I missed the boat.
Blog for Domestic Workers was on June 5. So here’s a post and a roundup.
First, Saltyfemme posts the announcement, and with her support for a Domestic Workers’ Bill of Rights.
Domestic workers, such as nannies and housekeepers do not currently have the protection other workers have. However, this may change in New York State.
For years, the more than 200,000 nannies, housekeepers and other domestic workers in New York State have been exempt from many basic labor protections.
But now 55 immigrant groups, labor unions and other organizations are trying to change that by pushing for legislation that would require a minimum wage of $14 an hour for the state’s domestic workers.
The legislation, called the Domestic Workers’ Bill of Rights, would also require that these workers receive paid personal days, paid holidays, paid vacations, at least one day off each week, severance pay and 21 days’ advance notice before termination.
Work that is seen as “women’s work” is beneath men to do–so it is assigned to either the wife/mother of a family (who does it for free), or to a woman of color/poor woman who does it for very little money and is often abused and exploited in the process–they are underpaid/denied pay; physically, verbally, emotionally, and sexually abused; forced to work unpaid overtime, and have zero privacy. Immigrant women often have their passports confiscated by their employers.
Sometimes, these workers are kept as slaves, such as these two women from Indonesia, who were abused by their millionaire slaveholders “employers.”
The women, prosecutors said, were subjected to beatings, had scalding water thrown on them and were forced to repeatedly climb stairs as punishment for perceived misdeeds. In one case, prosecutors said, one of the women was forced to eat 25 hot chili peppers at one time.
One of the women also told authorities they were forced to sleep on mats in the kitchen and were fed so little, they had to steal food.
The women legally arrived in the United States on B-1 visas in 2002; the Sabhnanis then confiscated their passports and refused to let them leave their home, authorities said. Identified in court papers as Samirah and Nona, the women said they were promised payments of $200 and $100 a month, but federal prosecutors said they were never given money directly. One of the victims’ daughters living in Indonesia was sent $100 a month, prosecutors said.
It makes me crazy when, among wealthy married couples, the conflict over housework and childcare is met with the suggestion to hire help (since it’s an awful crime to suggest that maybe the guy should do some of this work). It might not make me as crazy if I thought “the help” was being paid a living wage and treated fairly. Unfortunately, far too many people can get away with treating workers like crap.
Many of these women are women of color. Many are immigrants. Many are horrifically abused, and their employers often get away with it, since it happens behind closed doors, and the perps are wealthy and “respectable.”
Excerpts from the Human Rights Watch report:
Jamisola alleged that her employer complied with none of the promised contract terms. She described to Human Rights Watch her typical workweek. Monday through Friday, she awoke at 6:30 AM to prepare the couple’s three children-then aged six, nine, and thirteen-for the day. Between 6:30 AM and 8:00 AM, when the last child left for school, she was required to make each child a different breakfast. From 8:00 AM until 3:00 PM, she cleaned the house-washing dishes, doing laundry, washing dry-cleaning by hand, making beds, dusting, and vacuuming. At 3:00 PM, the youngest girl returned home from school, and Jamisola took her to “play dates.” She then prepared dinner, set the table, cleared the table, cleaned the kitchen, and washed the dishes. Though she prepared the food, she told Human Rights Watch that she was only allowed to eat a limited amount, as her employer “put the portion on the plate for me. I couldn’t help myself.” Between 9:00 PM and 10:00 PM, she put the three children to bed. If the man in the family was preparing for a business trip, she began at 10:00 PM to iron all his dress shirts, finishing at approximately 11:30 PM. If her employer and his wife went out for the evening, she was expected to remain awake, often until midnight, until they returned. Three times a week, she went grocery shopping, riding five or six miles to the grocery store on the employer’s son’s old bicycle because she could not drive. She was also responsible for raking leaves, watering the garden, shoveling the snow, and washing the car twice a month. On Saturday, though her duties varied because the children were at home, her hours remained approximately the same. Sunday was Jamisola’s only day off, and she was required to return to the house by 7:00 PM.
Granted, I’d like someone to do everything for me. I’d also like a pony. We can’t all get what we want. It’s time to put on our big girl panties and deal with it.
