A federal appeals court today dismissed a lawsuit by a private agency that places au pairs in Massachusetts - and two families that have used its services - against the state Attorney General's office, which had determined their clients should have to pay foreign au pairs at least the state minimum wage of $12 an hour, rather than the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour.
It is hardly evident that a federal foreign affairs interest in creating a "friendly" and "cooperative" spirit with other nations is advanced by a program of cultural exchange that, by design, would authorize foreign nationals to be paid less than Americans performing similar work.
Culture Care Au Pair of Cambridge and the two families had were challenging AG Maura Healey's effort to get higher wages and even overtime for foreign au pairs, comparable to what domestic servants have to be paid under state employment laws - and which would require sleep and even meal time to be included as hours in many cases. They charged the effort was unconstitutional because it sought to override regulations for a State Department program that refers to the federal minimum wage as part of its conditions for allowing foreign college students to come here and spend a year as an exchange students while living in American couples' homes and caring for their children.
That, they argued, violated the "Supremacy" clause of the Constitution, under which federal laws and regulations normally override any state regulations.
Hogwash, the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston ruled today, if in more detailed and legally specific terms, in an 81-page decision.
The court started with a 1976 Supreme Court case involving the hiring of illegal aliens in California, in which the justices unanimously ruled that, among other things, while the federal government does indeed have "supremacy" when it comes to fundamental issues of immigration, regulation of worker standards and pay was "a quintessentially local area of regulation."
The court rejected the argument by the agency and families that another court case, involving workers with jobs the existence of which are "inherently federal in character" trumps that, because the au pairs wouldn't be here without the State Department program.
Nope, the court said, because the Massachusetts employment laws in question:
Are generally applicable to all domestic workers. Thus, they are not predicated on the existence of the federal au pair exchange program regulations.
Also, the court continued, the detailed State Department regulations refer solely to the host agencies that bring au pairs into the country, and are completely silent on the employer/employee relationship between host families and the au pairs - which is the relationship government by state minimum-wage and hours laws.
For, [the California case] makes clear, the mere fact that a state law implicates the interests of persons who are the subject of federal regulation, even with respect to immigration, does not alone provide a basis for inferring that the federal regulatory scheme was intended to preempt a field that encompasses such a state law, at least when it concerns a matter of such quintessentially local concern as employment.
The court next rejected an argument that by setting federal minimum standards for pay and hours, the federal government was attempting to set uniform national standards for au pairs. That may be true, but the regulations nowhere state that au pairs can't be paid more than the federal minimum - or be paid overtime if they work more than 40 hours a week, even in a state like Massachusetts, which in many cases would count hours spent sleeping in a host's home towards those hours.
Only, it isn't true, the court continued: A preface to the State Department au-pair regulations that lists "objectives" of the program "does not refer to a federal governmental interest in setting a uniform national standard for either au pair participant wages or for host family recordkeeping requirements."
From all one can tell from the text of these provisions, in other words, the Au Pair Program operates parallel to, rather than in place of, state employment laws that concern wages and hours and that protect domestic workers generally, at least with respect to the obligations that such state law wage and hour measures impose on host families to do more than what the FLSA itself requires. Thus, the text of au pair exchange program regulations themselves does not supply the affirmative evidence that the state measures at issue will frustrate the federal scheme's objectives that the plaintiffs need to identify if they are to meet their burden to show obstacle preemption.
The plaintiffs - joined in an amicus brief by the Department of State - also warned that if they lost, almost nobody in Massachusetts could afford a foreign au pair, which would damage the international amity the program is supposed to promote. The court, though, said the plaintiffs supplied no proof of this and asked, if this were so, how anybody in Massachusetts could afford a live-in domestic nanny or maid, since they are subject to the state minimum-age and hours laws as well.
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
 Complete ruling | 150.62 KB |
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
Good
By Scauma
Tue, 12/03/2019 - 4:03pm
Nothing more to add other than to say this is a good thing.
Other perspective
By Anon
Wed, 12/04/2019 - 11:14am
We have an au pair. We do this because while we could put our daughter in our town's free preschool, we truly value the cultural exchange. We are not a rich family that rents an apartment in a blue collar town.
We take our au pair on two vacations a year and she can do as she pleases. She's not working, she's coming with us as part of a cultural exchange if she wants and is not working. She gets her own room.
She's not a maid. We cook and clean for her in our home. She is really a new family mrmbed for a year. She's introducing us to her Brazilian cuisine, language and we speak with her family on WhatsApp video weekly.
The agencies get to charge $10k a year for families to join the program. You must go through an agency and they don't do sh*t for you but it's a requirement. They don't really oversee the aupairs and it's just a money grab. There are so many reports of the agencies not doing what they need to as the visa sponsor. When the few au pairs slip through the cracks and go to Vegas and become hookers, instead of trying to help these women the agency sponsors, they've turned the other way. Many families would not mind paying an extra 10k a year to the au pair rather than to these nine or so lazy agencies that are deep in the pockets with the government.
There's a perception that the aupair program is a cheap way to get childcare but many families can send their kiddos to school and have a relative like a grandmother look after the child after school but they choose cultural exchange. It actually costs us more to have an aupair. She's Brazilian. We could easily get a Brazilian aupair to work under the table for less. There are a bunch willing to work for $8 an hour without housing. It's so sad.
If we didn't have an aupair, we could rent out our room to a traveling nurse and get $700 a month but we choose not to. We could also rent it out on Airbnb.
