&uuid=(email))
Whether s/he is a part of the live-in house help or a part-timer, it is an undeniable fact that the domestic worker’s contribution to the smooth running of our households – some would say our lives – underpins our ability to function as productive members of society.
According to estimates of the International Labour Organisation, there are at least 67 million domestic workers over the age of 15 worldwide, 80 per cent of which are women. About 17pc of domestic workers are migrant workers. Historically and across a diverse range of countries, domestic workers from disadvantaged racial and ethnic groups have tended to provide care services to meet the needs of wealthier households.
A report last week in this newspaper stated that the General Federation of Bahrain Trade Unions (GFBTU) had called for the implementation of as many as 18 recommendations to improve the living and work conditions of domestic workers. To start with, the GFBTU called for a shift in how we think of these valuable helpers – not ‘maids’ or ‘houseboys’ by as ‘domestic workers’ whose vital contribution to our lifestyle enables us to engage in intellectually-satisfying and financially rewarding work outside the home and gives us the independence to use our leisure as we deem fit.
However, the recommendations at first reading don’t seem to be a very practical guide to improving the lot of domestic workers. Can we really expect access to households for surprise visits in a society where families are intensely private about what happens behind the closed doors of their homes?
Many families say that is the No 1 reason they don’t want ‘local’ house help who may take back gossip and prefer foreign workers.
And, then there is the cruel trick of gagging the freedom of the worker under the pretext of protecting her. This means curtailing time off, screening visitors and even checking personal mail. We have all heard employers of full-time domestic workers say their main worry is that their female staff will get into a relationship with the opposite sex. How many times have our conversations explored the loneliness of these women (and men) who have left their families thousands of miles away and are caring for ours?
Last year, a young married couple separated by work conditions (he was a waiter in Manama and she a live-in domestic worker not far away) were punished for stealing a kiss in front of the little child of the house. Later, the woman died allegedly by committing suicide and the employers chose to inform her parents who worked as blue-collar workers in Kuwait instead of telling the husband. The shocker is that they seem to have gotten away with this inhuman disregard.
But then, in raising standards for humane treatment, we should always aim higher than we consider practical.
This attitude is what has consistently improved the lot of workers – the factory hands, garment workers, helped to stamp out child labour in an array of professions from tea shops to carpet weaving. Already, public opinion has forced governments of labour-supplying countries to implement many checks and balances at embassy level, such as interviewing the domestic workers at regular intervals in official premises, making proper contracts and a bank account for salary mandatory and even insisting on a mobile phone for the worker.
We cannot afford to make the care of these tireless workers part of the fine print of our everyday lives. Ensuring their well-being is essential to keep alive our sense of humanity.
&uuid=(email))