[Anita] Ortega recounted that she was responsible for performing all the household chores for her employer-preparing meals, washing clothes, ironing, washing floors, washing dishes, washing the car, shoveling snow, and raking leaves-and caring for her employer’s three sons, aged five, eight, and nine. Ortega described her workday as beginning at approximately 6:30 AM and ending at approximately 8:30 PM Monday through Friday and lasting from approximately 8:00 AM until 9:30 PM on Saturday. When the family had gatherings in their home, which Ortega said occurred about once a month, she was required to work until 1:00 AM or 2:00 AM. Though Sunday was her day off, she was required to prepare all meals on Sunday and, if she returned to her room to rest, was frequently called upon by the three children.
Ortega told Human Rights Watch that in December 1996, she asked her employer for a raise from the $300 per month salary she was receiving, to which he replied that he could not pay her more because he earned very little as a representative to the OAS and that, if she wanted, he would cancel her visa and send her back to Guatemala. Including the permissible deductions for room and board and calculating an hourly wage based only on Ortega’s work Monday through Saturday, Human Rights Watch determined that her hourly wage was approximately $1.74-only 39 percent of the federal hourly minimum wage at the time.
That OAS pay! It’s a real pittance. You know what you should do if you can’t afford to pay a domestic worker a living wage? Do your own damn chores.
[Fariba] Ahmed’s attorney told Human Rights Watch that Ahmed was promised $200 per month to work as a domestic worker in the United States.27 During her approximately nine-month employment, however, Ahmed was allegedly paid only $100 per month-money which she said she never saw because it was sent directly to her husband in Bangladesh.28 Ahmed claimed that during her employment, she performed typical household duties for her employer and cared for the couple’s two children, a four-year-old boy and an infant girl, seven days a week, with no days off, for an average of fourteen hours per day-from 6:00 AM until 10:00 PM.29 Including allowable deductions for room and board, Human Rights Watch calculates that Ahmed made approximately $1.03 per hour-20 percent of the federal hourly minimum wage at the time of her employment.
Ahmed described a climate of fear that she felt during her employment, created through alleged psychological and physical abuse by her employer and his family. Ahmed claimed that the family “humiliated me and made me feel inhuman,”30 went on vacation without leaving her food or money to purchase food,31 and only allowed her to eat their leftovers.32 Ahmed also claimed in her complaint that the employer’s wife assaulted her on at least two occasions-once when she asked Ahmed to bring a glass and struck her with the glass when she brought the wrong one and once when she allegedly struck Ahmed while she was cooking, causing Ahmed to burn her arm on the stove.
Yes, it’s domestic violence, with spoiled, entitled women as the perps.
Julia Chávez, a Bolivian domestic worker employed by an OAS official from July 1997 through October 1998, alleged in a civil complaint that her employer and his wife required her to work when she was sick and, despite her repeated requests for medical treatment, refused to take her to see a doctor, telling her that doctors were expensive and the family could not afford to pay her medical bills.75 Chávez also alleged in her complaint that after she told her employer and his wife that she was sexually abused and raped by an acquaintance of the family in August 1998, they denied her medical treatment and a forensic exam, though Chávez allegedly “exhibited . . . signs of physical and emotional trauma” and “repeatedly explained to them that she was very sick and preferred to die.” Responding to her complaint, Chávez’ employer and his wife denied these allegations and asserted “no knowledge” of Chávez’ claim that she was raped.
Gosh. That OAS pay must be awful. Again, clean your own damn house. And while you’re at it, keep in mind US law–that little bit about obstruction of justice? It’s not some minor detail. Rape is a crime, as is abuse.
The rights of domestic workers is a feminist issue. We have to join this fight; this must be a priority within the mainstream movement.
Further reading:
Domestic Workers United
Black Amazon
KC: Support Domestic Workers’ Bill of Rights
All About Race
New York Nannies
Sylvia at Antiessentialist Speakup
Feministing
There are employers with a conscience and a brain:
JWA
The Jewess
Kactus wrote a post in May that doesn’t address domestic workers, but does address the inherent privilege of “opting out” and how that does not apply to poor women and their children. Note how welfare deform has increased the population of women who are exploitable and expendable.
23 Responses to “Blog for Domestic Workers”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
I agree that domestic workers need help in getting proper protection from abuse. It is quite unfortunate that it becomes a game of he-said-she-said bs that plays out in the courts unless it’s bad enough to leave physical evidence.
