IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/indlaw/v51y2022i4p771-801..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Domestic Workers, the ‘Family Worker’ Exemption from Minimum Wage, and Gendered Devaluation of Women’s Work

Author

Listed:
  • Natalie Sedacca

Abstract

Domestic workers, who work in private households carrying out tasks such as cooking, cleaning, and care for children and the elderly, are overwhelmingly women and often from migrant and/ or ethnic minority backgrounds. This article examines a stark example of domestic workers’ exclusion from labour law protection, regulation 57(3) of the National Minimum Wage Regulations, which exempts employers from paying the minimum wage where a worker lives in their employer’s family home and is treated ‘as a member of the family’ in relation to accommodation, meals, tasks and leisure activities. Drawing on feminist theory on the divisions between ‘productive’ work outside the home versus ‘reproductive’ work within it, it argues that the exemption’s application has reflected gendered devaluation of domestic labour, stemming from its conflation with work normally performed for free by women in the ‘private sphere’ of the home. Focusing on the December 2020 Employment Tribunal (ET) judgment in Puthenveettil v Alexander & ors, which held that the exemption was unlawful and indirectly discriminatory on the grounds of sex, the article provides timely and in-depth analysis of the prospects for challenging the devaluation of domestic work in light of the limitations of legal protections for domestic workers in the UK.

Suggested Citation

  • Natalie Sedacca, 2022. "Domestic Workers, the ‘Family Worker’ Exemption from Minimum Wage, and Gendered Devaluation of Women’s Work," Industrial Law Journal, Industrial Law Society, vol. 51(4), pages 771-801.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:indlaw:v:51:y:2022:i:4:p:771-801.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/indlaw/dwac005
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:indlaw:v:51:y:2022:i:4:p:771-801.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/ilj .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.