If we hired a regular nanny, we would not be providing her with:
A cell phone plan
A car
Paid rent
3 meals a day
2 paid vacations a year
To have an aupair
The issue is in a large part how the government has allowed these agencies to charge skyrocketing fees that don't provide the family or aupair with any real benefit and in turn, the families are dumping all this money into privately held companies rather than paying more to the aupair.
Keep in mind there are many many families in the aupair program who are multicultural families - an American father with a mother that is Czech and they choose the au pair program to hire a Czech aupair so their son can experience a bit of the culture they come from and give the aupair an experience in the UzsA during her gap year between high school and college. In the US if you want to take a year off when you are 18 you're considered lost or unmotivated. In Europe, it's celebrated.
I am certain some families do abuse the program and its inappropriate. I think the issue is better policing families, capping the program fee so that the program thrives.
I work as a wedding planner and so often I see Former au pairs in attendance au their host kids weddings 20 years later making toasts. Its wonderful and so many aupairs and families have formed lifelong bonds over the decades.
Perhaps there's a way to improve the program - allowing the aupairs more time, such as doing childcare for 20-30 hours a week as an option, but the program fee being 10,000 a year and not actually going toward anything is nuts. And guess what? The au pair agency was caught double charging families an aupairs for international airfares for YEARS.
I don't think it's stingy families looking for cheap care in all cases.
That sucks, and yet...
By Tim Mc.
Thu, 12/05/2019 - 6:10am
even if the agencies are scamming people out of $10k, that's neither here nor there with respect to whether the au pairs are paid a living wage or not.
I’m all for a living wage but
By Vick
Thu, 12/05/2019 - 12:38pm
I’m all for a living wage but you don’t seem to understand that it’s irrelevant in the case of au pairs.
A minimum or living wage is set to ensure a person can meet basic needs and expenses. Lodging, food, transportation utilities etc. for an au pair these costs are covered by the host family. Their weekly stipend or wages are pure spending money.
This court decision will likely push most MA host families to seek local help such as live out nannies or babysitters as it will now be roughly the same cost to have an AP but without all of the added expenses on top and without having to house a person in your spare bedroom.
The $10K covers travel fees
By anon
Sat, 12/07/2019 - 11:55am
The $10K covers travel fees and health insurance as well as training and having a local coordinator available to both the au pair and the family. Obviously the agencies are making money as well, but a portion of the $10K also goes to the au pair various forms.
What travel fees? I'm an Au
By anon
Sat, 12/07/2019 - 7:50pm
What travel fees? I'm an Au Pair, I had to pay 2k to come to USA and they said the 2k covered my travel fees and insurance fee so...
Travel Should always be included
By Jodi
Tue, 12/10/2019 - 10:23am
Most of the big agencies cover these fees. Its a shame you had to pay your own travel.
Families are told they pay the travel in fees
By Cate
Fri, 12/13/2019 - 11:18am
Families are told that we pay the travel in our $9,000 fee. There is an ongoing lawsuit about double charging Au Pairs and families for travel.
It is also interesting how the Au Pair fees vary by agency and country of origin. My two Au Pairs paid about $600 each in total fees.
I suggest you do some actual
By Vick
Sun, 12/08/2019 - 12:04am
I suggest you do some actual research of the facts. The Au Pairs themselves pay for their own insurance and any travel fees are charged on top of the basic agency fees. The local coordinators get paid a tiny amount. Most of the agency fees go to their full time office staff, overheads, lawyers, business insurance and also pretty sizable profits (with the exception of a few NFP agencies).
Nope, because the Au Pair
By anon
Sat, 12/21/2019 - 10:48pm
Nope, because the Au Pair pays for the travel fees as well. The agency makes money from both sides. I know that because I was an Au Pair and now I have an Au Pair. The local coordinator does NOT help the Au Pair :(
Agency charges host family
By Ann
Sat, 12/28/2019 - 2:54am
Agency charges host family 10k, they also charge AP a fee. Medical Insurance is paid by the AuPair. The local corrdinator is paid $25, not a typo, $25 a month to be available to a host family and Au pair. Au Pairs come for the cultural exchange not to be maids. Host families pay for all outings, travels, if AP wishes to join family, car insurance, car, meals, 6 college credits, etc . Total cost to host family is well above 25k a year. But the agency keeps 10k . They also charge AP to participate.
It sounds like agencies get paid quite a lot of money...
By Michael Kerpan
Sun, 12/29/2019 - 4:39pm
... for doing almost nothing.
Very well put. My wife is
By anon
Thu, 12/05/2019 - 9:23am
Very well put. My wife is from Latin American and we are on our third au pair over the past five years. If you add up the cost of food, car, phone and having an extra person living in your house (heat, laundry, electricity, renting a movie on the weekend, etc.), it certainly works out to more than minimum wage for our family. Plus, I don't even know how we would count her hours. Is time spent doing a puzzle with my 5 year old on a Saturday morning "billable" time even though I never asked the au pair to do that? What about when she walks the dog because she likes to go for a walk while the kids are at school? It is a shame that this ruling will probably ruin a program that is very valuable to many au pairs and families in Massachusetts.
Sad ruling
By Erin
Wed, 12/11/2019 - 7:55pm
The reality is that these programs are extremely competitive in the home countries from which these au pairs come. I wonder if Healey is protecting special interests here - ie, outrageously expensive, inflexible and impersonal daycares? These au pairs aren’t being taken advantage in virtually all cases. If they are, obviously that should be policed. Room and board in the Boston area is outrageously expensive. Plus the provision of cell phone,car, car insurance and 2 weeks vacation. This program benefited everyone. The only winners now are the corporate daycare centers.