However, as far as those laws go, I think it’s obsurd. Of course, this is probably the typical “ask for the moon, compramise to what you really want” tactic, but still. At least here in MO I don’t have a benifits package that nice, and I work in IT. At least this state is an “at will employment” state, meaning that we can be fired at anytime and we can leave at anytime. 21 days notice, that’s quite a luxury that most people do not have. Markets have a funny way of acting. Don’t pay enough, don’t get high quality employee’s. Have enough skills, get in the door with high paying work.
Not only that, but it’s not just “rich” families that higher domestic workers. My mother was a nanny/babysitter for several years. Had those laws been in place many of her clients would have never been able to afford the child-care that they needed because many were two-income households.
And I agree, men should be helping with more domestic work. The paradox here is that stay-at-home-dad’s are socially looked upon as lazy and unacceptable. Until that image changes, I don’t suspect many men opting for that route, or women letting them. That, and most men still hold the opinion that they are most helpful to the family by “bringing home the bacon”. So, barring that, men still work more hours outside the home than women, which is obviously going to eat away at what he has time to do when he finally arrives. Personally, I think that what statistics are starting to show us is that two-income households are unsustainable, but that’s a wholly different subject.
It makes me crazy when, among wealthy married couples, the conflict over housework and childcare is met with the suggestion to hire help (since it’s an awful crime to suggest that maybe the guy should do some of this work).
I’ve heard that some of these families also don’t make their own clothes, allowing poorly paid garment workers to do it for them. They also sometimes don’t even cook their own meals, instead paying for the services of low-income waiters and dishwashers and line cooks.
Again, clean your own damn house.
I’m sorry, but this is not feminism. Describing the perpetrators of these labor abuses as “spoiled, entitled WOMEN” is not feminism. How about, “pay someone a living wage to clean your own house or to do any other work you need done.”
Dang - I mean, my combined household income is under $40,000 a year, and somehow, my husband and I comply with these regulations with our nanny, AND pay her a living wage ($12/ hour, plus $15 for any overtime.)
Jesus - If WE can do it, what the fuck is wrong with these people? Do they not care that these people are taking care of their KIDS????
How about, “pay someone a living wage to clean your own house or to do any other work you need done.�
Fortunately, I said that! Here, take a look:
Bold mine.
Bold mine.
The third comment I made, which said “Again, clean your own damn house,” was in response to the blurb. Here, I’ll repost it for you, with pertinent comments bolded, so you can get the context and stop manufacturing outrage:
Bold mine.
When wealthy women hire domestic workers and stand for this shit, I’m going to call them on it. Cope.
As for your crack about garment factory workers and service workers, if you’d ever read a goddamn thing I wrote, you’d see that I do support living wages and benefits for those workers.
Bryan, it’s not a zero-sum game. You can support fair treatment for domestic workers and fight for it (and expect support for it) for IT workers. Domestic workers not getting a fair shake will not make things better for you.
As for your crack about garment factory workers and service workers, if you’d ever read a goddamn thing I wrote, you’d see that I do support living wages and benefits for those workers.
Does seeing someone save time by buying clothes or eating in a restaurant, without evidence of specific labor conditions, “make you crazy” in and of itself? Hiring a worker to clean or care for children clearly elicits a specific reaction in many people that hiring a worker to do just about anything else does not.
When wealthy women hire domestic workers and stand for this shit, I’m going to call them on it. Cope.
Interesting wording to describe a labor abuse of a domestic worker committed by, as the passage reads, “her employer and his wife.
That’s a cop-out, though, isn’t it? Until men staying at home start getting cookies for staying home they won’t do it, because men need cookies for every little thing they do?
I mean sure, the fact that SAHDs aren’t praised to the rafters makes staying at home a less appealing option for men, but you could just as easily say that until men start staying home in larger numbers, the social stigma won’t go away. It’s chicken-and-egg, not cart-and-horse.
Which is why it makes more sense to me to concentrate on less ephemeral stumbling blocks. Look at employers’ leave policies, and support for flex-time and part-time, and the availability of affordable, appropriate childcare.
(Oh, and as a SAHD, I can tell you that I get a lot more praise and support when I’m out in public with my kids than their mother does when she is. And the positive comments come mostly, almost exclusively, from working-class folks.)
Awesome post. These women are treated like slaves, and it is 100% a feminist issue. And you know what? Asking men to do their fair share doesn’t mean they have to be a SAHD. How about everybody cleans up after him/herself? And pitches in equally where kids are involved? And hires help when they need it and can afford to pay them not only a living wage, but a wage that reflects the skill and effort it takes to run a household?
