nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Bernardine and Thomas McCormack ordered to pay au pair over â‚¬5k

voz es

A reported 54 hours a at an effective hourly rate of €2.78 then when the Brazilian au pair quits, they demanded €540.00 from them because they didn't give enough notice.

I think it is a disgusting way to treat another, glad they had to pay up.

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2018/0201/937665-labour-court-au-pair/

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

[Deleted User]

mikhail wrote: »

This girl was clearly mistreated, and I have no sympathy for the couple who employed her.

However, I am curious on one point. The court ruled she should receive minimum wage for the hours she worked. However, it didn't make any allowance for the fact that she was receiving food and board, which is a bloody expensive set of costs to have relieved these days. Would they have been in the same trouble if instead of €150 for 50+ hours work a week, they'd paid her €500 and charged her the market rate for rent and more again for food? I'm sure you're still looking at it costing them more, but that's to be expected if an essentially cash in hand arrangement is formalised.

I would say the reason that does not happen is no one would work as a nanny minding 3 children full time if they though 200 a week was going to be deducted for board and keep.

ohnonotgmail

mikhail wrote: »

This girl was clearly mistreated, and I have no sympathy for the couple who employed her.

However, I am curious on one point. The court ruled she should receive minimum wage for the hours she worked. However, it didn't make any allowance for the fact that she was receiving food and board, which is a bloody expensive set of costs to have relieved these days. Would they have been in the same trouble if instead of €150 for 50+ hours work a week, they'd paid her €500 and charged her the market rate for rent and more again for food? I'm sure you're still looking at it costing them more, but that's to be expected if an essentially cash in hand arrangement is formalised.

there is a cap on the accommodation costs for live in staff. It was mentioned earlier in thread. €54.13 a week max for food and accommodation.

_Dara_

Fair play to this woman for having the guts to take them on. I’m glad her bravery has given her a little cash bonus. I’m sure at times that it seemed like an impossible task. I’m always thinking this; if it was still legal to have slaves, I think way more people than we think would avail. I reckon many au pairs are really badly treated. It’s so unregulated.

Blazer

Had an au-pair for a year and it was very handy.
My missus used to ask her to clean and I used to have to pull her on it that her job was just to mind our 1 year old about 4 hours for 4 days a week and no housework outside of that. She has her own double room with sky q and internet plus apple tv for netflix etc.
I also had her insured on the jeep so on her days off she could drive wherever she wanted to.
The odd time we asked her if she wanted to babysit and paid her the going rate.
But the attitude of people towards au-pairs was unreal..even from the missus when she was talking about getting her to do stuff so I think a lot of this is common amongst people and definitely needs to be stamped out.
We still keep in contact with her and she's now working in accountancy so great to see her move on.

STB.

I'd have my head down too. Some people have no shame. BUT !!!!! The best part of it all.

It was the McCormacks who appealed the WRC's decision to award less (€1400) and the return of the €510. The Labour Court tripled it....

I hate that.

georgina toadbum

I can't get over the fact that they charged her money. I think the judge should have awarded her more money.

Neyite

mikhail wrote: »

This girl was clearly mistreated, and I have no sympathy for the couple who employed her.

However, I am curious on one point. The court ruled she should receive minimum wage for the hours she worked. However, it didn't make any allowance for the fact that she was receiving food and board, which is a bloody expensive set of costs to have relieved these days. Would they have been in the same trouble if instead of €150 for 50+ hours work a week, they'd paid her €500 and charged her the market rate for rent and more again for food? I'm sure you're still looking at it costing them more, but that's to be expected if an essentially cash in hand arrangement is formalised.

In an au-pair arrangement, the live-in factor is more beneficial for the parents than to the au-pair. It means the children stay in their own home, and no extra fees for a babysitter to get home at 3am. If the parents are delayed in work or traffic, they aren't going to stress about holding the childminder up.

In exchange, the au-pair is just staying in a guest room. She (and it's usually a she) can't probably bring over a bloke to stay the night. Chances are that the kids are in to her at Stupid O'Clock wanting someone to get up and get them breakfast. There's a lot of personal freedom handed over to employers in an Au-pair situation.

mikhail

Neyite wrote: »

In an au-pair arrangement, the live-in factor is more beneficial for the parents than to the au-pair. It means the children stay in their own home, and no extra fees for a babysitter to get home at 3am. If the parents are delayed in work or traffic, they aren't going to stress about holding the childminder up.

