Au pair plus / nanny / from outside EU aged over 35?

Milky_Mocha

Any wrote: »

If you pay £100 for 25 hrs a week for employee - that is less then NMW and illegal. You would have to pay properly and then charge rent back.

.

As it turns out this statement is incorrect. It appears you (and not just you) keep missing the point that the person I employ would be live-in.

I got in touch with a couple of agencies who informed me that the person I employ is not entitled to a minimum wage.

Thinking she might have ill-advised me, I 'made friends' with google and found the government website http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/Employees/TheNationalMinimumWage/DG_175114 which states:

People not entitled to the National Minimum Wage
Living in your employer’s household

If you are a member of your employer’s family, live in their home and help run a family business or help with household chores, you are not entitled to the NMW if you share in the family’s tasks and activities.
If you are not a member of your employer’s family but you live in their home and share in the household’s work and leisure activities, for example if you are an au pair, you are not entitled to the NMW.


The nannyplus website also states:
The National Minimum wage applies to nannies as any other occupation but it does not apply to employees aged under 18 or to nannies living as part of the family household, where there is no separately metered accommodation.

So there is some education for those who thought otherwise.

Think about it. If someone offered to pay your mortgage/rent, your utilities, all your food and drink, a study course, gave you use of a car and fuel for your private use and in addition offered you just under £500 per month tax and NI free that offer would definately appeal to a lot of people and that is why so many of such placements exist in the UK and throughout the world, whether aged 18 or 30.

Rachie_B

gettingready wrote: »

Would you work for £100 per week?



OP is looking for that.....

£100 a day sure

I was just replying to age thing by Ruby Moon ..

melancholly

BitterAndTwisted wrote: »

I find your attitude very judgmental and not particularly reasonable either. There are many reasons why a woman of 35 might not have had any children and some of them might be through choice and others not. It's not the ambition of every single woman on the planet to have a family of her own even if it might have been yours and the lack of that ambition cannot and does not suggest that there's anything psychologically amiss. For you to have said so intimates far more about you than it does any childless woman imo

actually, i kind of agree with you - not every woman aims to bring up a brood! however, i think there is a massive point from Ruby Moon about a 35 year old who is at a point in her life where she's happy to live as an au pair and get paid peanuts! a nanny or a childminder, obviously no issue, but there aren't many people at that age who want to live in someone else's home and be at their beck and call! there's nothing wrong with it at all (plenty of 35 year olds i know live with their parents!), but it does make you think about why that age cut off was chosen.... i don't think the post was unreasonable at all - you may disagree, but i would personally have some reservations about say a 45 year old with no other commitments in her life so that she was happy to be an au pair in the same way as a 21 year old. obviously it all depends on the individual in the end though!

BitterAndTwisted

I can think of a number of circumstances where a role like the OP is considering might be attractive to an "older" carer: someone widowed in unfavourable housing (like the "matrons" at the boarding-school I attended), someone whose accommodation was tied to a job they might have lost recently, someone coming out of the Armed Forces with no home of their own. None of those potential candidates would automatically be totally unsuitable just because childless.

I admit that I could be seen to have a personal agenda: I became a full-time live-out nanny to a family with three children when I was 35 and between jobs once. I was only supposed to be helping out for a few weeks until they found a new, permanent replacement but became so attached to the children that I stayed for two years. It was a very valuable experience for someone who had no kids of their own and I am still in contact with the family 20 years later.

Ruby_Moon

BitterAndTwisted wrote: »

I can think of a number of circumstances where a role like the OP is considering might be attractive to an "older" carer: someone widowed in unfavourable housing (like the "matrons" at the boarding-school I attended), someone whose accommodation was tied to a job they might have lost recently, someone coming out of the Armed Forces with no home of their own. None of those potential candidates would automatically be totally unsuitable just because childless.

I admit that I could be seen to have a personal agenda: I became a full-time live-out nanny to a family with three children when I was 35 and between jobs once. I was only supposed to be helping out for a few weeks until they found a new, permanent replacement but became so attached to the children that I stayed for two years. It was a very valuable experience for someone who had no kids of their own and I am still in contact with the family 20 years later.

My post referred to live in positions and I expressed I would be concerned at someone 35+ applying for a live in position, regardless of whether they had children or not.
If they don't want children, that their choice. I haven't any problems with that but I would wonder why she would want to live in my house and look after 3 of my children at that age.
I would be no more "judgemental" of a 35 year old than I would be of a 21 year old but do think that where my children are concerned, I would be able to use as much 'judgement' as I deemed appropriate.