{"id":942,"date":"2017-03-27T11:53:49","date_gmt":"2017-03-27T14:53:49","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/verdeamarelo.org\/bwg\/?p=942"},"modified":"2019-04-27T11:59:29","modified_gmt":"2019-04-27T14:59:29","slug":"they-think-we-are-slaves","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.verdeamarelo.org\/bwg\/2017\/03\/27\/they-think-we-are-slaves\/","title":{"rendered":"\u201cTHEY THINK WE ARE SLAVES\u201d"},"content":{"rendered":"

The U.S. au-pair program is riddled with problems \u2013 and new documents show that the State Department might know more than it\u2019s letting on.<\/em><\/p>\n

By Zack Kopplin, March 27, 2017.<\/p>\n

Juliana traveled here in 2015 from Brazil to become an au pair\u2014a visiting domestic worker in a State Department program designed to build friendship between the United States and other countries. In return for light housework and child care, she would join an American family for a year, learning the language and culture. The private company that arranged her placement assured her she\u2019d be treated with love and kindness.<\/p>\n

Instead, Juliana says she worked illegally long hours and wasn\u2019t paid; she was denied food, screamed at and was generally treated like \u201ctrash.\u201d Her au pair company, Cultural Care Au Pair, the largest in the U.S, told me her alleged treatment was \u201cunacceptable\u201d and asked me for her name to investigate the situation. But Juliana says when she complained to the company\u2019s representative at the time, she was\u00a0told to be \u201cflexible.\u201d<\/p>\n

Eventually, Juliana found a new host family, which assured her she\u2019d be able to eat in the household. (Families are expected to provide three meals a day for their au pairs, according to the State Department.) But when she got there, she learned fruit, bread and milk were off limits because they were too expensive. \u201cYou need to make choices,\u201d she recalls her new hosts saying, telling her she\u2019d have to decide whether to buy food or spend her meager stipend on something else. After that, Juliana gave up and went back to Brazil. \u201cThey think we are slaves,\u201d she says. (Like most au pairs interviewed for this article, Juliana used a pseudonym because she fears retaliation.)<\/p>\n

Many of the roughly 17,500 au pairs who live and work in the United States every year have positive experiences. But according to a dozen current and former au pairs as well as former au pair company employees, ordeals like Juliana\u2019s aren\u2019t unusual, either. They relay horror stories of au pairs who are overworked, humiliated, refused meals, threatened with arrest and deportation\u2014even victims of theft. Worst of all, they say, complaining about exploitative, unsafe working conditions rarely make any difference. Sometimes, reporting abuse makes the situation worse.<\/p>\n

Of course, all stories have two sides, and it\u2019s hard to know what really happens behind a family\u2019s closed doors. All specific allegations against au pair companies in this article were provided to the ones involved. They addressed some incidents but often said they were unable to comment on specific allegations without knowing au pair names. To avoid exposing au pairs, Politico Magazine didn\u2019t contact families; instead, families aren\u2019t named. But the real problem isn\u2019t any particular families\u2014it\u2019s that the State Department and the au pair companies it contracts to seem to have very little interest in finding out what might be going wrong, or in taking action when they do.<\/p>\n

Companies and their advocates disagree with that diagnosis. \u201cThe goal of the program is for young men and women to come to the United States and have a positive cultural exchange experience,\u201d said Ilir Zherka, executive director of the Alliance for International Exchange, an advocacy organization representing 12 au pair companies, including Culture Care. \u201cA critical element of the program are the various support resources sponsors provide, including local representatives, dedicated regional staff and 24-hour emergency contact lines.\u201d<\/p>\n

But in fact, the vast majority of complaints coming from au pairs appears to disappear into a bureaucratic black hole, where they aren\u2019t thoroughly investigated or even publicly reported. A State Department spokesman told\u00a0Politico Magazine\u00a0it received 62 complaints from au pairs and families in 2015. But according to a State Department\u00a0internal analysis of the program\u00a0obtained by\u00a0Politico Magazine, that\u2019s inaccurate: Au pair agencies received and reported to the government more than 3,500 incidents that year.<\/p>\n

All this casts a shadow over a government program bringing thousands of domestic workers, mostly young women, to the United States each year. It was designed to showcase American values and generate international goodwill. But how can it achieve that when worker protections are minimal and oversight is scarce, and as a result, many of these women claim to suffer the worst that America has to offer?<\/p>\n

