Abstract
With[1] the advent of election season in South India, the recurring tradition of making grand promises by competing parties is once again in vogue. One such promise, the Southern states—drawing inspiration from the socialist system of government— are frequently known to endorse is to give recognition to unpaid chores done by women Housemakers. To appeal to female voters, various “empowerment” proposals have been made by different parties, ranging from monthly payments to female family heads in Tamil Nadu to an improved Orunodoi scheme in Assam, pensions for housewives in Kerala, and income support for female heads of households in West Bengal. Apparently, grandiose promises of parties, although might not be well-intentioned, bring forth in the limelight the subject duly neglected for a long time - the recognition of unpaid household wor From Promises to Progress: Monetizing Women's Household Labork.
On this pretext, the paper dissects the idea of unpaid work and attempts to situate it within the context of housework before outlining the significance of valuing unpaid labour by monetizing it. The article also makes an effort to analyse potential challenges to a policy that would pay women for household work.
Introduction
The debate around the recognition and monetization of the services of women homemakers has been compelling thus far, with some contending that unpaid household work is “forced labour” and stressing the “importance of recognising the value of unpaid household work” while at the same time, others criticising this notion. It is undeniable that women housemakers receive no recognition for the labour they put in to run the wheels of the economy of the country, especially in developing countries like India where only 22 percent of women are involved in direct labour. This is further supported by the International Labour Organisation, which finds that while men spend 83 minutes per day on household chores, women spend three times more at 265 minutes on average. The situation is even worse in India, where women spend 299 minutes a day on unpaid domestic services while men spend only 97 minutes. This fact does not only shed light on the prevailing inequality deeply entrenched in the very fabric of Indian society as well as around the world but also brings to the limelight the role and the importance of this unpaid household work. To this end, it is pertinent to ask “Should housewives be paid wages for doing largely thankless household chores?”. However, before we could answer the foregoing question, we need to first situate the household work in the context of unpaid work, i.e., distinguishing it from other kinds of unpaid work.
Situating household work in the context of unpaid work
In the most general sense, work can be classified into two overarching categories: unpaid and paid labour, which can be further categorized into subtypes. However, this study focuses exclusively on the policy implications of monetizing household work. For this reason, it will be worthwhile to eliminate other types of unpaid labour within society in order to streamline our approach and locate the unpaid work within the domestic sphere.
That being said, the first and foremost criterion for distinguishing other types of unpaid labor is to acknowledge that the nature, scope, and duration of unpaid work can differ among various households, organizations, socioeconomic groups, and societies etc. For example; unpaid work can occur in the workplace in the form of an internship, vocational training, work experience, and trials, among other forms. In the foregoing arrangements, withholding payment from individuals can be deemed justifiable. This is due to the fact that although they may not receive any monetary benefit, they can still gain valuable experience and an enhanced likelihood of securing future employment opportunities, etc. Therefore, the policymakers in a sure-short way exclude any unpaid work that may not offer immediate financial gain but still provides some form of compensation.
Nonetheless, unlike internships and vocational training, there may be instances in which unpaid employment performed outside the home realm would constitute unpaid labor in the strictest sense without any ancillary advantages. Then, the real question arises why should the policymakers monetize household chores only excluding other forms of unpaid work?
Notably, there could be many reasons to prioritize unpaid household work but by following the different instances of “invisible labor” i.e., Unpaid work outlined in Invisible Labor: Hidden Work in the Contemporary World, Mariam Cherry points to a common thread. “The mechanism keeping [invisible labor] in place is that if you don’t see yourself as a worker, you don’t see yourself as someone who’s entitled to certain rights as a worker.”
On similar lines, the most defining feature of household work that sets it apart from other types of unpaid labor is the fact that most people all over the world, particularly in India, do not even perceive it as work in the first place. On the other hand, when we look at one of the extreme forms of unpaid work i.e., slavery, there is widespread recognition that it is a major evil that hampers the development of society in general and people in particular. As a result of this recognition of slavery as repressive to the growth of society, there are plenty of legislations and conventions to prohibit it. This clearly shows that the means for dealing with any sort of unpaid labor flow straight from the acknowledgment of it as Invisible work in the first place. Even if slavery still exists, it is not because of a lack of attention given to it but due to some sort of policy failure on the part of the governments. To put things straight, household work has neither proper recognition as slavery nor remote benefits as in the case of internship and vocational training, and given the importance it holds in the GDP of a country, there is an urgent need to make it visible to channelize the attention of the policy-makers.