I don’t understand why people even argue against this. It’s so mind-numbingly obvious.
Thanks for this post, I think it is very important. I cleaned houses for a short time after college and before grad school. I didn’t get paid a living wage. It makes me crazy too, because I’ve been there, cleaning the toilet while a lazy, spoiled SAHM with her equally lazy and entitled child watched TV. The difference is that I wasn’t vulnerable, being white, educated, and American. Not everybody I cleaned for was a spoiled baby, and some of them treated me decently. But most people were assholes.
Does seeing someone save time by buying clothes or eating in a restaurant, without evidence of specific labor conditions, “make you crazy� in and of itself?
Did you just not read the post? Don’t bother answering–it’s a rhetorical question since you obviously haven’t. Frankly, you can set the pay for the people you hire to clean your home and watch your kids far more easily than what garment workers get. And when someone who works for the OAS cries poormouth, I call bullshit. And when people who want domestic help bitch about how ‘expensive’ paying a living wage is, I call bullshit. If it’s too expensive, do it yourself.
I know. It’s very unfeminist of me to call women out for treating other women like shit. Oh, the shame. Yes, their husbands are complicit. Yes, that was made clear by me in the post as well. Try actually reading it instead of cherry-picking quotes to pick a fight.
And Brooklynite and Floyd, what you said about getting a freaking cookie when it comes to housework and childrearing. No one gushed over my mother cooking, cleaning, and raising us, but people wanted to pin a medal on my dad for doing the dishes. (Thankfully, he’s not an entitled asshat who thinks he deserves cookies for doing his job as a husband and father. Guess I got kinda spoiled in that regard.)
Nymphalidae and magikmama, exactly. I mean, people are able to pay workers a living wage and treat them with respect. Anyone who claims they just can’t shouldn’t expect people to work for peanuts and shitty treatment.
You wrote:
The very suggestion, before we find out if the domestic workers actually will be paid and treated fairly, makes you crazy. If in fact they are, it only “might” not make you as crazy. When women are routinely smeared as “selfish and entitled” not just for abusing their domestic employees but for having a career and hiring domestic employees at all, I think it’s reasonable to expect feminist blogs to raise awareness about these labor issues without reinforcing the idea that hiring workers to clean houses or take care of children is inherently more exploitative than hiring other kinds of workers. I’m not going to argue this any further; I believe I’ve explained why I was disappointed by a few aspects of this post.
Housework is not a feminist issue? Oh my.
“I was just finishing this when my husband came in and asked what I was doing. Writing a paper on housework. Housework? he said. Housework? Oh my god how trivial can you get? A paper on housework.”
You know, I’ve been thinking for a while that it’s time to update Pat Mainardi’s essay, and I think these domestic employees should be included.
http://www.cwluherstory.com/CWLUArchive/polhousework.html
That OAS pay must be awful. Again, clean your own damn house.
Or, um, hire people through a reputable agency that pays them a salary? That is an option, you know. Not all of us who use housecleaners are locking them in the closet at night.
Much as I hate to side with the trolls, you have kinda set up a dichotomy where the only two choices are slave labor or doing it yourself. “Pay them a fair wage or do it yourself” is what I think you mean to say, but it’s not coming across that way.
She, when you wrote…
…it could have been read in one of two ways.
1. Wealthy married couples who hire nannies because they’re experiencing conflict over housework and childcare that could be resolved by the guy doing some of the work make me crazy, particularly when they don’t pay the nannies a living wage or treat them fairly.
2. Wealthy married couples who hire nannies generally do so because they’re having conflicts over housework and childcare that would be resolved if only the guy would consider doing some of the work. This makes me crazy. It wouldn’t be so bad if they paid a living wage and treated the nannies fairly, but they generally don’t.
It looks to me like #1 is closer to what you meant, but it was ambiguous, and I can see why people might read it as #2.
[…] Domestic workers face a lot of unique challenges when it comes to unionizing, so it’s not surprising that they tend to be overworked and underpaid. Sheelzebub of Pandagon has a whole mess of interesting links that highlight the plight of domestic workers, including some on what domestic workers are doing about it. […]
Thanks for posting this, Sheelzebub.
…and for this:
“Bryan, it’s not a zero-sum game. You can support fair treatment for domestic workers and fight for it (and expect support for it) for IT workers. Domestic workers not getting a fair shake will not make things better for you.”
