5 ms·

My sister had an Au Pair for a year. The Au Pair was taken on holidays with them and participated heavily on family life. Even now, years later, they still mail

My sister had an Au Pair for a year. The Au Pair was taken on holidays with them and participated heavily on family life. Even now, years later, they still mail Christmas presents between Germany and Australia. The deal was basically that the Au Pair is included as a family member in every aspect. I feel that once you attach a minimum wage then the Au Pair is now an employee. I also see the opposite argument, where some families are abusing the system to get a low-cost worker. Do you need to pay minimum wage and still feed them the good food that the family is eating or you can feed them the cheaper employee food? These questions become relevant now.

fred_is_fred 7y ago
Its actually a lot simpler than that. If you employee someone you have to pay them minimum wage -- even if you send them a Christmas present -- because that's the law.
- MaximumYComb 7y ago
  The current situation is an Au Pair is included as part of the family. If you're now paying minimum wage, is the Au Pair now an employee who is treated as an employee or do they still get treated as a family member?
  - boublepop 7y ago
    Very true. It’s difficult to imagine someone being both included in the family and also treated with respect. I mean all my other family members work full-time jobs for me for below minimum wage, you wouldn’t want the au pair feeling left out by receiving a decent wage.
    - MaximumYComb 7y ago
      Minimum wage here is $19.49/hour. What you're suggesting is: * Pay $739 weekly * Provide all food, plus cook for them * Provide their own room in the accommodation * Cover the costs of all their utilities (water, gas, electricity) * Take them on all holidays, etc I know your suggestion means well but it would mean Au Pairs cease to exist. It's lose-lose. The Au Pairs here aren't coming for a poor nation to earn money from back home, they're coming over for cultural exchange. For example, my sisters Au Pair was from a wealthy German family. Maybe it's different in other countries, the article talks about Columbian Au Pairs.
      - fred_is_fred 7y ago
        Yes. I am suggesting that you stop hiding behind "they're family" and follow the law. It may be cute to you but it won't be cute when WalMart starts calling its employees "family" as well.
        MaximumYComb 7y ago
        How does Walmart come into this? I've never even seen a Walmart in my life. I suspect the difference here is due to you being American, everything is capitalistic there. In Australia, the LAW actually allows for cultural exchange of Au Pairs. The recommendation is that an average Au Pair works 30 hours per week at the minimum wage but that the host family subtracts $350 per week for room and board (reasonable costs in Australia) and that pocket money is $200-250. So the Au Pair has in fact been paid the minimum wage. If you cannot fathom how a human could host another human and you can only see transactions then I feel sorry for you.
0xfaded 7y ago
I lived with a family who had an Au Pairs who were similar ages to me at the time and got to them and their Au Pair friends quite well. There is definitely a divide between families who do a good job of integrating and involving an Au Pair into family life and generally upholding their end of the cultural exchange bargain, and those who use Au Pairs as cheap labor. I know of some Au Pairs whose families blatantly ignored the minimum living standards. Imagine the dehumanization of being given a converted closet to live in (as a ~25yo) with strict curfews, limited car access, and having every incurred family expense scrutinized. Meanwhile the 3 month-old baby you are looking after has a large room with blinds that are never opened because the room serves only as a sleeping nursery. On the other hand, the family I lived with did an exceptional job of treating their Au Pair as an independent adult and integrating them into family life. The cultural exchange aspect definitely has value, and to working Americans the system provides cheap child care. The system is worth keeping, but I'd definitely support improved protections for Au Pairs that prevent abusers from freeloading.
Traster 7y ago
> I feel that once you attach a minimum wage then the Au Pair is now an employee. The Au Pair was always an employee - whether you're paying them exploitative wages or not, they're still an employee. >Do you need to pay minimum wage and still feed them the good food that the family is eating or you can feed them the cheaper employee food? You never had to feed the Au Pair the same food as the rest of your family, it was just the decent thing to do. I really don't understand this concept where, just because you're no longer exploiting this employee, you now feel that that opens the door to questioning whether you should now be exploiting them as a person instead.
- EvanWard97 7y ago
  Who says paying below our minimum wage is exploitative? Au Pairs' income is almost entirely discretionary. Who else from say, South Africa, can stably earn $800+/month of purely discretionary income by watching a couple kids for 30-45 hours a week? The whole deal is a big step up in quality of life for many. If you raise their minimum pay, you will literally lower American demand for Au Pairs, who are generally happy with their end of the deal.

fred_is_fred 7y ago

Its actually a lot simpler than that. If you employee someone you have to pay them minimum wage -- even if you send them a Christmas present -- because that's the law.

