
A Court Said Au Pairs Deserve Minimum Wage. Some Families Are Protesting - pseudolus
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/08/us/au-pair-massachusetts-ruling.html
======
MaximumYComb
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.

~~~
Traster
> 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
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.

------
malandrew
Isn't an easy and reasonable response to this to charge the au pair for rent
at the market rate for a single room in the neighborhood in which the family
lives.

Room and board is a non-trivial portion of cost of living. Paying minimum wage
and providing housing would mean an au pair makes far more than minimum wage
when all is said and done.

~~~
Fezzik
That sort of defeats the whole purpose of what au pair programs are for, which
is primarily cultural exchange, not employment. For some reason the article
deftly glosses over this. The general rules for being an au pair are: you’re
under 30 (depends on country of origin and country entering), your native
language is different than that of the country you are visiting, and you are
unmarried. The foundation of the program is you get free room/board and a
small living stipend in exchange for being immersed in a culture and helping
out with a family - an au pair is more like an older sibling than an employee.
Or is supposed to be. Obviously there are ways a host family can abuse the
system.

There are a variety of programs like this (Peace Corps and AmeriCorps come to
mind) where young people are provided unique cultural opportunities at the
cost of earning little to no money.

Edit: spelling.

~~~
boublepop
> au pair is more like an older sibling than an employee

We all know that this is definitely not the case. You can put all sort of
romantic ideals into the system. But there is a definite employer/worker
relationship and au pair are not just expected to “be part of the family” but
to work as cleaners/nannies and chefs. If you want the system to work as you
explain it, the au pair should be completely shielded from doing any non-
voulentary work at all, and it would be a completely different system.

~~~
jobigoud
Normal members of the family aren't shielded from doing involuntary work.

~~~
boublepop
In the sense that they do not get sent out of the country for refusing to make
dinner they are.

------
sjg007
Au pair is basically the way you hire a nanny if you are middle class and
can't afford one. I am guessing that if minimum wage laws apply then the local
governments or the feds are going to have to step in and offer some kind of
child care support in addition to the childcare tax deductions we already
have. It will probably be untenable. That being said you have to be rich
enough to afford an au pair already. For example, we thought about an au pair
when we rented in silicon valley but they need their own room. This takes you
from a 2-bdrm to a 3 bdrm minimum so that's another expense. You have to weigh
that cost in with the cost of full time child care as well.

