Employer Demands: Lack of basic rights and establishing control
The message in the cover picture was sent by an employer to an agent before a migrant domestic worker (MDW) was deployed to the employer’s house. It captures the employer’s demands about the MDW's dressing, including the colour of her attire and hairstyle, and restrictions on phone usage and rest days.
In HOME’s experience, the imposition of such rules on MDWs is not uncommon. The live-in situation of MDWs, together with minimal labour and social protections, generate a culture where determination of basic labour rights are left to the discretion of individual employers, who also feel entitled to police personal aspects of MDWs’ lives.
Access to communication devices: The employer states that the MDW's mobile device will be given to her only after working hours, and on rest days (in this case, none for the first 6 months, then subsequently, once a month). MDWs have limited time and space to decompress, as they often work long hours and live with their employers: restricting their access to communication devices exacerbates these stressors. MDWs are socially isolated, and their mobile phones are a critical means of staying in touch with others, obtaining information, and seeking help in the event they face abuse and exploitation. Confiscation of communication devices, which are the personal property of MDWs—and which would not be acceptable in any other modern workplace—should be outlawed.
Rest days: The employer seems to be reminding the agent that the MDW does not get a rest day in the first 6 months of employment. Despite the implementation of the mandatory monthly rest day, HOME still sees MDWs who do not get any rest days, particularly when they have just started their employment and are still in their loan deduction period. MDWs who undertake caregiving duties (as this MDW) are usually given minimal rest days (as the employer put it, "I can only afford one rest day a month, no nego") due to the demands of eldercare duties, and the inaccessibility of alternative caregiving options for employers.
Controlling employer behaviours: Apart from the restrictive living and working conditions, the employer’s tone depicts the top-down, condescending treatment MDWs are often subject to. This employer feels entitled to determine the precise colour of the MDW’s clothing, commands that the MDW’s belongings be discarded if they do not fit within her prescribed colour scheme, and wants the MDW’s hair to be styled in a certain manner. This attitude demonstrates the sense of ownership some employers feel over MDWs, and the lack of respect for an MDW’s autonomy.
The employer also mentions how the MDW is only entitled to one mobile device (which will be kept by the employer), and is not allowed to “hide another spare”. Although the employer frames this as an issue of “trust”, in reality, it is one of control— i.e. ensuring that the employer has full control over the MDW's time, and when the MDW possesses, and is allowed to use, mobile devices and communicates with the outside world.
Dismissal and repatriation: The employer’s threat of repatriation if the MDW keeps a second mobile device shows how the employer-tied work permit system facilitates a power imbalance in favour of the employer, and how easily they can dismiss and repatriate workers. Workers are thus often afraid to assert their rights, and are left with little choice but to accept exploitative working conditions, for fear of losing their jobs.
Domestic work is severely undervalued, and the lack of labour and social rights for MDWs entrenches the idea that domestic workers are less deserving of respect. HOME continues to call for more robust labour and social protections that will set limits on working hours, establish mandatory weekly, 24-hour rest days, allow for live-out options, and outlaw employers’ confiscation of mobile devices.