Another misplaced effort by our AG
Instagram AuPairConfessions
By Anon
Fri, 12/06/2019 - 12:07am
While I have your attention check out AuPairConfessions account on Instagram and please report back.
Agencies are corrupt
By AuPairIsAScam
Mon, 12/09/2019 - 1:10pm
I just started dating a girl that is an Au Pair and I am stunned by the corruption in this program.
I've met several au pairs now and have heard many horror stories from them (anecdotal, I know, but I proceeded to read up on the program and it's shocking).
This lady is accurate that the 10k fee to the agencies does not go to help the girls. Another comment stated it's for training, etc. and that is not true either. The au pairs have to pay for their own training, their own agency placement (2k USD in the case of my girlfriend) and offer free childcare for a minimum number of hours (she had to work part-time in a daycare for a year - unpaid - to be eligible for the program (and she even has a college degree already!)). And they absolutely pay for their own insurance, and sometimes their own flights as well.
The agencies are self-regulated (which about sums up the situation), and offer little to no protection or assistance to the au pairs. Au pair wages have remained stagnant over the years, despite skyrocketing fees for host families. The program needs an overhauling, but nobody wants to be responsible for it so it's easier for the gov. to just let them operate in this gray area and "self-regulate"
The program has advantages, and does offer some cool opportunities (I wouldn't have met the current girl if not for it), but it desperately needs an overhaul.
The above lady btw sounds like an awesome host family. Thanks for being one of the non-shitty ones out there that just takes advantage of these poor girls.
In the short term this will
By Maggie
Tue, 12/10/2019 - 9:33am
In the short term this will drive families to quit the au pair program and force the au pairs to find another family in a different state and still not be paid the state minimum wage. In the long term perhaps the agencies will realize that taking 10,000 from a family and 2000 from the au pair to do basically nothing is not the way to go. The latter point would be the only positive. I think it will be rare to find a family in MA in the program that will continue and pay an extra 1500 per month to their au pair as well as every living expense the au pair has.
We are on our second au pair. We paid 10,000 and the 250 per week stipend on the first year. Plus food, utilities, phone, car, car insurance, gas, hotel rooms on vacations, plane tickets, 500 education credit etc etc etc. Having an au pair is by no means an inexpensive childcare option. The stipend may not seem to be a lot but when the au pair has literally no living expenses and it is only spending money it can give her the ability to do anything she would like in her time here.
The agencies are the ones who should take less money from the families and the girls.
Saved Money
By Kitha G.
Sat, 12/14/2019 - 6:32pm
I have had aupairs for 7 years. Half of mine actually saved the stipend! They do not understand that these girls are taken care of? The stipend is spending money.
The only folks coming out ahead are the greedy law firms that want to make millions on class action litigation. That is the real reason this lawsuit took off.
What a shame!
Im glad I have an Aupair in
By anon
Thu, 12/05/2019 - 6:27pm
Im glad I have an Aupair in NH. All this ruling will do is send Aupairs home or to different states because families won't be able to afford them. The daycares im MA will be happy too!
The ruling covers the
By Longtime Au Pai...
Sat, 12/14/2019 - 9:56am
The ruling covers the district of this appeals court - Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Rhode Island.
And, for some odd reason ...
By adamg
Sat, 12/14/2019 - 9:53pm
Puerto Rico.
not odd
By cinnamngrl
Tue, 12/17/2019 - 2:03pm
PR is part of our judicial district
This is the truth
By anon
Thu, 12/05/2019 - 6:31pm
Im glad I have an Aupair in NH. All this ruling will do is send Aupairs home or to different states because families won't be able to afford them. The daycares im MA will be happy too!
Good is relative...
By Sosad
Sun, 12/08/2019 - 8:43am
If this would happen in my state, we would have to leave the program. That means the au pairs who we are/would be hosting would/will not be here and their odds of being in the program are greatly decreased just due to the lower demand of american families willing/able to pay. Compared to regular public childcare, this is not cheap labor unless you have 3+ kids.
Yes, we the American family, greatly benefit from the flexibility of the program and the price is reasonable mostly due to quality of life we are afforded (packing up 2 kids for daycare, no preschool due to not transportation, snow days, etc). We also make life-long friends and children's brains grow faster with multiple languages and culture!
Yes, the au pair also greatly benefits as well! Language (makes them more valuable when they go home for employment = $), experience (life-long friends and contacts for a happier life and abilities to make human connections in a world where we are tied to our phones), travel (dont most of us love travel? Especially if it is paid for by someone else?), stability (the bills are always paid, they dont have to worry if they will make the rent or have enough gas to go to work let alone fun time and basic needs).
Every single au pair we have talked to, from skype half way around the world to in our home, state they sought out the program knowing the conditions. They willingly sign up and eagerly await a match. Their entire family helped them achieve this "dream" (their words, not mine). Not all families are good for the program though... not that this ruling will solve that. Of the au pairs we have hosted, they disagree with this ruling. They understand the number of young people, looking to better themselves, will not be allowed to get the experience they did. Its sad to see all the au pairs currently in MA already in rematch and many of whom will have to go home. Do you think THEY are happy about that? Do you think the kids and families who have grown to love them are happy?
This is disappointing
By Host mom
Tue, 12/10/2019 - 12:07am
I love the au pair program, and the people it has put in our lives over the years. I describe it more as an exchange student who cares for my children (she takes them to school and picks them up and plays with them in the afternoon or shuttles them around to their activities). I ask that she does their laundry each week and keep their bedrooms relatively tidy.
