Exploitation of Domestic Employees

[Anonymous]

According to the June issue of Harpers, 2/3 of live-in domestic employees make below minimum wage, and 3/5 are required to work during their time off.

This is the true face of exploitation. Please, let's stop clouding the issue with an argument over providing lunch to your live-out nanny and focus on the actual mistreatment suffered by a huge number of domestic workers every day.

[Anonymous]

The face of true domestic worker exploitation, has *many* colors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The face of true domestic worker exploitation, has *many* colors.

OP here.

You're absolutely right, of course. There are many other issues not covered by these statistics, but I do think we minimize the many true problems by wasting even a breath of energy arguing about providing free food to a live-out employee.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The face of true domestic worker exploitation, has *many* colors.

OP here.

You're absolutely right, of course. There are many other issues not covered by these statistics, but I do think we minimize the many true problems by wasting even a breath of energy arguing about providing free food to a live-out employee.

No one said there has to be free food in the house. There simply must be available food for when your worker doesn't have any of her own and can't go out and buy herself a sandwich.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The face of true domestic worker exploitation, has *many* colors.

OP here.

You're absolutely right, of course. There are many other issues not covered by these statistics, but I do think we minimize the many true problems by wasting even a breath of energy arguing about providing free food to a live-out employee.

No one said there has to be free food in the house. There simply must be available food for when your worker doesn't have any of her own and can't go out and buy herself a sandwich.

I will not allow you to derail this thread. This will be my only response to this absurdity:

Live-out nannies are not entitled to meals, although I agree it is a nice gesture. But teachers aren't allowed to leave their jobs to buy lunch, but they don't live at their jobs so they have the opportunity to buy and prepare meals for themselves ahead of time; nannies are no different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The face of true domestic worker exploitation, has *many* colors.

OP here.

You're absolutely right, of course. There are many other issues not covered by these statistics, but I do think we minimize the many true problems by wasting even a breath of energy arguing about providing free food to a live-out employee.

No one said there has to be free food in the house. There simply must be available food for when your worker doesn't have any of her own and can't go out and buy herself a sandwich.

I will not allow you to derail this thread. This will be my only response to this absurdity:

Live-out nannies are not entitled to meals, although I agree it is a nice gesture. But teachers aren't allowed to leave their jobs to buy lunch, but they don't live at their jobs so they have the opportunity to buy and prepare meals for themselves ahead of time; nannies are no different.

Sorry to disappoint you, but there's nothing absurd about having food available for your FT worker who has no access to any of her own food or even to go out and buy herself an apple. You forgot that teachers and even hospital doctors and nurses have onsite access to cafeterias.

Slavery is outlawed. You may not starve your worker who hasn't brought her own food into your house.

Why is this even an argument for you? What kind of human being would not welcome your child's caregiver to make herself a sandwich at her workplace in your house?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The face of true domestic worker exploitation, has *many* colors.

OP here.

You're absolutely right, of course. There are many other issues not covered by these statistics, but I do think we minimize the many true problems by wasting even a breath of energy arguing about providing free food to a live-out employee.

No one said there has to be free food in the house. There simply must be available food for when your worker doesn't have any of her own and can't go out and buy herself a sandwich.

I will not allow you to derail this thread. This will be my only response to this absurdity:

Live-out nannies are not entitled to meals, although I agree it is a nice gesture. But teachers aren't allowed to leave their jobs to buy lunch, but they don't live at their jobs so they have the opportunity to buy and prepare meals for themselves ahead of time; nannies are no different.

Sorry to disappoint you, but there's nothing absurd about having food available for your FT worker who has no access to any of her own food or even to go out and buy herself an apple. You forgot that teachers and even hospital doctors and nurses have onsite access to cafeterias.

Slavery is outlawed. You may not starve your worker who hasn't brought her own food into your house.

Why is this even an argument for you? What kind of human being would not welcome your child's caregiver to make herself a sandwich at her workplace in your house?

A teacher doesn't get to eat in the cafeteria where the kids eat. And yes, if doctors and nurses work in a hospital they have access to a cafeteria but what about those doctors who don't work in a hospital? Not all doctors work in places with food available and most don't have time to leave the building to buy lunch. So they bring their lunch.

FWIW I don't have any problem with my nanny eating my food, she usually brings her lunch though and just snacks on what we have. I think it would be weird to tell the nanny she could never touch our food or if she forgot her lunch she should be able to make something from our food but I also think it would be weird if she never brought her own lunch and always expected me to provide hers.

[Anonymous]

The only problem is people with a "don't touch my food" attitude. Some of them even weave their OCD into the contract. Bad idea from a legal standpoint, btw.

"We prefer for you to bring all your own food, but please feel free to help yourself as needed", is the better way to go if you're worried about this.

[Anonymous]

Back to the topic at hand:

I completely agree OP. there are tons of domestic workers out there that needs help advocating for things the rest of us take for granted; minimum wage, OT, and the ability to request time off paid or not. These are the issue that we should fighting for, not squabbling over provided lunch. The MAJORITY of the people in our industry make less than minimum wage, who gives a f#ck about your lunch!!

[Anonymous]

No food for 12 hours? Drop dead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The face of true domestic worker exploitation, has *many* colors.

OP here.

You're absolutely right, of course. There are many other issues not covered by these statistics, but I do think we minimize the many true problems by wasting even a breath of energy arguing about providing free food to a live-out employee.

No one said there has to be free food in the house. There simply must be available food for when your worker doesn't have any of her own and can't go out and buy herself a sandwich.

I will not allow you to derail this thread. This will be my only response to this absurdity:

Live-out nannies are not entitled to meals, although I agree it is a nice gesture. But teachers aren't allowed to leave their jobs to buy lunch, but they don't live at their jobs so they have the opportunity to buy and prepare meals for themselves ahead of time; nannies are no different.

What are you talking about? Teachers can absolutely leave their school on their lunch hour.

[Anonymous]

"What are you talking about? Teachers can absolutely leave their school on their lunch hour."

No, most public school teachers can't leave campus on their lunch period, which is normally 20-30 min, not an hour.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"What are you talking about? Teachers can absolutely leave their school on their lunch hour."

No, most public school teachers can't leave campus on their lunch period, which is normally 20-30 min, not an hour.

+1

Not sure how it works in private schools, but as a public school teacher we certainly were not allowed to leave. We also never ate at the cafeteria because it was horrible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"What are you talking about? Teachers can absolutely leave their school on their lunch hour."

No, most public school teachers can't leave campus on their lunch period, which is normally 20-30 min, not an hour.

+1

Not sure how it works in private schools, but as a public school teacher we certainly were not allowed to leave. We also never ate at the cafeteria because it was horrible.

You don't eat in the cafeteria because you don't like the food. That's different than not being allowed to eat there.

[Anonymous]

Stop derailing the thread, 14:45.