MaximumYComb 7y ago
The current situation is an Au Pair is included as part of the family. If you're now paying minimum wage, is the Au Pair now an employee who is treated as an employee or do they still get treated as a family member?
- boublepop 7y ago
  Very true. It’s difficult to imagine someone being both included in the family and also treated with respect. I mean all my other family members work full-time jobs for me for below minimum wage, you wouldn’t want the au pair feeling left out by receiving a decent wage.
  - MaximumYComb 7y ago
    Minimum wage here is $19.49/hour. What you're suggesting is: * Pay $739 weekly * Provide all food, plus cook for them * Provide their own room in the accommodation * Cover the costs of all their utilities (water, gas, electricity) * Take them on all holidays, etc I know your suggestion means well but it would mean Au Pairs cease to exist. It's lose-lose. The Au Pairs here aren't coming for a poor nation to earn money from back home, they're coming over for cultural exchange. For example, my sisters Au Pair was from a wealthy German family. Maybe it's different in other countries, the article talks about Columbian Au Pairs.
    - fred_is_fred 7y ago
      Yes. I am suggesting that you stop hiding behind "they're family" and follow the law. It may be cute to you but it won't be cute when WalMart starts calling its employees "family" as well.
      - MaximumYComb 7y ago
        How does Walmart come into this? I've never even seen a Walmart in my life. I suspect the difference here is due to you being American, everything is capitalistic there. In Australia, the LAW actually allows for cultural exchange of Au Pairs. The recommendation is that an average Au Pair works 30 hours per week at the minimum wage but that the host family subtracts $350 per week for room and board (reasonable costs in Australia) and that pocket money is $200-250. So the Au Pair has in fact been paid the minimum wage. If you cannot fathom how a human could host another human and you can only see transactions then I feel sorry for you.

0xfaded 7y ago

I lived with a family who had an Au Pairs who were similar ages to me at the time and got to them and their Au Pair friends quite well. There is definitely a divide between families who do a good job of integrating and involving an Au Pair into family life and generally upholding their end of the cultural exchange bargain, and those who use Au Pairs as cheap labor. I know of some Au Pairs whose families blatantly ignored the minimum living standards. Imagine the dehumanization of being given a converted closet to live in (as a ~25yo) with strict curfews, limited car access, and having every incurred family expense scrutinized. Meanwhile the 3 month-old baby you are looking after has a large room with blinds that are never opened because the room serves only as a sleeping nursery. On the other hand, the family I lived with did an exceptional job of treating their Au Pair as an independent adult and integrating them into family life. The cultural exchange aspect definitely has value, and to working Americans the system provides cheap child care. The system is worth keeping, but I'd definitely support improved protections for Au Pairs that prevent abusers from freeloading.

Traster 7y ago

> I feel that once you attach a minimum wage then the Au Pair is now an employee. The Au Pair was always an employee - whether you're paying them exploitative wages or not, they're still an employee. >Do you need to pay minimum wage and still feed them the good food that the family is eating or you can feed them the cheaper employee food? You never had to feed the Au Pair the same food as the rest of your family, it was just the decent thing to do. I really don't understand this concept where, just because you're no longer exploiting this employee, you now feel that that opens the door to questioning whether you should now be exploiting them as a person instead.

EvanWard97 7y ago
Who says paying below our minimum wage is exploitative? Au Pairs' income is almost entirely discretionary. Who else from say, South Africa, can stably earn $800+/month of purely discretionary income by watching a couple kids for 30-45 hours a week? The whole deal is a big step up in quality of life for many. If you raise their minimum pay, you will literally lower American demand for Au Pairs, who are generally happy with their end of the deal.