When we matched, she asked what her bedroom and bathroom would look like, and I gave her a tour. If they were unacceptable, she would have said no and continued to look for another family. They have just as much a choice in matching as we do, and plenty to choose from.
She has Friday at 5 until 8 am Monday off. She was gone on a paid holiday that was not taken out of her vacation time from tues morning - until Monday morning of thanksgiving week. She was given a round trip flight and a free apt in nyc over Christmas while my family is out of town. Again, not taking vacation time. So now you have an 18-26 year old who does an amazing job of watching my kids, who has also had more paid days off in 3 months than many of us have ten years into our jobs.
She has a car with gas and insurance and an iPhone X that is paid monthly. She has friends she sees regularly and goes to class one night a week. She has tons of food in the fridge. Oh, and she makes $200/week to spend on whatever she wants. She can save it and go on a huge trip around the country. She can blow it on clothes at the mall. It’s her business, but she certainly isn’t worrying about any bills that need to be paid, like gas and electric, or her crazy commute to the office.
If we had to, we could make the extra cash work. I’d pull my younger two out of preschool, so instead of having 9-2 free every day, we’d get every penny out of her 45 hour work week. That would cover the extra cost. She would not have gone away for thanksgiving. I was excited for her to see Savannah, but at $500/week couldn’t have afforded to pay that for no work. Those uggs and necklace I got her for Christmas would sadly be traded for a $50 gift card to target.
Perks are perks. I’m sure some families can still afford it, but there are costs to having someone live in that aren’t tied to finances. If I’m paying the same as a nanny, I’d probably do that. Having privacy, having the ability to schedule more than 45 hours each week, not worrying about inexperienced drivers using your vehicles, not paying the extra cell phone bill, etc... I love our au pair, but I’m so glad I don’t live in mass right now.
I love the Au Pair Program, there will be none now in MA
By Jodi
Tue, 12/10/2019 - 10:21am
I am a mother of 4 and I have had 6 au pairs. I now work for an au pair company. We have an intense 3 day training school with a teacher who has her masters in early childhood development. We pay for everything for the au pairs for those three days. ( We pay for the au pairs travel to the US and to our school. ( FYI: RT from China is over 2k, Bolivia 2k,etc) We pay for her health insurance for the year. ( this is over 1k per year) We pay for her support from the local coordinator for the year. We provide a monthly stipend to the LC to do an activity with the au pairs. Our fee is much less than 10k to the families. Are we making a profit, yes , minimal. Enough to live in the US and pay our team fair wages. All of my au pairs came on vacation with my family, had a private room and bathroom and car. Cell phone, gym membership....I could go on and on. I advise all of our host families to treat their au pairs with love and respect. Could they be given more pocket money, sure. Should they make minimum wage, sure, but then you must have an accurate deduction for room and board. $78 per week! Are you kidding me! Everything for the au pair is paid for. Everything. The weekly stipend is spending money. I would have no problem advocating for a hirer weekly stipend, but linking this to min wage will break this program. MA will never have another au pair if this sticks. I advise you all to truly look at this program for what it is supposed to be, a cultural exchange with a child care component. When this works properly, its amazing for both the host family and the au pair.
Removing Women from the Workforce
By crtwood
Wed, 12/11/2019 - 10:29am
It is unfortunate that Mass AG Healey is pushing this. The apparent desired goal of the AG is to create a small shift from foreign au pairs to domestic low-wage part-time jobs. Unfortunately, as is often the case, the shortsightedness of this law and ruling will have damaging unintended consequences. This move will result in the removal of US workers (predominantly women) from well-paying managerial, executive and other well-paying jobs, as the cost calculus changes and they decide to stay home to raise their children. While there is a lot of merit to staying home and raising children, there is also a lot of merit to promoting women in the workforce and providing opportunity for them - a historic struggle which is very much ongoing. I believe this ruling is a huge step back and will adversely affect working women. Many families are now rethinking the cost / benefit calculus and many people will no longer be able to justify a two wage household in this already expensive and high-tax state.
Despite a strong economy,
By cinnamngrl
Wed, 12/11/2019 - 12:09pm
Despite a strong economy, wages are flat. Expenses are not flat. Why aren't employers paying enough? It is wrong to push that burden on non-citizen domestic workers. Our high taxes pay for services for people (not aupairs) that don't earn a living wage. Huge publicly traded corporations pay less than a living wage and the taxpayers pick up the slack. Instead blaming the poor, why not ask why large companies take care of stockholders by cutting health care and pensions? We pay high taxes because fake capitalists have tricked us into being the safety net for their workers. It is fake capitalism because corporations prevent competition for services and wages.
Muffy and Winthorp
By StillFromDorchester
Tue, 12/03/2019 - 4:16pm
Have grown so fond of our French nanny Geneviève and now they will have to get to know Conseula, she has no pesky papers and we can pay her whatever we like.
Maura won't be getting a Christmas card from us this year.
Au Pairs are not Nannys
By anon
Tue, 12/03/2019 - 4:28pm
Nanny's are career professionals.
AuPairs are foreign teenagers here to avoid making college decisions.
Such an American way to see an aupair
By Anon
Wed, 12/04/2019 - 11:17am
Aupairs are taking a gap year between high school and college to see the world. This is a celebrated experience in Europe whether you volunteer in your home country, work part time and travel, or become an aupair in US, Australia or another corner of the world.
In the USA if you don't immediately go to college it's considered bad. Why rush making a life decision on what path you want to take for your life if you're not ready?