Recognising unpaid household work
Organisations like UN Women are overly concerned with how unpaid work stands in the way of paid employment. The main concern for them seems to be “how to increase the number of women in paid jobs”. Indian women’s movement has always been concentrated on a number of admirable problems concerning women. However, the crucial issue of recognising the work done within the domestic arrangement, is not being addressed sufficiently. Due to a lack of recognition, household work, which is a highly significant and labor-intensive occupation, has been reduced to nothing. Women are frequently forced to embrace such lifestyles comprising no dignity or value for work done only because of their financial dependence. Because of their dependence on their husband, female homemakers often find themselves in such domestic situations where they have no way out. In order to break this vicious cycle, household chores need to be paid for. Therefore, Financial recognition of household work as a salaried profession can prove to be a boon for the problem.
Nevertheless, it is to be noted that for more than half-a-century, Indian Courts have actually been recognising the unpaid work done by the homemakers in the form of compensation awards to their kith and kin but ironically only after their death. The Courts have so far calculated the notional income of the deceased homemaker either by the formula provided in the Motor Vehicle (Amendment) Act, 2019, which designates one third of the spouse’s income as the income of the deceased spouse, or by estimating how much she would have earned had she had the opportunity to do so, or by directly calculating how much it would have cost to replace the homemaker by a paid worker. Additionally, the Courts have recognised in some cases that a marriage is an equal economic partnership and that the homemaker’s income is worth half of her husband’s income. These precedents can be used to “trigger developments in constitutional law and family laws to recognise the unpaid work of housewives in normal times, rather than only at times of disruption”. Accordingly, the question which arises here is if a family can be awarded compensation for unpaid work done by a woman after her death, why can't she be paid income for the same while she is alive?
Challenges in Monetising Unpaid Household Work
After having discussed the importance of recognising the value of household work in the lifetime of female homemakers and advocating for the financial recognition of the same, the main question which comes to mind is — Are there any challenges in implementing a policy monetising the unpaid household work?
Any policy placing household labour into economic equivalents has to face certain socio-economic challenges. The main challenges to such a policy would be to determine whether the money for the wages should come from cash transfers, state subsidies or a universal basic income or should family laws of different religions be changed to recognise women’s unpaid work. Other issues are how to decide who actually does the housework and whether males should also be paid for doing housework and should transgender women also be included under these policies.
Needless to say, paying homemakers a salary for their household work will have unforeseen repercussions because it will change the gender roles that are currently ingrained, and a patriarchal society is resistant to such changes. Additionally, it will give those families a justification who are reluctant to see women working for a paid job, i.e., they will have the opportunity to argue that since they are already being paid, there is no need for them to do any other job. Furthermore, if the government does not raise awareness that the plan is for compensating women for the housework they perform, the salary paid to the homemakers could be viewed as just a cash transfer like other schemes.
Alternatively, till the time policymakers formulate such a policy, focus can be put on reducing women’s burden. For ex- Ujjwala Yojana reduces the time spent on collecting firewood and cooking by providing each household one cooking gas cylinder; accessible, good childcare centers reduces the care burden on mothers. Further, In-kind transfers can be provided. For ex- washing machines which will reduce workload, and subsidized transport that would increase mobility. Incentives including financial incentives can be given for men sharing housework, and mandatory training of men in housework and childcare reducing the overall burden of female homemakers. Nevertheless, it is highlighted that policymakers’ fundamental objective should be to provide financial acknowledgment for household work done by women and above-mentioned arrangements should only be interim.
Conclusion
Politicians have a history of making lofty promises during election years and not full-filing them eventually. It is an unstated fact that political parties’ promises to acknowledge the unpaid work performed within the confines of a typical-Indian home is nothing more than a ruse to win over the country’s female population. However, the debate brought up the issue that had remained dormant thus far. It is disheartening to see highly intensive and sophisticated skilled oriented occupations reduced to nothing—not even mere recognition—leaving women financially dependent on their counterparts. To this end, recognizing the monetary value of the labor put in by the housewives after their death is a step in the right direction, however, the Judges and policy-makers shall not stop there. A more deliberate approach is needed, which provides sufficient recognition of the selfless hours put in by the homemakers. Nevertheless, the policy-makers working at the forefront for materializing the unpaid labor must also be cognizant of the uncalled implications it would have on the economy in general and women in particular. Resources for funding unpaid labor, and ensuring inclusivity of different gender identities are some of the key challenges that must be overcome. Moreover, it is important to consider concerns regarding the misuse and the perpetuation of traditional gender roles.
Comments