this type of dickhead to get involved. (And, sure, you can exploit someone as your Au Pair without paying attention to a single law and hope to get away with it, but that comes with a set of risks from the IRS, FBI, local authorities, etc. too that hopefully dissuades all but the worst from that too. The point is not to allow people to "follow the law" and exploit anyone completely above the board and a below minimum wage where none of the alternative compensations are provided legally allows for that.)
Pages
Add comment