You know, how about support this and maybe then -also- let’s talk about IT workers not getting a fair shake? How about talking about this as a SYSTEMIC problem instead of getting one’s jockeys in a twist every time anyone tries to get any sort of fairer deal at all?
What these women are doing is important, not just because it’s right on its own merits, for the domestic workers (and their families, and not incidentally the employers’ families who really ought not to be having sick nannies over because they don’t get sick days and can’t afford to get the day off), but because it -could- be a precedent. You know: the -unthinkable- idea that -working people deserve a better deal than they’re getting.- That right now SUCKS. That it’s getting worse all the time, for nearly -all- of us. Howzabout it?
The 15th: here’s the deal, okay. No, it oughtn’t to be inherently unfair that some women choose to go “out” to work and hire people to help take care of the kids. But here’s how it’s panned out:
–well, I said it here, http://fetchmemyaxe.blogspot.com/2007/06/in-other-words.html
but:
…1) someone -still- has to do that “domestic” work, and “someone” IS, and it’s still a concern for feminism as well as yep it’s tied up with racism, immigration, the greater socioeconomic framework, and so on and so forth. and yeah, that has old roots, too, but it’s past time that middle class + white feminists started understanding its import
2) there’s a feminist critique to be made on top of the should-be-obvious observations that hi, everyone deserves a living wage and who takes care of the caretakers?: namely, that, as with other things generally disdained by second wave feminism, very probably out of reaction formation (no one wants to embrace something that’s been crammed down your throat), i.e. “femininity,” certain forms of sexuality, etc. etc.: there’s nothing INHERENTLY degrading about the work known as “domestic.” (for men OR women). Cooking? “House beautiful?” Raising kids, for heaven’s sake? Those are not only vital functions, they are, yep, possible avenues for creativity and even satisfaction.
What ISN’T cool is saying “that’s your role in life, so get to it,” even if you have absolutely no affinity for this and would prefer to be playing the piano or welding or running a business. What ISN’T cool is patting people on the head and suggesting that the “creative” function ought to be ENOUGH, when gee golly -you’re- working a job that suits you -and- you get material recompense, and maybe even don’t have to do it 60-80 hours a week with no relief or help. What ISN’T cool is shunting the “dirty work” off to another group of women so that you can go off and be a world-beater; meanwhile, not only are they in the position you rejected and THEN some, they’re not even doing it for their -own family,- but -yours.- That is, your needs, your kids, your house come FIRST, because otherwise she can’t put food on the table at all. That’s…not so hot, maybe.
More to the point of the actual proposal, neither is the de facto status of domestic workers, who are currently specifically “exempt” from various labor and human rights laws.
From the Executive Summary handed out at the town hall meeting yesterday:
The National Labor Relations Act guarantees U.S> employees the right to organize, but specifically excludes domestic workers from its definition of “employee.”
The Fair Labor Standards Act sets a federal minimum wage wate, maximum hours, and overtime for employees in certain occupations. Until 1974, domestic workers were completely excluded, and today the Act still excludes from coverage “casual” employees such as babysitters and “companions” for the sick or elderly. Furthermore, live-in domestic workers, unlike most other employees in the U.S. cannot get overtime under FLSA [BD’s editorial note, yes, this has been undercut in various ways for other people too in recent-ish years]
Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) regulations explicitly exclude domestic workers from the Act’s protections [a]s a matter of policy.” Civil Rights Laws: Title VII bars employment discrimination on the basis of “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin” [BD editorial note, that is correct, “sexual orientation” ain’t on it, much less gender presentation, and it’s coming around again, more on that in a later post,] but applies only to employers with 15 or more employees. Thus, virtually every domestic worker in the U.S. is de facto excluded from Title VII’s protections.
What this means is that, (based on a survey Domestic Workers United took between 2003-04), very few domestic workers make what’s considered a “livable wage,” and a good 25% are making below the poverty line. Ninety percent do not receive health benefits from their employers. (oh, yeah, health insurance. That subject. Have I mentioned I can’t -wait- till “Sicko” comes out? /digression). Many work overtime without getting paid overtime wages, especially those who live in their employers’ homes. Oh yeah, and, there’s really no job security, so that someone who’s been working for the same employer for years and years can be abruptly fired with no recourse. Which is particularly great, again, for someone who’s been living in the employer’s house. Finally: a good 60% of domestic workers (overwhelmingly women of color) are the primary income earner for their families. So, if mom’s fired, the kids are…kind of screwed. So, mom’s over a barrel, basically, a lot of the time. Which in no way makes for an atmosphere in which abuses are likely.
