Week 9- Paid Carework

Anthony Egger
Family & Work Blog
Week 9- Paid Carework

Pierrette Hondagneu-Sotelo, “Domestica” Chapters 1 & 2

In the first chapter of this book, entitled “New World Domestic Order,” Hondagneu-Sotelo makes the statement that without the labor of Latinos, many of the businesses and lifestyles in Los Angeles would be detrimentally altered. The book focuses specifically on the Latina women that work as housekeepers for affluent Los Angeles families. This is still a prominent position, because many of these families like the flexibility and control that having a personal caregiver provides. They are not responsible for getting their children to day care at a certain time, and can work longer hours without having to worry about where their kids are. This increased use of domestic work also coincides with the increased income separation between the classes, and the large concentration of Latina women in Los Angeles. Interesting to me was that while Mexican women have long lived in L.A. that women from Central America are more recently migrating there due to unrest at home.
Hondagneu-Sotelo makes a good point in that while domestic work is paid, it is often regarded as not true employment. One comment even said that “Maria was with me for eight years, but then she left to get a real job.” The theory behind this is domestic work is not regarded as real work because it takes place in a private home. Also, because many of these women are working with the employers children, they are hesitant to consider them as workers, but more as a part of their own family. And even though the affluent women acknowledge they would be lost without their domestic workers, they are hesitant to tell them personally. These positions are also very racially homogenous, with almost all held by “non-white” women. I know that my next door neighbors have three young children, and their nanny is indeed a Latina woman. This is a change from during the 1950s and 1960s when black women held the majority of these domestic positions. However, as blacks gained more rights, they gradually left the domestic sphere leaving an opening to be filled by Latina women. This was due in part to the increased immigration to the United States, and the apparent racial structures that developed as a result.
One of the most interesting parts of the article was the presentation of the fact that this trend of domestic work has not only occurred in the United States, but also in other developed nations. It is a global phenomenon that these domestic tasks are performed by women in the lower social classes. Domestic work also remains as an informal type of work in these countries. Hondagneu-Sotelo argues that in order to improve the conditions for these women, it must be recognized that this type of work is a form of real employment. There must be a uniform code of conduct and way of treatment put in place. Another negative effect that must be addressed, is that as these Latina women work to care for others children, they often have to neglect their own kids. There is no debate that there has been a rise in paid domestic work, but it is impossible to place just one single causal factor on it. Instead a myriad of factors have come into play to create the society we live in and the services we often take for granted.
In the second chapter, “Maid in L.A.,” Hondagneu-Sotelo interviews over one hundred Latina domestic workers to get a better glimpse at their lives. It was intriguing that most of the women who perform domestic work in this country had no previous history of doing it in their own countries. This is because the women who did the work back in their countries are too poor to emigrate to the U.S.
The first group Hondagneu-Sotelo examines is the live-in nannies and housekeepers. It was found that often these women lose a lot of sleep, because there is no clear delineation between when they working and when they off as they are always in the home. Also, many of these women want their employers to think highly of them, but often they are socially neglected. There is an issue of food as well, with these workers not really sure of their role in getting fed, and often having to spend their own small wages to just eat. Strangely I found, that women working for wealthier families were not afforded better wages than those of lesser means. Considering all of this, many of the women are repelled by live-in jobs. I can understand that, as anyone needs some semblance of a life away from work and some privacy, both luxuries not afforded to live-ins.
After initially experiencing the hardships of live-in work, many shift to a live-out role. This provides more of an employment feel, where they go to work in the morning, and are then able to leave and return to their own houses. Live-out nannies also make more money than live ins. These nannies are often hired for both childcare and housework, but they all placed more emphasis on looking after the children. Often they are shocked and appalled at the behavior these children show and ambivalence the parents show toward it. These nannies also face a difficult role though, as they want to provide a close relationship with the children, but do not want to make the parents jealous by “replacing” them. Many of these women like being close to children, and especially if they have their own, they might choose to do another job, like housecleaners.
Working as a housecleaner allowed women more flexibility and freedom to be the type of mother and wife they want to be. Working as housecleaners, these women can make almost double the hourly wage as in a factory. This form of domestic work is very similar to a vendor selling products to various customers Hondagneu-Sotelo says, and this is a great analogy. These women have a valuable service and they are able to work without being taken advantage of for a better wage.
There is a typical trajectory pattern that these different sub jobs follow. Usually when women first come to this country, they can work as live-ins. But after some time, they realize there is more freedom to live their new lives as live outs or housecleaners. With these higher wages and more flexibility, many of these women are now able to bring their own children to L.A. Hondagneu-Sotelo also lists many of the reasons for the increased immigration and use of Latina women for these jobs, but the one that caught my eye was that many preferred these women because they were unlikely to reveal the families secrets. Trust is a major issue in letting someone into your house and lives, and I think that it’s interesting that such a broad generalization is often made toward this type of women. I had never really thought about the different classes and types of work within the domestic work sphere, so I found this article really interesting.

