ABSTRACT
Using an intuitionalism framework, this study explains the different responses in domestic employment regulation. Past research indicates policy design has played a significant role in regulating domestic employment. Drawing on secondary literature and policy documents, this study argues that employers’ needs, in forms of care policy, shapes different outcomes in each countries. This creates a vacuum in the legal status of domestic workers and places their employer–employee relationships into the category of individual contracts. After comparing the data we make several policy suggestions, aimed at planning and improving management practices for domestic workers.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Notes
1. As of 2018, the Convention has been ratified by twenty five countries; even countries that do not ratify it may adopt special regulatory policies.
3. Singapore follows a residual model in terms of the protection of working conditions; for example, the Singapore government granted a weekly rest day to domestic workers in 2013. Penal Code section 72 also punishes specific offences against the integrity of domestic workers. See ILO (Citation2016b, p. 32).
5. Although excluded, FDWs are covered by the minimum wage regulation under this Act.
Additional information
Funding
Notes on contributors
Yun-Hsiang Hsu
Dr. Yun-Hsiang Hsu is an associate professor in the Institute of Law and Government at National Central University in Taiwan. He has also worked as a civil servant in several government agencies, including the Population Forecasting Unit at the National Development Council and the Ministry of Labor. Dr. Hsu’s research interests focus on policy and programme performance evaluation and various labour issues, including domestic employment.