The ILO's Domestic Workers Convention and Recommendation: A window of opportunity for social justice

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1564-913X.2014.00200.x
• Date: 01 March 2014
• Published date: 01 March 2014
• Author: Martin OELZ

International Labour Review, Vol. 153 (2014), No. 1

Copyright © International Labour Organization 2014

Journal compilation © International Labour Organization 2014

The ILO’s Domestic Workers Convention

and Recommendation:

A window of opportunity for social justice

Martin OELZ*

Abstract. Domestic workers are a predominantly female workforce whose social

and labour rights remained largely unattended for decades. Addressing this has be-

come more urgent, as demand for household and personal care services is increas-

ing. Convention No. 189 and Recommendation No. 201 set out global minimum

standards for domestic work. The author rst describes international labour and

human rights law on domestic work prior to 2011. He then examines the instru-

ments’ denitions and scope and problems of particular groups; their provisions

on working time, pay, work environment and living conditions; social security; and

implementation and enforcement.

On 5 September 2013, the ILO Convention concerning decent work for

domestic workers entered into force.1 The Domestic Workers Conven-

tion, 2011 (No. 189), and its supplementing Recommendation (No. 201) mark

a turning point in the protection of domestic workers’ rights and offer a win-

dow of opportunity to address long-standing gaps in public policy on this

question. Over time a wealth of academic literature and expert reports has

analysed the phenomenon of domestic work from historical, economic, legal

and sociological perspectives.2 An important conclusion emerging from this

body of literature is that discrimination based on sex, race or social origin,

* Conditions of Work and Equality Department, ILO, email: oelz@ilo.org. Comments on

an earlier draft received from Manuela Tomei, Philippe Marcadent, Georges Politakis and Najati

Ghoseh are acknowledged with thanks.

Responsibility for opinions expressed in signed articles rests solely with their authors, and

publication does not constitute an endorsement by the ILO.

1 The Convention’s entry into force was triggered by the rst two ratications registered

with the ILO (Uruguay on 14 June 2012 and the Philippines on 5 September 2012), in accordance

with the Convention’s Art. 21(2). The texts of all ILO Conventions and Recommendations cited in

this article may be found online at www.ilo.org/normlex. NORMLEX also features updated rati-

cation information.

2 See, for example, Rubinow (1906), United Nations (2010), and Ally (2009). A selection of

topical articles, including a wealth of bibliographical references, is included in a recent special issue

of the Canadian Journal of Women and the Law edited by Adelle Blackett (Vol. 23, No. 1, 2011).

International Labour Review

144

as well as the historic roots of domestic work in the master–servant rela-

tionship have inuenced and shaped social attitudes and practices vis-à-vis

domestic workers, including their exclusion from the labour rights enjoyed

by workers in other economic sectors. Although the question of legal pro-

tection of domestic workers arose early on in the history of labour law,3 do-

mestic workers did not benet from the gradual expansion of mainstream

social and labour policies that have characterized socio-economic develop-

ment since the Industrial Revolution. Domestic workers’ rights and protec-

tions often lagged behind those enjoyed by other workers, leading the ILO

to conclude in 1970 that “on the whole, the majority of domestic workers

appear to be overworked, underpaid and underprotected” (ILO, 1970, p. 63).

Labour legislation on domestic work emerged over the years in many coun-

tries, mainly in Europe and Latin America and to a certain extent in Africa;

however, these efforts were largely at a standstill by the 1980s (ILO, 1970;

Ramirez-Machado, 2003; ILO, 2010a). More recently, concerns about gender

equality and human rights generally have led countries such as Bolivia, Uru

-

guay and South Africa to enact a “new generation” of regulation on domes-

tic work.4 Nevertheless, at the global level there are still continuing gaps in

the protection of domestic workers through labour law. Domestic workers

are still largely excluded from legislation granting rights such as a weekly

rest day, overtime pay, minimum wages and social security coverage (ILO,

2010a and 2013a).

These two ILO instruments on domestic workers provide an unprece-

dented dedicated international framework of minimum standards with which

to address these gaps, complementing existing applicable ILO and United Na-

tions instruments. As of 1 January 2014, a total of 11 countries (Bolivia, Ecua-

dor, Germany, Guyana, Italy, Mauritius, Nicaragua, Paraguay, the Philippines,

South Africa and Uruguay) have ratied Convention No. 189, while others

have initiated internal ratication procedures or have declared their intention

to do so.5 The very fact that the Convention and the Recommendation came

into being illustrates that, for various reasons, policy-makers have started to

pay greater attention to the economic and social value of domestic work and

to the need to establish appropriate frameworks for domestic workers’ labour

and social protection.

A consideration frequently articulated in this context is women’s increas-

ing labour market participation and reliance on paid domestic work for house-

hold maintenance and care for family members. At the same time, domestic

work itself is a signicant source of wage employment, particularly for women

3 An early example of labour legislation governing domestic work is Austria’s Contract of

Domestic Helpers Act 1920, StBGl Nr. 101/1920.

4 Act No. 18.065 of 15 November 2 006 of Uruguay; Sectoral Determination 7: Domestic

Worker Sector, binding as from 1 September 20 02, issued under the Basic Conditions of Employ-

ment, 1997, of South Africa.

5 These include Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic,

Ireland and Mexico (ILO, 2013b).