MATERIALES Y MÉTODOS

In the regulations of the scheme it is stated that the au pair can only live with/work for one family at a time. If UDI or the police suspect at any point in the application process that the hosts have split up and are living on separate addresses while equally sharing custody of the children, they try to check how the living arrangements and division of care between the parents affect the situation of the au pair. These rules are non- negotiable and breaching them can mean that the work permit is revoked. Similarly, if it is discovered that an au pair is intended to work for two families or will not be living with the family during his or her stay, the family is given an opportunity to elaborate on how the au pair’s work will be organised and how much she or he is expected to do every week. Suspicion of such intended misuse of the scheme can result in rejection of the application, as a step to protect the future au pair from abusive situations. Au pairs can end up in situations where they are punished for the breaches host families commit concerning the regulations of the scheme.

9 _{The Bergen’s test is an advanced-level Norwegian language test in Norwegian recognised by every higher}

education institution in Norway. The test is used as a standard for evaluating the level of proficiency in Norwegian as a second language of foreign citizens who wish to apply to Norwegian universities. It is also used by companies that require a certificate indicating an advanced level of proficiency in Norwegian from their employees.

Despite the regulations, au pairs and host families can relate situations where the au pair worked for two host families or where the composition of the family would change according to the week. Although the most common for ‘divorcee host families’ is the single-parent households where the children go to the other parent every second weekend, there were cases where the au pair or hosts swapped households every second week. For those au pairs who regard their placement as work and talk about them as an employer rather than a host family, this might be seen as unproblematic: it is part of their work agreement. An au pair from Western Europe during her interview had agreed to working in both hosts’ homes as they were living quite close to each other. She found it unproblematic as they agreed on how things were to be done, both in regard to childcare and how many hours she should spend in each household. One week she lived in the children’s mother’s house, and the other in children’s father’s house. For some au pairs this kind of arrangement might work fine, especially if the families are well off and the au pair would have good conditions in both households. However, for others the shifting composition of the family from week to week might prove a strain.

Driver, maid and available 24/7

Chrissie is an Asian au pair who had been living with a family in Greater Oslo for half a year when I met her. She had decided to change hosts because she felt they were using her as a domestic worker. Chrissie had an undergraduate degree from her home country and described having come to experience Norwegian culture and to possibly learn to speak the language. She did not have a room in the large house of the family, but lived in a separate building on the property that she had all to herself. She did not eat with the family, but she told me she liked being able to retreat from their presence. The family had proved large and demanding. Her hosts had previously been married and had children from those relationships, and both had shared custody with their former partners. There were six children altogether in the household, but they only lived there every second week. During those weeks Chrissie worked from 7 o’clock in the morning to 10 in the evening. The weeks the children were not around, she still needed to keep the house clean, polish the silver cutlery and crystal glasses, prepare for dinner parties and be the hosts’ driver to and from social events. Their argument for her working long hours the weeks the children were there was that she did not work ‘full time’ when the children were away. They seemed to have forgotten that an au pair is not on a regular work contract, and that the 30 hours is the maximum and not the minimum time an au pair should work per week. Chrissie found it difficult to discuss these issues with them in the beginning as they also paid her more than the minimum salary stated in the contract. In addition she had access to a car and a large space to live in. This, in the end, meant nothing to her as the workload became intolerable. Her case demonstrates

how written work schedules can turn into possible shadow contracts when they are too elaborate and violate the principles of the au pair contract. Chrissie showed me the different schedules, notes and messages from the hosts, detailing the work down to how she should clean the crystal wine glasses before and after a reception they were having. Also, the schedules were so packed that it would be impossible to do them on a regular work week (37.5 hours) let alone on an au pair’s 30-hour week.

Her situation had gradually changed as weeks went by, and what she had accepted to do in the beginning, e.g. driving the host family to the airport over an hour away or to parties and then pick them up late at night, were examples of duties that started out as one-time events but that quickly were incorporated into the ever increasing list of demands from the host family. It developed into an unbearable situation around Christmas time. She already knew she would move to another family in January, and the host family had already applied for another au pair. Chrissie therefore decided to confront the family with the way they were treating her. It was two days before Christ- mas, and she had picked them up after midnight. Realising this would happen more times during the holidays she told them when they arrived home that she would not accept being their driver again. Their response was to tell her she was to move out the day after. The final straw was that they reminded her that it was Christmas, and could she please clean their 400-square-metre house before she moved to her friend?

Chrissie went to the police where she lived to file a complaint against the family. Despite having documentation of the family’s breach of contract, she was told that the ultimate result would be that the case would be dropped since it would be too difficult to prove that the host family had disregarded the regulations. An individual au pair today needs luck as much as proof of breach of contract and regulations to get anywhere with their claims. For Chrissie it was as important that this family was prevented from treating other au pairs the way they had treated her as it was to get justice for herself.

The au pairs have to report the family to the police district where they and the family

lived at the time of the alleged misconduct. Chrissie moved to a different municipal- ity immediately after the conflict with the family. She thus moved from one police district, where she had been told she would not get any help with her case, to another municipality where there is a group within the police specifically concerned with au pair cases. In one place she was told it would be word-against-word, in the other they would have done a home visit and also looked into the possibility of filing charges against the family. Hence, there are great differences in the way au pairs’ complaints to the police are treated, depending on the area where they live. What is more, is that it is surprising to see how seldom cases are reported to the police compared to the number of au pairs who seem to experience problems during their placement, ranging from breach of contract to exploitation. This is confirmed by the different categories of respondents, as well as in other research (e.g. Hovdan 2005; Gavanas 2006; Bertelsen

2007; Bikova 2008). The lack of places to turn to becomes glaringly noticeable in cases where au pairs or others are concerned about their situation and would like someone to discuss their concrete questions with.