Some au pairs are also ....
By Lee
Wed, 12/04/2019 - 3:07pm
... college students. But that’s not the point. It doesn’t matter what they do in their free time. Nor does being a teenager make you somehow second class.
This is a very interesting
By Sabrina
Wed, 12/04/2019 - 3:31pm
This is a very interesting view. I'm almost 26 years old and I came here as an au Pair Last year. I didn't come here for a gap year! I know a lot of au pairs who are nurses, teachers or even physicians. When you are looking for an au pair, you have a full database of people, from young teenagers to young adults with excellent graduations! The choice is up to families. If they think they need a teenager, then it's their choice! Unfortunately the main agencies don't require families to pay you more if you're performing special duties.
Au Pair in America
By Anon
Fri, 12/06/2019 - 12:03am
APIA agency does have an expert au pair option where families pay a higher agency fee and a higher salary. Please don't share false information.
Hey, miss or mister, I’m an
By Stephanie
Wed, 12/04/2019 - 6:03pm
Hey, miss or mister, I’m an au pair and I’m an English teacher, I have my college bachelor and I was doing a master. Don’t generalize because I can also say awful things about the host families
What?
By Felipe
Wed, 12/04/2019 - 6:48pm
What are you talking about? Au pairs do the same job as a nanny, it’s the same professional thing. Get oriented about it.
I disagree
By Anon
Fri, 12/06/2019 - 12:06am
An au pair and nanny are NOT the same. We have hosted many au pairs and have had tk train them on how to look after kids.
Most lie on their applications.
You can teach a girl how to change a diaper but you can't reach attitude and judgement.
thinking families are bad and that they should have a 35k expense on top of covering food and housing tells me you are an entitled brat looking for a rich American family to take care of you.
If au pairs are teenages who
By Silibaziso Ndlovu
Wed, 12/04/2019 - 10:48pm
If au pairs are teenages who are here to avoid college decisions,why invite them to your home in the first place ?? Doesn't that show that you as an adult are also irresponsible for hiring a person you do not consider to be professional or mature to be dealing with your kids ?.. It's people like you who are in the program for wrong reasons, so you can exploit young foreigners for your own convenience. And au pairs don't only consist of 18 year olders, there are au pairs who are older than that who have already went to university's in their home countries, have degrees and come to America to explore and learn a different culture .
You are wrong.
By Gaby
Thu, 12/05/2019 - 12:31pm
You are wrong if you think that all the au pairs are like that. And what the baby sitters are? Most of them are teenagers too.
So you are that kind of family who only have an au pair because is cheap than the school or a Nanny.
I'm an au pair. I have my Bachelor's degree, I'm not a teenager. You are completely wrong.
This is not true. You hf have
By Sofia
Thu, 12/05/2019 - 12:33pm
This is not true. You hf have to stop seeing au pairs like this. There are au pairs who studied first and then decided to go and work like an au pair. You cans find engineer au pair, lawyers, artists, teachers, etc, but you don't see this because you feel au pairs are only teenagers that doesn't know what to do with their life's.
If it's true that is not worthy to increase that much the au pair salary, also is true that au pairs doesn't receive the fair amount of money for the much work the do. Most of the families forget their kids and make the au pair be like a mom for them, taking care of meals, school, activities and even feelings, they work always more than the hf said, and 195.75 per week is a joke for this much work.
My dear friend,
By Ingrid
Thu, 12/05/2019 - 4:48pm
My dear friend,
How many aupairs do you know to make such an offensive and personal comment? Mostly of them has already a college degree, they pay for this program as much as the host families do, they leave their own country and family to take care of someone else's kids to gain experience, improve english abilities which is not their first language. How many teenagers do you know, that were actually "avoiding" making college decisions, have submitted to something like that? Mostly of the americans I know, don't even bother learning another language, not to mention embracing another culture do deeply like the aupair program does. I can't speak for all of them but I do speak for myself, I started working with 16yo, finished school with 17yo, I learned english by myself, I paid for my college degree and I had worked while in college (and I do know some americans who passed their 30's but still have a big student loan to pay for), I paid an expensive cost to be an aupair as well and I never grew up more as a person, as much as I did during the aupair program. So please, if you have nothing good to say about it, just be quiet!
Thank you.
Muffy and Winthorp will continue
By Longtime Au Pai...
Tue, 12/17/2019 - 10:16am
to enjoy time with their Au Pair because their parents are upper class and rich.
The rest of us in the middle, middle-upper and upper-middle class will be driven permanently out of the Au Pair program until Massachusetts corrects its wholly disproportionate $77/week room and board deduction and the Au Pair agencies lower their cartel-appropriated high fee structure.
Congratulations to corporate daycare (Bright Horizons) and others with significant lobbying dollars to compel most kinds of live-in domestic work entirely unattractive in eastern Massachusetts.
Young people like our nearly 10 au pairs, who we and our kids love and continue to stay in close contact with, will never be able to enjoy Massachusetts as an Au Pair destination again unless they find upper-class families to recruit them.
non-competitive wage
By cinnamngrl
Tue, 12/17/2019 - 2:14pm
Aupairs living in the home benefit the employer. Because of the Visa they cannot negotiate a competitive wage. the going rate is higher than minimum wage. It would be unfair to deduct more than $77.
No one seems to acknowledge that this not capitalism. This is artificially low cost for domestic help. why do all of these families yammer on as if it is an entitlement? Loop holes close.
Drop the agency fees from
By Longtime Au Pai...