The handout gives a bit more background to “valuing domestic work:”
The struggle of domestic work is to be recognized as “real work.” ITs historical roots in slavery, its association with women’s unpaid household labor, its largely immigrant and women of color workforce and exclusion from legal protections devalue their work.
Historically, African slaves, indentured servants or hired maids performed housework. After the abolition of slavery, the paid domestic workforce became predominantly Black women until the Civil Rights movement opened doors to other occupations. Since the 1970s, a growing workforce of immigrant women of color seeking to escape poverty created by U.S.-driven neoliberal policies abroad occupies the industry. Survey results found that 99% [emphasis mine] of domestic workers in New York are foreign-born.
**************
You know? The “help” are ALSO women.
[…] For some high-traffic DW blogging, there was some linkage over at Feministing and also a lengthy and thought-out (not to mention researched!) post at Pandagon, which sparked an interesting discussion in the comments. […]
[…] June 5th was Blog for Domestic Workers’ Day, organized by saltyfemme. Pandagon’s got a roundup of the issue and what bloggers had to say about it, but she missed JewSchool’s and JSpot’s posts. FailedMessiah quotes an article about Jersulam’s Shira Hadasha meeting which claims that women served as cantors in European synagogues in the 12th and 13th centuries. If this is true, he says, “Orthodoxy’s gonna have a lot of explaining to do.” Um, I’ll say. At Hirhurim, Gil Student discusses Rabbi Aryeh Frimer’s critique of Tamar Ross’ book Expanding the Palace of the King - Orthodoxy and Feminism. Tamar Fox thinks porn is a bad thing, and that’s ok. On the Face links to Israeli bloggers blogging about “a bill that proposes to introduce Internet censorship to Israel.” Funny or offensive (depending on your POV) cartoon regarding interfaith dating over at JewSchool. Kaguya shares her thoughts on intermarriage and why it’s not the big problem the Jewish community thinks it is. JSpot’s got the results of the Jewish political agenda survey, detailing which issues most concern American Jews. Curious Jew doesn’t want to be lied to by the Jewish powers that be. Neither do we. Maya Escobar is in fact a Jewess, plans to have an Orthodox wedding, and to base her summer camp art curriculum around the concept of “the changing face of Jewish identity.” She’s taking suggestions. Mother in Israel discusses breast-feeding according to Jewish and Islamic law and shared twelve things she loves about Israel. Alas’ Ampersand blogs about a split in the Pro-Life movement over the ban on partial birth abortions. Abacaxi shares a YouTube video with dating tips for men and shares the conundrum of how to divvy up Sabbatical rituals in a household full of women. DovBear discusses Moses’ black wife in a series of posts. Click here, here, here, and…here. Maven hates her sheitl. Israelity calls our attention to a new mikveh/spa in the works in Safed, breaks the news that Target will no longer carry Kabbalistic red string bracelets (shoot), but also the news that the HPV vaccine is now available to Israeli women aged 9 to 26 (and may one day be mandatory). Orthomom takes issue with the Jewish Week’s article about the new mikveh on the Upper West Side. Jewtastic has the scoop on Sarah Jessica Parker’s plans to do a “Sex in the City” movie and Israeli supermodel Bar Refaeli’s plans not to marry Leonardo Dicaprio. […]
I’m going to call bullshit. I was very clear in my post that if families can’t pay domestic workers a living wage, then they should do the job themselves. I didn’t bash working mothers (though it’s interesting, as I’m usually accused of bashing SAHM’s). Drop the manufactured outrage.
Don’t forget the other big problem that domestic workers encounter–lack of health and safety protection on the job. They have to work with lots of chemicals and repeated do tasks that damage their muscles, tendons and nerves. They receive no OSHA protection nor training. Let’s rally around better protection in this way for domestic workers.
It is so important to have laws to protect domestic workers, and as a New Yorker, I am very disheartened that domestic work is not treated as real work under the law. I currently live in Hong Kong and NYC could learn some lessons from the legal system’s recognition of domestic helper’s and the value of their labor under Labour Law. (Just don’t copy HK too much — they also do not let domestic workers become permanent residents, even if they live in HK for ten years.)