Lógica del modo autónomo

In the years between 1989 until 2004 Poland was an important sending country for au pairs. After their entry into the EU, Polish citizens have found other means of mobil- ity and in Norway, for example, the majority of female Polish migrants work in the informal domestic work sector (cf. Friberg and Tyldum).

According to the leader of an au pair agency interviewed in Poland (29 April 2009), the number of Polish au pairs they helped search for work abroad two to three years ago was up to 1000 per year. In 2008 the numbers had decreased to 200. She described this change as a consequence of the EU expansion. Marcin Kulinicz, who currently is the head of the Department of Migration Policy at the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy, argued that the EU entry gave Polish migrants’ access to new labour markets. It changed their opportunities “quite substantially, lifting [our] transitional barrier”.20

As for au pair placement, Kulinicz explained that:

It is a fairly unregulated scheme in Poland. There are doubts if an au pair is an employee, a domestic worker, or if it is a kind of programme with a donation in exchange for some services. Is it social sphere or labour sphere and should it be called work? And if there are foreigners, is the person providing paid labour, or is the person a part of the household? [...] We have two extreme categories. One is when we accept someone to live with us and share our resources with him/her and treat the person as a family member. And the other is a contradiction to the first one, there is a contract, a salary according to labour law or civil law, but it is paid. The labour law in Poland rather treats that kind of work as work, especially

20 _{Interview undertaken in the premises of the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy in Warsaw, 30 April}

if it meets different migration criteria. It is because of the salary aspect, but also [because] providing food and lodging to someone has a certain market value, which can be assessed.

In the au pair agency they state that they also do recruitment for childcare for Warsaw families. Only occasionally have they arranged au pairs, and then normally for foreign- ers living in Poland or for families in Warsaw who wanted a foreigner to live with them. The agency leader explained that childcare workers, whether defined as nannies, baby sitters or childminders, are paid as regular workers:

The families know they have to pay like [they would] for normal work, not some pocket money. So this is a normal market situation [...] Some families like the idea that such a nanny lives with them, goes out with them, travels with them, but they know that there is no ’package price’ for this like a few hundred Euros, like in other countries. They know the rates.

Still, both this woman and Kulinicz in the Ministry admitted that childcare and do- mestic work in Poland often happen within an informal framework. The bureaucracy to employ a domestic worker is immense, whether the employee is Polish or a foreigner from neighbouring countries. Therefore people often choose to employ people infor- mally. Kulinicz described how people save on taxes and social security expenses by choosing this option,

There is also a grey sphere, I wouldn’t say a black market, but a grey sphere, where a person is paid officially the minimum and the real wages under the table. [Accord- ing to Polish labour law] as an employer you are obligated to keep your employees documentation for 50 years. Everyone tries to avoid such duties.

With the barrier to the EU lifted for Polish citizens, the country’s borders now became the outer frontier of the Union and had to introduce a new level of entry control for nationals from neighbouring countries than it previously had had. Migration to Poland was and is very popular for citizens from Russia, Belarus, Moldova, and in particular Ukraine. The new restriction has been hardest on this group of migrants. Earlier it was easier for them to get a tourist visa than a work permit, but after the new border control was put in place it is close to impossible for Ukrainians to enter Poland as tour- ists. Today an important permit category is that of seasonal worker, which Kulinicz describes as an easy start for migrant workers into the Polish labour market in terms of bureaucratic demands. As of 1 February 2009, these workers are exempt from the so-called labour market test. This test involved the employer having to prove that he or she could not find local workers through the employment office. This hurdle has now been removed. A seasonal worker can stay in Poland six (out) of twelve months per year, and the statistics of the Ministry show that in 2008 80,000 were issued of which 40,000 are expected to be Ukrainian women working as domestic workers in Poland.

The Polish case demonstrates how au pairs often are perceived of as domestic workers, and that within the wider context of this work sector in Poland au pairs represent an insignificant and unregulated category. Moreover, the implications of changing bor- ders have also impacted the Polish citizens’ access to work outside their home country. The attraction of becoming an au pair has decreased as their possibilities for mobility has increased. Yet, it is also the case that the reason for this changed pattern of work mobility for Polish nationals -- EU expansion -- makes Poland an increasingly interest- ing work market for citizens from neighbouring countries. Gaining entry into Poland means they have traversed the border to the Schengen area and can more easily move to other countries in Europe.

7.4 Conclusion

A comparison between how au pairing is regulated in different countries is an interest- ing exercise because it gives insight into national concerns in relation to au pairing, the strategies of au pairs and host families, and the dynamics between immigration control and migrants’ mobility prospects. The regulations of au pairing in all three countries demonstrate, as is also evident in the Norwegian case, that au pairing is part of the domestic work sector. This is a field that has not been regulated as other sectors in the labour market, because it is a kind of work that happens within the private sphere of society (cf. Isaksen 2001; Anderson 2006; Cox 2006; Gavanas 2006; Hondagneu- Sotelo 2007; Stenum 2008).

