Towards Claiming the Status as "Workers" : Present State of Domestics in Kathmandu

<p>This article attempts to delineate the working conditions of female domestics in Kathmandu, Nepal, as well as their perspectives towards work, amidst the beginning of embryonic labour movements started by a small group of them. The catch-all slogan employed by the movement is "Housework is work, domestics are workers." Why did that enunciation, which seemingly states a plain fact rather than a demand or claim, come to be the slogan for the movement? In the attempt to pursue the answer to that question, the author tries to clarify the objective as well as the discursive status of women working as domestics in present-day Kathmandu. Speaking of the working conditions of the female domestics in Kathmandu, the most conspicuous feature is a lack of standards. In other words, their working conditions are extremely diversified, making it difficult for them to be described in general terms. For example, although the working hours of a few domestics may be quite short, a number of them have to work quite long, with some of them working extremely long hours. Wages could be viewed as not so bad for a few, given that the work is presumed to require no special skills or knowledge; indeed, most of them work for a pittance, with some cases of no wages being paid at all. Moreover, there is actually a statistical tendency for those working longer to get lower hourly wages. The tendency does not appear to be rationally explicable; the highly "unreasonable" pattern of wages and working-hour distribution underscores the lack of standards in the work and its remuneration. The lack of standards in turn suggests that the working conditions for each domestic are more or less determined: not so much by an evaluation of the work based upon some objective standards, but by the unpredictable whim of each employer. While there is no denying that some mature domestics can negotiate working terms with their employers to some extent, the terms, as a rule, seem to be determined largely by the employers. That fact can be understood in relation to the present situation in Nepal, where the market for domestic labour is yet to be institutionalized, and in which domestics are-in line with other workers in the informal sector-not recognized as "workers" under the related state laws. Domestic employment so far has invariably been searched for via personal networks and agreed upon privately, meaning that domestics are removed from benefits and protections enjoyed by those in the formal sector. As for the subjective perspective of Kathmandu domestics toward their own work, it is notable that they regard it quite poorly completely in line with other Nepalis in general (except for a few already involved in the union movement). They invariably state that they do the work because nothing else is available to them. Behind that evaluation is the notion that housework is not valuable-possibly not even being considered proper work-and is something that anyone can do (even children, as is often the case in Nepal). Also important in understanding their attitude is that they tend to be treated as "servants" by their employers, not as equal individuals who agree to provide labour in exchange for remuneration. That is not to mention the fact that the remuneration itself is far from encouraging compared with other kinds of work (even though the amount could vary greatly). Given the evaluation of domestic work and attitude toward it, most domestics understandably speak of their hope to break free from their present state, that is, their "servant"-like condition. Some try to redefine their relationship with their employers as being their "daughters" or "little sisters," while some try to leave the occupation altogether. But the possibility of such attempts succeeding is, in fact, rather narrow. Needless to say, it is essentially impossible to become someone</p><p>(View PDF for the rest of the abstract.)</p>