***<\/p>\n

The au pair program, founded in 1986\u00a0<\/strong>under the auspices of promoting diplomacy and cultural exchange, seems benign enough. Au pairs come to America on a J-1 visa, which allows nonimmigrant visitors like camp counselors and professors to work in the U.S. They typically stay for one year, living with a family and providing child care. The State Department contracts 16 private companies, or sponsors, to handle the nuts and bolts of the program, including recruiting, training and placing au pairs with families. It\u2019s a \u201cmutually rewarding, intercultural opportunity,\u201d says a State Department brochure.<\/p>\n

But the system has always had critics. Initially, it was run out of the now-defunct U.S. Information Agency, which\u00a0advocated\u00a0reforming the program because the work hours were too long for it to be classified as a cultural exchange. (Congress then passed legislation to prevent the agency from limiting work hours.) In 1990, the General Accounting Office, a congressional watchdog agency,\u00a0concluded\u00a0au pairs shouldn\u2019t receive J-1 visas, saying it was inappropriate to bring workers to the U.S. under this visa because it wasn\u2019t meant for labor programs. In 2012, a State Department Inspector General\u00a0report\u00a0criticized the entire J-1 visa program, because sanctioning sponsors who break the rules \u201crarely results in meaningful consequences.\u201d The report recommended transferring oversight of the au pair program to the Department of Labor, and said the program had \u201csignificant issues.\u201d<\/p>\n

In 2013, the Senate debated a bill that would have prohibited companies from charging au pairs recruitment fees, which can range from $500 to $3,000 and can leave au pairs in debt. (Au pair companies also charge families roughly $8,000 per au pair.) \u201cThis program is a scam,\u201d\u00a0said\u00a0Senator Bernie Sanders, during Senate debate over the au pair reform bill.<\/em>\u201cIt is not a cultural-exchange program.\u201d But the agencies lobbied vigorously against the measure; Congress voted it down.<\/p>\n

This [au pair] program is a scam,\u201d said Sen. Bernie Sanders in 2013.<\/em>\u201cIt is not a cultural-exchange program.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Most higher profile recent controversies involve wages. Au pair companies set au pair wages at $195.75 per week for 45 hours of work, or $4.35 an hour\u2014a number that comes from subtracting 40 percent from federal minimum wage for room and board. Labor rights organizations call this a legally dubious arrangement for several reasons, including because deducting housing costs in programs where providing housing primarily benefits the employer (like the au pair program) isn\u2019t allowed by law. In 2015, several au pairs sued 15 companies (one company joined the program after the suit was filed) in a Federal District Court in Colorado, claiming they were illegally denied full minimum wage and au pair companies engage in illegal price fixing. \u201cOur clients allege [their wages have] been fixed by anti-competitive conduct, maintained through fraud, and violates federal, state and local wage and hour laws,\u201d said Nina DiSalvo, executive director of the nonprofit Towards Justice, which is representing the au pairs. The case is still pending.<\/p>\n

There\u2019s another lawsuit in Massachusetts. Theoretically, au pairs are entitled to the minimum wage in the state where they live, which can be higher than the federal minimum wage. But even though that rule is advertised in State Department\u00a0materials\u00a0for au pairs, until recently, no state enforced it. In 2015, the Massachusetts Legislature passed workers rights legislation entitling au pairs to that state\u2019s $11 minimum wage plus overtime (with a situational deduction for room and board that is much less than 40 percent). Cultural Care Au Pair\u00a0sued\u00a0to block the law, arguing au pairs aren\u2019t \u201cdomestic workers\u201d and provide only \u201climited child care services,\u201d and therefore aren\u2019t entitled to the minimum wage. x\u201cBecause au pairs are protected by the [Fair Labor Standards Act], they are protected by state minimum wage laws as well,\u201d wrote the Massachusetts attorney general\u2019s office in its legal response to Cultural Care\u2019s lawsuit. The office argues au pairs are entitled to expanded labor rights in many areas. But it\u2019s unclear how many au pairs are contacting the Massachusetts attorney general\u2019s office to enforce their rights. The case is still ongoing.<\/p>\n

But these attempts at reform don\u2019t address the program\u2019s biggest problem. The au pairs I spoke with said a raise would be nice, but the real issue is that some hosts ignore already existing regulations\u2014and so do the au pair companies supposedly responsible for their well-being.<\/p>\n

The most common complaint is overwork. Hours for au pairs are capped at 45 per week and 10 a day. They are entitled to weekends off every month and two weeks of paid vacation. But many, like Juliana, are asked to work more than that. In fact, extra hours are \u201cpretty much an expectation,\u201d says Judy Bitting, a former local child care consultant for Cultural Care. (Local child care consultants are contracted by au pair companies to act as the on-the-ground contact for families and au pairs.)<\/p>\n