Tue, 12/17/2019 - 3:40pm
Drop the agency fees from $10k annually to $1-2k or less and yes, you finally have a real capitalist program.
Most host families have had their issues with the agencies for years - high costs with virtually no service. The list of host family stories about the agencies is as long as the situations where au pairs were taken advantage of by the handful of neglectful or abusive host families.
Most of us wished we could give all the money to our au pairs, but the State Dept bans it and the agencies extract cartel payments. It is a lopsided system that needs serious reform.
Note - we have also employed four different Massachusetts nannies over the years to cover additional time through part-time work. We have paid 100% over the table, with work contracts, vacation time, benefits and the like plus compliance with workers comp.
If the au pair program did not exist while my children were preschool age and earlier, my spouse or I likely would have had to sacrifice a full-time career for a part-time one or none at all. Unfortunately, the latter is the case for most host families in the middle to upper-middle bracket; and also unfortunately if that were the case broadly, either in MA or across the US, many parents, likely mostly women, would not have been afforded the economic opportunity available in the workplace.
Always tradeoffs, cinnmngrl. Thanks for the healthy engagement over the last week, I appreciate it.
Child care costs money
By anon
Tue, 12/03/2019 - 4:27pm
If you have two kids, minimum wage childcare is a bargain. Probably even a deal with one kid now.
The "can't afford" is nonsense, too. You have to be able to afford a separate space for your au pair to begin with.
Wiping baby ass isn't a cultural exchange, anyway. It is work.
You make a good point, but I
By Amanda C
Wed, 12/04/2019 - 11:58am
You make a good point, but I think one thing that isn't being considered is all the additional "payment" the au pairs are getting outside the literal wage. They get free room and board, which is MA would cost a huge sum of money, even with roommates. They get $500 education credit paid by the host family to attend classes each year. Many of them get free access to a vehicle and paid car insurance, or paid public transit. Yes, if you look merely at the weekly wage it seems low, but in reality the entire compensation package is what should be considered. It's comparable to what I made in my first job out of college, not that long ago! I only wish the articles would actually report the entire story, instead of making it all about how everyone is abusive to au pairs, which isn't true. People are certainly entitled to their opinions, but people writing these articles should try to make sure they're providing full information so opinions are based on all the facts.
The only legal requirement is
By Christie
Wed, 12/04/2019 - 3:01pm
The only legal requirement is the weekly pay. Many Au pairs just get the weekly pay and no other compensation in addition. I know an au pair who is in a town that is in the middle of nowhere and she can't even afford the transportation to have a social life and meet people so she spends the entire day (otherwise labeled as her free time) isolated in the house by herself. She has been here for four months and she is so lonely she is choosing to go back home.
they don't get free room and board
By anon
Wed, 12/04/2019 - 4:03pm
they are "paid" based on 45 hrs per week times the federal minimum wage minus 40% for room and board (regardless of actual cost) - this is how they get at most $4.35 per hour (but only if they work at max 45 hrs, which isn't always the case). The system is set up to make the agencies money and get the families cheap child care with little or no protection for the au pairs - their complaints to the agencies and the state department are ignored and they risk having their visas pulled and their ability to get visas in the future affected. This is mentioned in all the articles I read but then I'm not trying to justify anything.
room and board
By anon
Wed, 12/04/2019 - 4:35pm
You know, if my employer made me live and eat where I worked, conveniently making me available 24-7, I wouldn't see it as a perk.
Counting room and board as part of a wage (can't do it unless the employee freely chooses to live in employer-provided housing and accept food and drink) is also covered by state law regarding domestic workers: https://www.mass.gov/service-details/domestic-workers
So it doesn't matter one bit what the market value of any of that is if the employee must accept them in order to accept the job.
Room & Board
By Eric
Thu, 12/05/2019 - 9:34pm
The first problem with your comment is that au pairs by law can only work up to 10hrs per day, 45 hrs per week, and must have at least 1.5 consecutive days off and at least one weekend off per month.
In their off time, au pairs can do what they want, go where they want, with whom they want.
They aren’t on call, they’re off.
Second, the visa isn’t a domestic worker visa, it’s a student visa. Au pairs pay a fee to work in this role as do the host families.
The ruling completely mischaracterizes the nature of their visa, and host families don’t do anything traditional employers do from an HR perspective...all of that is handled by the agency.
i didn't say they were "on call"
By anon
Fri, 12/06/2019 - 4:06pm
I said that living in the same home automatically makes you available. even if technically you are not on call, your employer knows when you're in or out and generally what you're doing.
you know, how when someone from work calls you on a saturday and you just make like you didn't see the call? or "oh, man, no signal, didn't get your text". someone who lives in their employer's house can't do that.
since an au pair relies on them for their visa status, even if the employer is super respectful of their privacy and time in the best of cases, it would be hard to say no to off-hours requests and other little things here and there wouldn't it?
while I don't think most au pair employer families are holding indentured servants in their homes, I also do not believe for one second that those families actually keep track of and respect those 45 hours a week.
\
By Longtime Au Pai...
Mon, 12/09/2019 - 2:35pm
We set a schedule at the beginning of every week. You clearly have not spoken with any host families or au pairs, and/or broadly generalize about assumed poor behavior of a handful of negligent families who disrespect their au pairs.
Please educate yourself on
By anon
Fri, 12/06/2019 - 4:19am
Please educate yourself on the tenants of the program before sharing an uninformed statement such as the one above. The Department of State requires au pairs to be housed by host families. It is not a requirement of the host family.
