In the spring 2020, measures introduced across Europe to limit the spread of COVID-19 included, among others, the temporary closure of borders. For Romanian and Slovakian live-in carers, this meant they were no longer able to commute between the Austrian households they work in and their respective countries of origin. Due to the relatively short cyclical rotas of 2–4 weeks, travel restrictions heavily affected cross-border live-in care between the three countries, which makes them a particular case for studying the effects of pandemic-related measures on transnational care arrangements. Drawing on media reports, relevant laws and policies, and interviews with representatives of care workers’ interests, the article examines how live-in care as a whole and care workers in particular were affected by the pandemic and related policy responses such as specific travel arrangements and financial incentives for workers. It shows that while live-in carers were deemed critical workers and essential for the long-term care system, the inequalities and dependencies already existing in transnational care arrangements were deepened. Care workers’ wants, needs and interests were subordinated to the interests of care recipients, agencies and sending and receiving countries.

No abstract

In the last two decades, care deficits in Western Europe have been fuelled by demographic and social transformations, such as population ageing, changes in household structures, welfare programme reforms and an altogether lesser involvement of the state in care provision. These care deficits, particularly in high-income countries, have been addressed through migrant labour which, in turn, contributes to increasing care needs in the migrants’ sending countries. Through the example of Romanian and Slovak caregivers working in 2- and 4-week shifts in Austria, this chapter explores the linkages between care workers’ strategies to address the care deficits in their families, the features of relevant welfare provisions in their respective countries of origin and the workers’ mobility patterns. The chapter argues that existing (limited) care needs in their respective families allow carers to engage in transnational work, while extensive care needs at home are a hindrance for working abroad. In other words, there seems to be a tipping point in the care needs of workers’ families, which results in care workers no longer wanting to work abroad but needing to remain in their countries of origin and care for family members instead. Furthermore, the chapter argues that labour mobility patterns are also influenced by the ‘familialistic’ orientation of relevant welfare provisions in sending countries. As limited formal services put pressure on families to continue providing care informally, institutional frameworks for childcare and care for the elderly also influence care workers’ mobility strategies.

No abstract