In exchange, the au-pair is just staying in a guest room. She (and it's usually a she) can't probably bring over a bloke to stay the night. Chances are that the kids are in to her at Stupid O'Clock wanting someone to get up and get them breakfast. There's a lot of personal freedom handed over to employers in an Au-pair situation.

For those reasons, I am agree with the limits on deductions for food & board mentioned by Liamo08 and others. I was just curious about the law on this because it wasn't mentioned in the reporting of the case I'd seen.

[Deleted User]

mikhail wrote: »

This girl was clearly mistreated, and I have no sympathy for the couple who employed her.

However, I am curious on one point. The court ruled she should receive minimum wage for the hours she worked. However, it didn't make any allowance for the fact that she was receiving food and board, which is a bloody expensive set of costs to have relieved these days. Would they have been in the same trouble if instead of €150 for 50+ hours work a week, they'd paid her €500 and charged her the market rate for rent and more again for food? I'm sure you're still looking at it costing them more, but that's to be expected if an essentially cash in hand arrangement is formalised.

Accomodation and board as part of pay is very low: http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/employment_rights_and_conditions/pay_and_employment/pay_inc_min_wage.html

Plus there's the factor that in real-life the parents have the benefit of having them more or less on call most of the time. And the stability factor. And the lack of travel required.

I sometimes feel quite immature when I constantly get surprised by people acting like such pieces of ****. If I'm trusting someone around my kids and to take care of them how could I not treat them with respect? Even aside from letting my kids see me treat someone important to them so ****tily.

Franz Von Peppercorn

georgina toadbum wrote: »

I can't get over the fact that they charged her money. I think the judge should have awarded her more money.

How can you charge a worker for money you didn’t pay them?

Franz Von Peppercorn

And hats off to the lawyer.

At the appeal, their solicitor Richard Grogan argued that because Ms Generoso was working in excess of the hours permitted under her visa, the contract was illegal, and could not be enforced - meaning Ms Generoso would not have been entitled to rely on employment rights protection.

A unique defense which could legalise slavery if accepted. Just overwork them.

topper75

cycle4fun wrote: »

I know a couple, both are teachers, and they exploit a poor au pair too, paying her very little and expecting all the work in the house done while the parents live the high life. Absolute scum.

Teachers eh?

I wouldn't like to have people of such an ethic instructing my kids in any subject.

Jimbob1977

topper75 wrote: »

Teachers eh?

I wouldn't like to have people of such an ethic instructing my kids in any subject.

Except for economics perhaps? They would be superb at that

Gunmonkey

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

And hats off to the lawyer.

At the appeal, their solicitor Richard Grogan argued that because Ms Generoso was working in excess of the hours permitted under her visa, the contract was illegal, and could not be enforced - meaning Ms Generoso would not have been entitled to rely on employment rights protection.

A unique defense which could legalise slavery if accepted. Just overwork them.

And also claim the person you have overworked, and so invalidated her "contract", left the job without sufficient notice and so under the terms of her "contract" (which has be invalidated by overworking her) she has to pay them!

So lets just call a spade a spade and call the pair of them (and their lawyer) a trio of scummy dirtbags who are trying to weasel their way out of any repercussions for their actions.

[Deleted User]

jmayo wrote: »

I think the world needs to know what cheap bast**ds that walk on other people look like.

The guy in the middle is their solicitor.

how did they get Terry Pratchett to represent them

[Deleted User]

Gunmonkey wrote: »

And also claim the person you have overworked, and so invalidated her "contract", left the job without sufficient notice and so under the terms of her "contract" (which has be invalidated by overworking her) she has to pay them!

So lets just call a spade a spade and call the pair of them (and their lawyer) a trio of scummy dirtbags who are trying to weasel their way out of any repercussions for their actions.

They acutely sound very self adsorbed and completely shameless.

jmayo

Deleted User wrote: »

Accomodation and board as part of pay is very low: http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/employment_rights_and_conditions/pay_and_employment/pay_inc_min_wage.html

Plus there's the factor that in real-life the parents have the benefit of having them more or less on call most of the time. And the stability factor. And the lack of travel required.

I sometimes feel quite immature when I constantly get surprised by people acting like such pieces of ****. If I'm trusting someone around my kids and to take care of them how could I not treat them with respect? Even aside from letting my kids see me treat someone important to them so ****tily.

That is something that amazes me.
Why would someone treat the person who has access to and looks after the supposed most precious things in their life, i.e. their kids, like shyte.