Deanne Bonnar, “Place of Caregiving Work in Contemporary Societies”

She begins this article by addressing the issue that child care is being pushed to edge of parent’s responsibilities, and that to change this it will require major shifts in our world view. The devaluation of parenting is largely to the continued industrialization and a society focused on work. Also, with more women entering the work force, men have been hesitant to pick up the slack at home, so there has been a slip in the time spent on parenting. There has been a devaluation placed on caregiving work too, even though it can be seen that it is very absorptive work. Bonnar says that the feminists missed the issue when calling for the exclusive focus on employed work, because the focus should be on caregiving. This is difficult though, because nurturing is not a quantized thing that can be time organized easily. Due to this constriction, women, especially mothers with young children, are limited to lower paying and more flexible jobs. Most importantly though, Bonnar believes the issue lies with the fact that the private sector has not recognized “housework” as real work, so corporate policy has not been set toward improving personal caregiving.
Some of the major issues Bonnar sees are that caregiving has always been unwaged, and there have no policies to enable men to effectively do caregiving. There should not be a focus on increased material wealth if it is at the expense of human quality of life. The issue of the time-money trade off must be addressed, as the current system of work does not fit with a parents schedule. She suggests extended and required parental leave after a birth, which in other countries like Sweden has proven incredibly effective. The second option is to develop some sort of a “Parent’s Wage,” that appropriately compensates paying wages to parents in relation to their time spend in child care work. I personally think this is the more unrealistic option of the two. However, it is a progressive thought, and maybe that is what needs to be done to fix this problem.

Joan Tronto, “The Nanny Question in Feminism”

The feminist movement fought for women to gain their appropriate place in the work force, but now that they have it, who is supposed to look after their children? This article examines the morality of using nannies or other options for parents in two career households. It specifically looks at two of the groups that Hondagneu-Sotelo examined, live in help and those in a full time employed capacity. She believes that the upper echelon of society using these women like this creates problems for the entire society.
Tronto believes there are inherent differences in hiring someone for domestic help and just purchasing goods on the open market. This is because first off, these women are people and they develop relationships, and secondly the sphere in which they work is the home, a place very different from the market world. These women are often paid terribly low wages, and they must work incredibly hard to constantly prove their worth. Many must be separated from their own families to work the hours necessary to make a living wage.
In my opinion, the most influential consequences are those that are bestowed upon the children in these situations. Tronto believes that it instills in them a false sense that someone else, no matter their relationship to them, will always be there to meet their needs. It also encourages them to treat people as a means to an end. However despite all of these reasons creating an unjust practice, the role of domestic work is increasing.
One interesting view I had never considered, was that many of these high power women, believe they are doing the best thing for their children by hiring these nannies. They know they cannot be there personally, but they want their children to have the maternal characteristics necessary. Also, they believe that their children are better off in their own houses, because it can provide a more stimulating environment. In my own research, I have found that the house can be almost as twice as important in development, so these women’s thoughts might not be too far off base.
Tronto also acknowledges that while the upper middle class women hiring these domestic workers are mainly to blame, the feminists must take some responsibility. Because they were so focused on gaining work, they forgot to address the issue of who would care for the children. Tronto proposes some solutions though, stating with the providing of publically supported child care facilities. Also there must be a rethinking of the process of work and family, and developing a system in which no caregivers are exploited.