It\u2019s supposed to be easy for au pairs to complain to their agencies about this type of exploitation, through monthly meetings with local consultants. (The State Department has a complaint channel too, though au pairs more often go through their companies.) The au pairs I spoke to, however, say that when they raised issues, they got nowhere. In an annual evaluation, Itzel Reyes, an au pair who used her real name, told Cultural Care she regularly worked more than 45 hours a week. Her program director apologized but did nothing. Then the company resent the evaluation, \u201cas if my answer might change the second time,\u201d Reyes says.<\/p>\n

Letters obtained by\u00a0Politico Magazine\u00a0show consultants urging au pairs to work additional hours or do work unrelated to child care. One consultant\u2019s guide for new au pairs suggests doing extra child care during their time off, like when they go to a restaurant with the family. \u201cYou are not a guest, you are a part of the family,\u201d the guide says.<\/p>\n

A few extra hours at family dinner might not sound all that bad. But it only gets worse from there. Jessica with AuPairCare\u2014another au pair company\u2014says her host father, \u201cSteve,\u201d monitored her birth control, interrogating her when she asked his wife to administer a contraceptive injection. \u201cI had to explain my period to him,\u201d she recalls. Jessica claims he was angry with her for spending free time with her boyfriend, rather than his family. After Steve accused her of sleeping with her boyfriend in his house, he fired her, telling her she had to be out of the house in a couple of days. When she called AuPairCare, they didn\u2019t offer her a place to stay or even a ride from the house. \u201cCall an Uber,\u201d she says she was told. She says the company also denied her the chance to be placed with a new family.<\/p>\n

Jessica believes her au pair company didn\u2019t let her find new hosts because she owed Steve money for a plane ticket to visit family in Brazil. (Steve also owed her for the cost of her old cellphone that he\u2019d traded in for an iPhone upgrade when she first arrived. She had returned the new phone after she was fired.) But after she repaid Steve a few weeks later, Jessica alleges he then stole $250 from a shared bank account he\u2019d created for her when she arrived in America. She gave\u00a0Politico Magazine\u00a0an email she sent to Steve and AuPairCare staff containing pictures of her bank statements. Her money had been transferred to another account. She asked for it back. Nobody answered.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe health, safety, and welfare of our au pairs and host families are paramount,\u201d says Joanne Hritz, AuPairCare\u2019s director of marketing, in response to Jessica\u2019s account. Stories have \u201ctwo sides.\u201d Hritz was unwilling to comment more without Jessica\u2019s real name. \u201cIn order for AuPairCare to investigate this we need to know the full name of the au pair and host family,\u201d she says.<\/p>\n

And yet, the au pairs I spoke to told me they and their fellow au pairs feel that the agencies aren\u2019t particularly interested in listening to\u00a0their<\/em>\u00a0sides, or in grappling with the messy stories they hear. In most complaints, the companies put the onus on the au pair, giving them two weeks to find a new family if a mediation process with the consultant doesn\u2019t work. If they fail to find new hosts, their visas are canceled. The sponsors then have total discretion to label the au pairs either \u201cinactive\u201d or \u201cterminated\u201d in a Department of Homeland Security database. A \u201cterminated\u201d label jeopardizes their chances of getting a U.S. visa in the future.\u00a0\u201cThe State Department does not monitor the accuracy of these designations [by au pair companies],\u201d\u00a0wrote\u00a0Janie Chuang, a law professor at American University, in a 2013 article about au pairs in the\u00a0Harvard Journal of Law and Gender<\/em>. Fired au pairs may also have to pay for their plane tickets home. These are all factors that can make au pairs reluctant to complain about maltreatment.<\/p>\n

Kate, a former au pair, says her company even sent her home early before her allotted time to find a new host family had run out because \u201cthey didn\u2019t feel like I would find a match.\u201d Although she lacked the necessary training, she\u2019d been assigned a special-needs child who she says kicked and bit her. \u201cI tried talking to [the family] about it, but they wouldn\u2019t listen,\u201d she says. \u201cEven the agency didn\u2019t [listen].\u201d<\/p>\n

Liz Warrick, another former Cultural Care consultant, says one of her au pairs was sent home after the host mother told police the au pair had shaken her baby. A few days later, the mother admitted to social service workers the accusation was false. \u201cHow else was I able to get her out of my home?\u201d Warwick says the mom said. Why did she want her gone? The mother admitted she\u2019d been unable to overcome a language barrier with the au pair.<\/p>\n

