sallycinnamon78
New Yorker
... so what happens?
I'm including part of a Guardian article
here.
A few years ago, Jana left the Czech Republic to work as an au pair for a family in London. Although au pairs are legally allowed to work 25 hours a week, Jana found herself rather busier than that.
"I got the little girl up at 7.30am. I put her to bed at 7pm. Yes, I suppose it was about 12 hours most days."
For that she was paid less than ?100 (US$160) a week, but when I commiserated, saying to Jana that it was a long week of hard work, she put a brave face on it.
"I didn't see it just as work. In order to be happy I had to say to myself, this is also play, I like playing with children."
And did she do housework, too?
"Yes -- but, you know, if I was a mother in my own country I would do cooking and cleaning and I wouldn't see it as work."
It is a bitter irony that the rising level of women's employment in the UK is being underpinned, in many instances, by the low-paid work of other women cleaning their homes and looking after their children. Many of these women currently come here from eastern Europe, and although this pattern of temporary migration might provide solutions for many families, the question still has to be asked: what kind of liberation is it that is pushing other women into labor that is so undervalued?
Although it is impossible to get reliable, up-to-date statistics on how many young women from eastern Europe are currently in British houses, looking after our children, ironing our clothes and cleaning our bathrooms, you only have to talk to any agency specializing in this section of the employment market to hear that the vast majority of au pairs in the UK are from eastern Europe.
Statistics from the labor force survey suggest that about one in 20 of those workers involved in "childminding and related occupations" come from eastern European countries. But beyond such formal figures is a hidden series of more obscure arrangements: women on holiday visas who are looking after children rather than visiting the sights; women on student visas who spend more time learning the English for ironing board than the past participle.
Although we tend to talk about migrant labor as though it is just about the migration of young men, in fact throughout the last decade women outnumbered men as migrants to the UK. We already know that such workers underpin the hotel and restaurant trade, but many of them are tucked away out of sight, in people's sitting rooms and kitchens.
These migrants don't get up the noses of rightwing Middle England -- after all, this is the charming face of migration, since these young women help our economy to grow by releasing more parents into the work force, and they tend to stay only temporarily, so they are never any kind of burden on our state.
On the individual level, many women who are involved in this exchange -- both the women who provide the care and the women who employ them -- can testify to how well it can work. I write that from the heart, having myself employed a nanny who moved to London from Slovakia and whose experience of working here has, I believe, been happy on all sides.
But I am constantly surprised by how hidden most of this labor is, and how little debate there is about the problems that it can produce. When countries such as the Czech Republic, Poland and Slovakia enter the EU next year, this labor force is likely to increase, and it may also become more open. Then, perhaps, we will start talking about what we should do for them as well as what they can do for us.
Because despite the positive side for many families and workers, we should be honest that many of these women are being exploited in a society that does not put a true value on their work. Yet we need their work, desperately; 300,000 more child carers are said to be needed over the next four years in Britain. We just do not have enough workers here to fill our exponentially growing demand for people to love our children. Or, to put it more precisely, we do not have enough workers who will do it well, given the low value that our society is prepared to put on caring work.
The UK government's new earnings survey states that in "childcare and related occupations" the average pay rate is ?240 (US$384) for a full-time week -- one of the lowest of any sector. But many of those who work for cash without being registered by their employer for income tax or social security contributions find that wages can fall far below that.
Elena, who came from the Czech Republic to work for two years for a family in London, was paid ?70 (US$112) for a 45-hour week in sole charge of three children, including a baby.
"They were my children too," she says when I ask her why she didn't ask for more. "And I loved them, so if the family asked me to do more I would say yes."
This is the age-old problem of the low value put on traditional women's work; that women are encouraged to see the work they give as not "real" work, but as a gift of love, of care, of happiness.
These wages clearly look a lot more attractive to women who come from countries that are still struggling in the transition to a market economy, where unemployment is high and salaries are low compared to western Europe. But the liberation of western women means little if it rests on the exploitation of women from poorer economies -- especially if it is exploitation that is going unrecognized and undiscussed.
Although some instances of exploitation can be put down to the behavior of mean-minded parents, it is obvious that the true scale of the problem is much bigger and harder to attack. Yet this is not an inevitable situation; it is one that has been created by our government's failure to meet the needs created by women's entry into the workplace.
If two parents are working full-time, it is impossible for most to cover another full-time worker's wages out of their taxed income. As long as families have to meet almost the entire burden of childcare themselves, as they do at the moment, childcare workers will always be underpaid.
The fact is that women's liberation has not gone far enough; women have been allowed to enter the work force, but we have not seen the necessary changes in men's behavior and in social policy to compensate for their absence from the home.
If the government would increase public funds given to nurseries and allow tax relief on childcare payments, we would see a shift in the labour market that would put a fairer value on the work of caring. If employment patterns became more flexible and men more ready to take on domestic work, then fewer families would require such long hours from their replacement home-makers.
That is the social revolution that is still waiting to happen. As it is, Jana and women like her deserve better than to be used as a stopgap for our society's failures.