Would they treat the mechanic who looks after their car(s) the same way and then expect him to do a good job ?

givyjoe

Aegir wrote: »

how did they get Terry Pratchett to represent them

I've literally just realised the slimeball on the left (the wife) grew up in my area around the same time. Who would have thought she'd grow up to be a slave driver!

WHIP IT!

givyjoe wrote: »

I've literally just realised the slimeball on the left (the wife) grew up in my area around the same time. Who would have thought she'd grow up to be a slave driver!

.... would ye?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

jmayo wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

Accomodation and board as part of pay is very low: http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/employment_rights_and_conditions/pay_and_employment/pay_inc_min_wage.html

Plus there's the factor that in real-life the parents have the benefit of having them more or less on call most of the time. And the stability factor. And the lack of travel required.

I sometimes feel quite immature when I constantly get surprised by people acting like such pieces of ****. If I'm trusting someone around my kids and to take care of them how could I not treat them with respect? Even aside from letting my kids see me treat someone important to them so ****tily.

That is something that amazes me.
Why would someone treat the person who has access to and looks after the supposed most precious things in their life, i.e. their kids, like shyte.

Would they treat the mechanic who looks after their car(s) the same way and then expect him to do a good job ?

Clearly, you've never read any of the teachers threads around here! (Although in fairness, most of the anti-teacher brigade aren't parents)

givyjoe

WHIP IT! wrote: »

.... would ye?

Not now, not ever... especially not now :eek:

_Dara_

So glad that their names are splashed across Google now.

Serves them right. Even if the lady never sees a cent of the money she was awarded, their names are still out there. That’s something.

WHIP IT!

_Dara_ wrote: »

So glad that their names are splashed across Google now. Serves them right. Even if the lady never sees a cent of the money she was awarded, their names are still out there. That’s something.

Forgive my ignorance, but what is the criteria around such a payment? Well will it, legally, have to be paid by etc? What are the repercussions if it remains unpaid? What comeback does the young lady have if she has trouble getting the money?

[Deleted User]

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Clearly, you've never read any of the teachers threads around here! (Although in fairness, most of the anti-teacher brigade aren't parents)

I contribue to many of the teachers threads

[Deleted User]

WHIP IT! wrote: »

Forgive my ignorance, but what is the criteria around such a payment? Well with it, legally, have to be paid by etc? What are the repercussions if it remains unpaid? What comeback does the young lady have if she has trouble getting the money?

It's Ireland so if you want to be a bastard you'll never have to pay it. I can think of a case in the media at the moment, a guy who's just been arrested has a successful company but has given his address as a caravan. There's always ways around things.

EDIT: And is getting free legal aid. Kinda my whole point and I managed to leave it out. :P

_Dara_

WHIP IT! wrote: »

Forgive my ignorance, but what is the criteria around such a payment? Well with it, legally, have to be paid by etc? What are the repercussions if it remains unpaid? What comeback does the young lady have if she has trouble getting the money?

I honestly have no clue! Total layperson.

topper75

Jimbob1977 wrote: »

Except for economics perhaps? They would be superb at that

Ah economics, the "study of the allocation of scarce resources"?

Well the pair in this story may not be teachers but they got a lesson in 'equilibrium' and 'government intervention'.

What was so scarce about their money?

EagererBeaver

Hilarious reading the case for the defence - "we were such terrible ***** to her, she worked more than legally allowed, therefore contact invalid and she's entitled to **** all"

Madness.

[Deleted User]

topper75 wrote: »

Ah economics, the "study of the allocation of scarce resources"?

Well the pair in this story may not be teachers but they got a lesson in 'equilibrium' and 'government intervention'.

What was so scarce about their money?

What do these two do anyway?

Corca Baiscinn

EagererBeaver wrote: »

Hilarious reading the case for the defence - "we were such terrible ***** to her, she worked more than legally allowed, therefore contact invalid and she's entitled to **** all"Madness.

I assume he's the same Richard Grogan who was on The Hard Shoulder a few weeks ago pontificating re how a Minimum Passing Distance Law couldn't be enforced and it was up to cyclists to protect themselves w helmet/high viz etc He was "balancing" the previous day's discussion with Times Ireland editor, Richie Oakely who had actually researched the topic. When checking the story just now, I came across this tweet from a Tony Woods. It's hilarious in the light of your comment above, Grogan obviously doesn't know much re employment law either.

Replying to @GroganRichard @IvanYatesNT @NewstalkFM
You really haven't got the slightest clue about cycling and what makes it safe or not. Hold on now while I give you an ill-informed and biased lecture on employment law. Oh that's right.... I don't know **** about employment law