And what happens to the families involved in an au pair complaint? Bitting claims they are rarely removed from the program. She says her company even gave au pairs to families she told them shouldn\u2019t be hosts. \u201cThe company said it was a waste of my time\u201d to prevent abuse. (Cultural Care disputes this, saying it removes families who violate rules. \u201cWe have ended relationships with host families, specifically if there is a flagrant violation of the regulations or program rules,\u201d it says.) Without Cultural Care\u2019s help in resolving exploitative situations, Bitting says, \u201cmy hands were tied.\u201d Au pairs \u201cwould beg me not to go back [to talk] to the family.\u201d They feared retaliation.<\/p>\n

***<\/p>\n

Ask the State Department<\/strong>\u00a0and they\u2019ll tell you incidents like these are isolated and not indicative of systemic issues. \u201cThe J-1 Exchange Visitor Program today is stronger than ever, and we continually strive to improve it,\u201d Nathan Arnold, a State Department spokesman, told me.<\/p>\n

According to the State Department\u2019s public statements, there is almost no recorded abuse in the program. While acknowledging \u201cnot every incident will be reported,\u201d Arnold said just 218 complaints\u2014from families, companies and au pairs\u2014were recorded from 2013 to November 2016, with 62 complaints in 2015 alone.\u00a0The Washington Post\u00a0<\/em>reported\u00a0similar numbers in November, based on what it had been told by the State Department. Companies are \u201crequired to report [to the State Department] any incidents involving or alleging a crime of moral turpitude or violence,\u201d Arnold assured me, plus \u201cany serious problem or controversy,\u201d meaning anything worse than \u201clost luggage\u201d or \u201cmissed flights.\u201d<\/p>\n

The problem? These numbers are incorrect\u2014according to the State Department itself. Every year, au pair agencies provide the government with a \u201csummation of all complaints\u201d by au pairs and families. The State Department\u2019s\u00a02015 Au Pair Program Annual Reports Analysis, a previously unreleased document obtained by\u00a0Politico Magazine, states that not 62, but a full \u201c3,505 complaints were received by sponsors\u201d from au pairs, families or both during that year.<\/p>\n

Confronted with this 3,443-complaint discrepancy, Arnold clarified: The first set of complaints included those reported by parties only \u201cother than a sponsor\u201d\u2014meaning directly to the government. (That was after\u00a0the spokesperson had explicitly confirmed those numbers were the full set of complaints, including those \u201creported through sponsors.\u201d)<\/p>\n

These higher numbers have never been publicly reported. And what has the government done about them? Not much, according to Arnold. Most \u201care classified as issues that do not require State Department intervention,\u201d he told me. Many complaints are vaguely labeled and described only in terms like \u201cincompatibility and\/or personality conflict.\u201d Mostly, the issues were resolved when au pairs were fired or placed with new families. Families were removed from the program in just 4 percent of incidents.<\/p>\n

According to the 2015 report, \u201c40% of complaints were initiated by both au pairs and host families; 30% of complaints were initiated by au pairs; 30% of complaints were initiated by host families. These labels aren\u2019t cut and dry. Family complaints could be sparked by things like an au pair refusing to work extra hours or asking to be paid on time. Jessica\u2019s situation, for example, would be considered a family complaint.<\/p>\n

Politico Magazine\u00a0was unable to uncover details about specific complaints. It\u2019s unclear, for example, how Juliana or Jessica\u2019s stories were characterized, if at all\u2014whether they would be labeled a \u201cpersonality conflict\u201d or something more serious. (The State Department estimates it will respond to\u00a0Politico Magazine\u2019s Freedom of Information request for full audits of the program, which could provide clarity, in 2018.)<\/p>\n

Despite assurances that the exchange is \u201cstronger than ever,\u201d State Department documents also indicate the government is aware of some of its major problems. The program analysis from 2014, also obtained by Politico Magazine, doesn\u2019t contain specific complaint numbers from the au pair agencies, but it did do say that in \u201cmany of the audits [au pair companies are required to submit to the government]\u201d au pairs reported working extra hours.<\/p>\n

Au pairs are sold a cultural experience, but families are looking for cheap labor.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

At the heart of the program\u2019s problem is a difference in expectations. Companies \u201cmarket the program differently to host families and to au pairs,\u201d the 2014 analysis notes. \u201cFor host families, the program is commonly marketed as an affordable, reliable and flexible way to obtain quality child care. For au pairs, the program is often advertised as an easy way to live with an American family, learn about American culture, take classes and earn some money.\u201d In other words: Au pairs are sold a cultural experience, but families are looking for cheap labor.<\/p>\n

But the biggest problem might be that the State Department seems content to live and let live. It has just 30\u00a0staff members dedicated to monitoring the entire J-1 program for compliance with rules. (Over 375,000 J-1 visas were\u00a0issued\u00a0in 2016.) And while those 30 employees look into the small number of cases reported to the State Department\u2019s hotline, it\u2019s clear they don\u2019t have the time or manpower to review the thousands of other complaints. For the most part, the government trusts au pair companies\u2014businesses that have a financial interest in the continuation of the program in its current form\u2014to regulate themselves. (When asked if the State Department ever looks into complaints reported by companies to see whether they were handled properly, Arnold did not answer.\u00a0\u201cEach situation is unique and decisions on how to respond necessarily vary,\u201d he said.) Arnold said the State Department is unaware of any widespread pattern of abuse that would require intervening with companies. \u201cThis is a mutual partnership built on trust and transparency,\u201d he said of State’s relationship with sponsors.<\/p>\n

Even when it comes to complaints reported directly to the State Department, I saw no evidence the government takes meaningful action. Sets of complaints from 2012 and 2013 are revealed in transcripts of calls made to the State Department\u2019s abuse hotline that was uploaded to the State Department\u2019s online FOIA library. According to one transcript, an anonymous au pair told the State Department her host mother used threats of deportation to hold her in the house against her will, forcing her to work illegally long hours uncompensated. When the au pair complained to her local consultant, she says she was told the company couldn\u2019t help because she had \u201csigned a contract.\u201d A different complaint alleged an au pair was being forced to work over 100 hours a week. Another au pair said she was made to sleep in her family\u2019s laundry room like a \u201cdog\u201d and that her company hadn\u2019t checked in on her. The FOIA library did not include information on how these cases were resolved, but we do know one thing: The au pair companies involved were not sanctioned. While Arnold assured me that \u201cthe Department may impose sanctions on a sponsor when it is determined that sponsor has violated the regulations and those violations warrant sanctions,\u201d he also told me the last time any company was sanctioned was in 2006, when five companies received \u201clesser sanctions\u201d for \u201cinadequate management of educational component.\u201d<\/p>\n

It\u2019s not exactly a portrait of heavy oversight. The State Department couldn\u2019t even tell me how many complaints sponsors reported in years other than 2015; the government has not compiled those numbers, even though the sponsors are required to report them every year. (State also refused requests to release raw data submitted by individual companies.) That doesn\u2019t mean the government isn\u2019t paying attention, Arnold insists. For example, the State Department holds \u201cmeet-and-greets\u201d around the country, where au pairs are encouraged to talk to State Department officials (without their sponsors) about their experiences. But a few meet-and-greets doesn\u2019t help thousands of au pairs with issues. Worse, the au pairs I spoke to for this story didn\u2019t feel safe complaining to the State Department, in fear that their complaints would get back to their host families or their au pair companies. \u201cThe notion that whatever information is gained from a complaint might lead to possible sanctions against an au pair agency offers little incentive for au pairs to assume the risk of reporting,\u201d writes Chuang, the AU law professor.<\/p>\n

For a program designed to enhance the way America is perceived in the world, the au pair exchange clearly has a long way to go. Sure, many au pairs have good relationships with their host families, and lax enforcement isn\u2019t a problem for them. But good experiences aren\u2019t guaranteed. And when a host family does want to flout the rules, who\u2019s to stop it if the State Department isn\u2019t watching?<\/p>\n

Full article at:<\/p>\n

http:\/\/www.politico.com\/magazine\/story\/2017\/03\/au-pair-program-abuse-state-department-214956<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The U.S. au-pair program is riddled with problems \u2013 and new documents show that the State Department might know more […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"two_page_speed":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[45,37,36,35],"class_list":["post-942","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news","tag-brazilian-women","tag-brazilian-womens-group","tag-grupo-mulher-brasileira","tag-mulher-brasileira"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.verdeamarelo.org\/bwg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/942","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.verdeamarelo.org\/bwg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.verdeamarelo.org\/bwg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.verdeamarelo.org\/bwg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.verdeamarelo.org\/bwg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=942"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.verdeamarelo.org\/bwg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/942\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":945,"href":"https:\/\/www.verdeamarelo.org\/bwg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/942\/revisions\/945"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.verdeamarelo.org\/bwg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=942"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.verdeamarelo.org\/bwg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=942"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.verdeamarelo.org\/bwg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=942"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}