I'm including part of a Guardian article
here.
A few years ago, Jana left the Czech Republic to work as an au pair for a family in London. Although au pairs are legally allowed to work 25 hours a week, Jana found herself rather busier than that.
"I got the little girl up at 7.30am. I put her to bed at 7pm. Yes, I suppose it was about 12 hours most days."
For that she was paid less than ?100 (US$160) a week, but when I commiserated, saying to Jana that it was a long week of hard work, she put a brave face on it.
"I didn't see it just as work. In order to be happy I had to say to myself, this is also play, I like playing with children."
And did she do housework, too?
"Yes -- but, you know, if I was a mother in my own country I would do cooking and cleaning and I wouldn't see it as work."
It is a bitter irony that the rising level of women's employment in the UK is being underpinned, in many instances, by the low-paid work of other women cleaning their homes and looking after their children. Many of these women currently come here from eastern Europe, and although this pattern of temporary migration might provide solutions for many families, the question still has to be asked: what kind of liberation is it that is pushing other women into labor that is so undervalued?
Although it is impossible to get reliable, up-to-date statistics on how many young women from eastern Europe are currently in British houses, looking after our children, ironing our clothes and cleaning our bathrooms, you only have to talk to any agency specializing in this section of the employment market to hear that the vast majority of au pairs in the UK are from eastern Europe.
Statistics from the labor force survey suggest that about one in 20 of those workers involved in "childminding and related occupations" come from eastern European countries. But beyond such formal figures is a hidden series of more obscure arrangements: women on holiday visas who are looking after children rather than visiting the sights; women on student visas who spend more time learning the English for ironing board than the past participle.
Although we tend to talk about migrant labor as though it is just about the migration of young men, in fact throughout the last decade women outnumbered men as migrants to the UK. We already know that such workers underpin the hotel and restaurant trade, but many of them are tucked away out of sight, in people's sitting rooms and kitchens.
These migrants don't get up the noses of rightwing Middle England -- after all, this is the charming face of migration, since these young women help our economy to grow by releasing more parents into the work force, and they tend to stay only temporarily, so they are never any kind of burden on our state.
On the individual level, many women who are involved in this exchange -- both the women who provide the care and the women who employ them -- can testify to how well it can work. I write that from the heart, having myself employed a nanny who moved to London from Slovakia and whose experience of working here has, I believe, been happy on all sides.
But I am constantly surprised by how hidden most of this labor is, and how little debate there is about the problems that it can produce. When countries such as the Czech Republic, Poland and Slovakia enter the EU next year, this labor force is likely to increase, and it may also become more open. Then, perhaps, we will start talking about what we should do for them as well as what they can do for us.
Because despite the positive side for many families and workers, we should be honest that many of these women are being exploited in a society that does not put a true value on their work. Yet we need their work, desperately; 300,000 more child carers are said to be needed over the next four years in Britain. We just do not have enough workers here to fill our exponentially growing demand for people to love our children. Or, to put it more precisely, we do not have enough workers who will do it well, given the low value that our society is prepared to put on caring work.
The UK government's new earnings survey states that in "childcare and related occupations" the average pay rate is ?240 (US$384) for a full-time week -- one of the lowest of any sector. But many of those who work for cash without being registered by their employer for income tax or social security contributions find that wages can fall far below that.
Elena, who came from the Czech Republic to work for two years for a family in London, was paid ?70 (US$112) for a 45-hour week in sole charge of three children, including a baby.
"They were my children too," she says when I ask her why she didn't ask for more. "And I loved them, so if the family asked me to do more I would say yes."
This is the age-old problem of the low value put on traditional women's work; that women are encouraged to see the work they give as not "real" work, but as a gift of love, of care, of happiness.
These wages clearly look a lot more attractive to women who come from countries that are still struggling in the transition to a market economy, where unemployment is high and salaries are low compared to western Europe. But the liberation of western women means little if it rests on the exploitation of women from poorer economies -- especially if it is exploitation that is going unrecognized and undiscussed.
Although some instances of exploitation can be put down to the behavior of mean-minded parents, it is obvious that the true scale of the problem is much bigger and harder to attack. Yet this is not an inevitable situation; it is one that has been created by our government's failure to meet the needs created by women's entry into the workplace.
If two parents are working full-time, it is impossible for most to cover another full-time worker's wages out of their taxed income. As long as families have to meet almost the entire burden of childcare themselves, as they do at the moment, childcare workers will always be underpaid.
The fact is that women's liberation has not gone far enough; women have been allowed to enter the work force, but we have not seen the necessary changes in men's behavior and in social policy to compensate for their absence from the home.
If the government would increase public funds given to nurseries and allow tax relief on childcare payments, we would see a shift in the labour market that would put a fairer value on the work of caring. If employment patterns became more flexible and men more ready to take on domestic work, then fewer families would require such long hours from their replacement home-makers.
That is the social revolution that is still waiting to happen. As it is, Jana and women like her deserve better than to be used as a stopgap for our society's failures.
Last edited: