Domestic Workers' Experiences of Power and Oppression in South Africa

Abstract

This study examines the work experiences of domestic workers in the context of socio-economic-political legislation promulgated to protect their social rights in the new South Africa. It gains insight into the power relations and embedded tensions between employers and domestic workers with the aim of identifying forms of oppression affecting domestic workers. In-depth interviews were conducted with nine female domestic workers employed in African households and analyzed using thematic content analysis. Results indicate that despite inclusion in labour legislation, domestic workers remain a vulnerable group. They experience oppression in the form of exploitation, marginalization, powerlessness, violence and some class-based cultural imperialism. Despite this, agency and resistance in the face of oppression was a key finding. Although some gains may have been obtained through inclusion in legislation, the asymmetrical power relationship with employers remains problematic.

Maintaining the Status Quo through Repressed Silences: The Case of Paid Domestic Labour in Post-Apartheid South Africa

“…She frames this discussion as one which would call her trustworthiness and competence into question. Such utterances were not uncommon within the sample, and indeed in domestic labour literature (Donald and Mahlatji, 2006; Murray and Durrheim, 2019b).…”

“…Like citizens of South Africa more generally, paid domestic labour participants might routinely and collaboratively repress silences about potentially distressing topics linked to their relative and taken-for-granted positions in this relationship. Relations between employers and workers often still include remnants of the colonial master–servant relationship, such as: patriarchal or maternal attitudes towards workers (Durrheim et al, 2014; Hansen, 1989; King, 2007); the expectation that the worker will tend to the employer’s family’s needs before responding to their own family’s needs (Ally, 2010; Donald and Mahlatji, 2006); the construction of workers as inherently inferior to the employer and the employer’s household members (Stoler, 2002); and the contradiction between workers as intimate and yet contaminating (Dickey, 2000; Stoler, 2002). Ultimately, the status quo of domestic labour relationships, which are historically ‘hierarchical, asymmetric and deeply charged with idiosyncratic factors’ (Hansen, 1989: 15), continues to remain largely unchanged, if not unchallenged (Archer, 2011).…”

“…Even studies that do not explicitly set out to focus on silence in domestic labour often allude to or mention the centrality of unspoken rules, roles, identities and expectations that frame this institution and its relationships (e.g. Archer, 2011; Donald and Mahlatji, 2006; Ginsburg, 1999).…”

Promoting a positive work experience for South African domestic workers

“…Galvaan et al (2015) describe the difficulties experienced by employers in navigating the domestic employment relationship in the sense of the employer fulfilling a mothering role while continuing to maintain a professional working relationship with her employee, particularly so when the domestic worker is responsible for looking after the employer's child(ren). Donald and Mahlatji (2006) highlight that domestic workers in South Africa may experience a sense of disempowerment in the workplace because of the actions of employers. These include the demonstration of a lack of trust regarding household items, differential treatment in the provision of food and utensils, locking valuables away and implementing wage deductions for household items broken.…”

Vulnerability, Legal Protection, and Work Conditions of Female Domestic Workers in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

“…Despite the presence of some form of labor legislation, domestic workers remain a vulnerable group and experience oppression in the form of exploitation, marginalization, powerlessness, violence, and some class-based cultural imperialism (Donald & Mahlatji, 2006). Employers exercise a high degree of control over domestic workers.…”