Furthermore, au pairs are employees of the agencies who sponsor their visas. Host families are just that—hosts—in exchange for a weekly stipend, room and board, two weeks paid vacation and in most families, very lucrative perks (car, car insurance, free vacations, housing of family members visiting the US, cell phone, annual $500 education stipend, day and a half off every week and mandated full weekend once a month, etc, etc, etc, and everything else that go along with being a member of the family like birthday and holiday gifts, extra spending cash).
Stipend, perks, room and board are all in exchange for a very narrow scope of duties solely related to the children that can be performed by au pairs. Most host families are putting out $35k++ to host annually and that’s before the required agency fees are factored in. Again, the Department of State requires host families engage an agency to participate in the program.
Sadly, what will happen is most will cut the extras to be able to afford the new rate. At the end of the day, the au pairs will lose the most, and that’s before they will be subject to higher federal taxes and now, state. :(
It's not just the well-off
By anon
Tue, 12/03/2019 - 4:59pm
It's not just the well-off who have au pairs. It's significantly cheaper than day care, especially if you have more than one kid.
At least it was until this ruling.
Yeah
By erik g
Tue, 12/03/2019 - 8:16pm
exploiting labor laws to avoid paying your childcare provider any more than federal minimum wage (which is now well below poverty level, since it hasn't moved upward in over a decade) is definitely a sustainable way to afford having multiple children. And it's totally within reach of the average lower-to-middle-income family to afford an extra live-in bedroom, bathroom, and kitchen for a woefully-underpaid 19-year-old college student, but woe betide the tax man who makes them pay their live-in nanny more than $290/week
This doesn't address my point
By anon
Wed, 12/04/2019 - 4:22pm
This doesn't address my point that au pairs are not just for the super-rich. They're cheaper than day care, and all types of people pay for day care these days.
Have you talked to any au pairs? You should ask them if they felt the program drove them into poverty.
artificially cheap
By cinnamngrl*
Thu, 12/05/2019 - 8:17am
It is not reallly that cheap. The state has standards for minimum wage because the voters want that way. 12$ is 5 less than going rate.
This is the invisible privlege created by laws that favor a small group of people. it's not everyone else's responsibility to keep special rules in place to domesticmake affordable.
This is the same kind of thinking that makes the housing crisis worse. we can't have more density because I won't be able find parking for 2 cars that my children cannot exist without. etc.
I was au pair
By Jo
Thu, 12/05/2019 - 1:24am
I was au pair in bay area CA and im grateful for this opportunity. I would have never been able to live in a beautiful house in the bay even if i would have been paid the minimum wage. Not even if i got $30per hour.
It was my own choice to be an au pair, nobody forced me to work for this wage. I think it was a great deal for my gap year.
We are part of the families and not "maids"
Its nithing we do as a career. Its an experience.
If the au pair programs would not be here i can tell you soo many more horror stories would happen. So lets not put them out of business. What does everyone have against them?
The au pair program needs more oversight
By anon
Tue, 12/03/2019 - 5:15pm
I used to work in Newton - from what I've seen, au pairs are really treated like live in nannies and housekeepers at much lower rates with less training. Nannies get paid more because they have more responsibilities and training and also get guaranteed time off. Same with maids/housekeepers. People hire au pairs, who are supposed to supplement the parents, and instead are left in charge of the children all day (as much as 12 hours per day) and are expected to clean and cook and run errands as well. I'd see very young girls with 2-3 kids at the supermarket doing the shopping for a whole household. Hardly a cultural exchange for them. It's not like they get the evenings off either. People would be very judgemental of a 19 year old with 3 kids but are ok with it in this context - and expect them to be completely mature and not lose their patience because the parents are paying her (ends up around less than $4.50 per hour). You want a nanny, hire a nanny.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/03/au...
https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2018/08/20/vi...
citizenship status is the real difference
By cinnamngrl
Wed, 12/04/2019 - 9:33am
Although there are many well qualified experienced live-in child care professionals, there are also 17-24 year old American citizen's working as a Nanny. I was one of them. I passed criminal record check and submitted references from the neighbor's I babysat for. I wasn't more qualified than the aupairs.
citizen's get minimum wage. non-citizen's didn't until this ruling.
If you check online job postings, live-in help gets at least 17 per hour. So you can still use the rigged system to save $5 an hour.
No, you can't use the rigged system to "save" $5 an hour
By Anon
Wed, 12/04/2019 - 10:30am
The au pair agencies cost $10,000 a year. Plus I have to pay the au pair's car insurance, room and furnishings, extra utilizities, board, $500 toward education expenses, gas/travel costs to and from au pair meetings, extra car for their use in personal time, costs of including them in our family activities (as they should be full family members). I did the math with these minimum expenses and it is easily $30K a year. Now increase the fees to "minimum wage" of 12.75 an hour starting in Jan. My fees will be an ADDITIONAL $16K a year.
What does that mean? It means I am done with the au pair program and the lovely lady staying with me will have to go home. It means families will still abuse their au pairs and short change them their hours...because they do that NOW. Au pairs aren't allowed to work 12 hours straight right now but stories are different because people break the law. Changing the law won't affect it. Wealthy people will still treat hired labor badly. But those of us who truly wanted a family member from another country will be out. MUCH cheaper to hire a college student that I don't have to house, provide car or insurance for, etc. Very sad.
So go
By roxres
Wed, 12/04/2019 - 8:35pm
hire a college student already.
Why would citizenship matter?