The new points-based system in the UK could potentially free the au pair scheme of some of the ambiguities described for the Norwegian case in other parts of the evalu- ation. Au pairing is now described as work in the British system, but since employers are exempt from paying the minimum national salary, au pairing remains an ambigu- ous category. This exemption highlights how domestic work is not acknowledged as “proper” work, but is defined as a contribution to the social reproduction of the host family. The Tier system has only been in operation less than a year, and it will take some time before one sees the consequences of the new changes. Similarly, the situation in Denmark might undergo changes due to Stenum’s report and FOA’s ongoing engage- ment in having au pairing defined as work to secure their rights as migrant workers. What is clear is that there is a dynamic between Denmark and Norway because of the

flux of au pairs between the two countries. This dynamic is brought about:

By au pairs seeking to come either to Norway or Denmark after they have been au •

Because it is easier for an au pairs staying in either country to contact and find •

potential families because they are already in Scandinavia. Some also use the op- portunity to travel to meet potential families.

Because host families who find it advantageous that the au pair they retain already •

has knowledge of a Scandinavian country and possibly language, as this also makes it easier for them to check references. Host families in Norway and Denmark may contact each other and exchange information about au pairs.

Bringing together the current divergent situation for Polish and Ukrainian migrants with Norwegian statistics on au pair permits, it is evident that becoming an au pair is still attractive to Ukrainians and other third country nationals. Maybe the Polish case is a good illustration of why coming to Norway as an au pair is no longer attrac- tive as attractive as it used to be to Polish citizens, but still is a meaningful scheme for Ukrainians: for third country citizens au pair schemes offer much needed opportuni- ties for mobility and work. The current economic recession may also impact on the trends in au pairing, changing the attitude young people have to au pair placement. As mentioned in the beginning of this chapter, au pair placement can be experienced

8 Final considerations and policy

recommendations

One of the main objectives of this evaluation has been to assess whether the official Norwegian au pair scheme is practised according to its original intentions as defined in the European Agreement on “au pair” Placement. The research offered an equivo- cal picture of how the scheme is practised, but also of the strategies and motivations of au pairs and host families. Here I first summarise the main issues that have been discussed in the evaluation, and the areas within the scheme that have been assessed. Three alternatives to the current scheme are then presented, before more specific and detailed policy recommendations are given.

According to the original intentions of the scheme, the purpose of au pair placement is first and foremost to serve the interests of the au pair. An important difference in au pair placement from 1969 when the European Agreement was ratified and until today is that citizens from non-EU or EEA countries, e.g. Philippines and Ukraine, now represent the largest groups of au pairs. The dominant nationalities in au pair statistics have thus changed, and au pairs now often come from countries with high out-migration and poverty. For many of them au pairing may be considered as work and for a limited period of time offers a much needed source of income both for themselves and their families back home.

This does not mean that they are disinterested in cultural exchange and only use the scheme to achieve work in Norway. Persons who save their salary from his or her work as an au pair and remit money home might still wish to be included as a family member and experience a different culture during their placement period. The main aim of the au pair scheme is defined in the European Agreement and by Norwegian authorities as cultural exchange for the au pair – by providing the opportunity to ‘be part of ’ another family, learn a new language and culture. What this definition of au pairing fails to recognise is that there would not be an au pair scheme without families in need of childcare or help with domestic work. For the large majority of families the au pair represents an extra pair of hands about the house. The au pair scheme is thus part of a “supply and demand” situation between au pairs and host families. Au pairs today are a supplement to public childcare services for an increasing, yet relatively limited, number of families in Norway who experience a friction between work and family life.

None of the host families interviewed for this evaluation had chosen to have an au pair primarily because they wanted the experience of having a young foreigner living with them. This is not to say that they are disinterested in cultural exchange or necessar- ily are negative to include the au pair in their family life during the period they have a young foreigner living in their household. However, it is highly unlikely that they would have had an au pair if they did not need help with childcare or domestic work. This indicates that in practice au pair placement is treated and regarded as work by host families.

I propose that the needs and strategies of the host families are not acknowledged in the structural framework of au pair placement, but that these are both an essential factor in the au pair scheme as it is practised today and as a framework when interpret- ing au pairs’ situations. The empirical data give ample examples of both au pairs for whom the scheme really is about cultural exchange and whose host families follow the regulations and of au pairs and host families who see it as a scheme for nannies and domestic workers.

Not only have the composition and number of applicants to the scheme changed significantly. The use of the scheme has unquestionably also changed, in terms of the motivations of both au pairs and host families. I suggest that the steep increase in the number of au pair applications and permits from 2000 to 2008 and also the changing distribution in which nationalities dominate the statistics partly give an indication of possible changes in attitudes towards what role au pair placement plays in the lives of the majority of au pairs and host families. Many current and former au pairs have experienced their placement period in positive terms. Yet, even though half of the au pairs interviewed described their relationship with (former) hosts as good, only two respondents (out) of 21 could identify with the idea that au pair placement offers an opportunity to be “on equal terms” with the host family.

If this is a matter of the original intentions of au pair placement becoming obsolete with time, or if the idea that au pairs and host families can be on equal terms through a living arrangement where the au pair is included in the family’s daily life has been illusory from the outset, is difficult to say. What is clear is that this original intention of the scheme cannot be seen independently from the dramatic changes in patterns of migration internationally since 1969.

Today migrant domestic work has become a significant factor in economic calcula- tions of both migrants and employers. Seen in light of current migration trends and regimes, au pair placement emerges as a potential extension of the labour market for migrant domestic work. If the latter form of employment often is badly regulated in terms of pay, it is still cheaper for the host families to engage an au pair than it would be to pay a domestic worker 30 hours per week. Placing au pairing in this context is fun- damental to understand the potential for unacceptable exploitation of the scheme.