By TomW
Wed, 12/04/2019 - 1:38pm
I looked at the law, and I don't see it making any distinction between citizens and non-citizens. It seems to cover any employment of any person within Massachusetts:
https://www.mass.gov/info-details/mass-general-law...
the differences is citizens don't have visas
By anon
Wed, 12/04/2019 - 4:09pm
Au pairs that complain about long hours, not getting paid, sexual advances, etc can be labeled by the host families as problematic with the criminal agencies that don't do proper oversight and the state department, who treat these situations as not their business. The au pairs visa can be pulled for this reason, even when the host family is at fault, meaning that not only are they kicked out of the country but future attempts to visit or move here are affected. The reason why the don't always speak up. Read the articles - they outline quite a bit. One instance had a mother lie about the au pair shaking the baby because she didn't want the "cultural experience" of dealing with language differences. They can and should be paid the same as the citizens that are affected by this ruling but it goes much deeper than that. With the current administration, do you see it getting better?
I don't disagree...
By TomW
Thu, 12/05/2019 - 12:21pm
I don't disagree with what you are saying, but I think maybe you misunderstood my point. Sorry if I was not clear:
'cinnamngrl' made the claim that, before this ruling, the minimum wage law only applied to citizens.
I responded to say that the minimum wage law applies to everyone, and has always applied to everyone. That is, citizenship makes no difference when it comes to whether employers have to pay minimum wage.
ok
By cinnamngrl
Thu, 12/05/2019 - 12:36pm
This special visa program allowed families to hire an au pair and believed that it was legal to pay them less. I agree that the minimum wage laws applies to everyone, citizen and non citizen. I meant that the visa was the only reason that au pairs agree to be paid less.
You can hire a Nanny in boston that is a legal resident and has permission to work in the US (or a citizen), but they cost at least 17 per hour for live in, and much more for live out. And as far as room and board expense go, MA has rules about that.
Dept of State ..WTF!
By Lee
Tue, 12/03/2019 - 5:48pm
“The plaintiffs - joined in an amicus brief by the Department of State - also warned that if they lost, almost nobody in Massachusetts could afford a foreign au pair, which would damage the international amity the program is supposed to promote.”
Oh yeah, it’s his Dept of State. The Great International Amigo, promoter of world amity.
Makes total sense
By fungwah
Tue, 12/03/2019 - 5:56pm
We can't accept immigrants or refugees because they'll take American jobs for less money than Americans will accept. But no problem if people hire European au pairs and pay them under minimum wage - then its valuable cultural benefit.
Effective wage of $30.18 per hour is not minimum wage!
By Joe Mehrdad
Wed, 12/04/2019 - 6:12am
When I pay a nanny, I can include as part of her earned wage the food she prepares and eats for only herself, the meals I provide her, the cost of her room, her health insurance, employer perks like an education stipend, and personal travel expenses that I pay. An au pair receives the same deal, except the program bakes all of the extras into it and makes the final wage more transparent.
Last year, the income my au pair earned including all of the personal expenses I was required to pay for her added up as follows:
$1,400/mo room (that is 20% below what we rented the same room for the year prior)
$195.75/wk cash wages
$8,500/yr for training, travel, and insurance
$500/yr education stipend
$160/mo transportation pass
$3,800/yr car insurance
$45/mo cellphone service
$120/wk food
$40/wk personal fuel (she refused to drive the kids but agency required us to provide her with her own car even though we have excellent public transportation)
$4,500 car for her private use (we bought it because we were told it was required and sold it in the end.)
Total: $55,059 for the year
Average hours worked per week, 38 hours/wk over 48 weeks.
Average wage including expenses: $30.18/hr
If we had utilized her maximum of 45 hours per week, the relative wage would have fallen to $25.49/hr.
If she had taken her vacation days the same as us, the relative wage would have fallen to $24.47/hr
If we would have had to pay her cash wages at the minimum wage on top of her other expenses, we would have paid $16,861 more for the year and her effective wage would have been between $32.57 and $38.38 per hour.
She took her two weeks vacation, which our agency said we had to let her choose the dates of ... and she intentionally chose her weeks off to be the week before our family vacations ... so she received a total of four weeks paid vacation. In contrast, I had to pay someone else to cover for the two weeks she was on vacation, receive two weeks unpaid vacation per year, go to work before she starts and return before she ends. She works one Saturday every two months, but otherwise had every weekend off. She was not allowed to work more than 10 hours in a day including breaks and we had to arrange for others to take the kids when she took her breaks.
In comparison, our nanny who doesn’t live with us and doesn’t have any of those expenses earns $22/hr total and works 40 hours per week with two weeks paid vacation. Total annual cost for nanny: $45,760 and we have the use of an extra room or, as starts next month, have rented out the extra room to a college student for $1,650/mo ($19,800 per year).
The only problem with these lawsuits is that the agencies try to argue just the federal law and ignore everything tied into what is a wage. If anything, au pairs get paid more than nannies and other domestic servants and far more than the minimum wage. Min wage is before expenses, not after. That $195.75 per week is entirely discretionary funds.
room and board
By anon
Wed, 12/04/2019 - 10:31pm
unless the employee specifically, explicitly and freely chooses to live in your home, it's pretty disingenuous to claim room and board as part of their "wage".
if it's included as a non-optional part of the job - as it is for au pairs - then Massachusetts law would prohibit you from charging the worker for them. So you being so generous as to "give" your live-in domestic worker those things means nothing.
so no, you cannot do that unless the nanny has the freedom to make the choice to live and eat with you.
https://www.mass.gov/service-details/domestic-workers
people that have live-in help 24 hours a day and somehow still find a way to make themselves the victims. sure, bro.
Pages
Add comment