被排除在外的工人和被豁免的雇主:荷兰家庭佣工获得社会保护的定性研究

IF 2.6 2区 社会学 Q2 DEVELOPMENT STUDIES Social Policy & Administration Pub Date : 2024-01-03 DOI:10.1111/spol.12989
David de Kort, Sonja Bekker
{"title":"被排除在外的工人和被豁免的雇主:荷兰家庭佣工获得社会保护的定性研究","authors":"David de Kort, Sonja Bekker","doi":"10.1111/spol.12989","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the Netherlands, many part-time domestic workers fall within the scope of a particular type of labour law, that gives them fewer social protection rights and that renders private actors (households and workers) responsible for exercising those rights. Over the years, this policy has been criticised for institutionalising the differential treatment of domestic workers, which goes against ideas propagated in international initiatives, like the European Pillar of Social Rights. This contribution explores Dutch domestic workers' access to social protection in greater detail. Drawing on semi-structured interviews with 30 domestic workers, we show that the actual access to social protection greatly varies over different workers and over different employment relationships of individual workers, but generally falls below par. Our findings indicate that this is partly due to the fact that the Dutch policy option underestimates domestic workers' wariness of placing demands on the households they work for, which raises questions over the desirability of non-mediated employment relationships in the sector. We conclude with a brief discussion and suggestions for future policy directions.","PeriodicalId":47858,"journal":{"name":"Social Policy & Administration","volume":"49 9 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Excluded workers and exempted employers: A qualitative study on domestic workers' access to social protection in the Netherlands\",\"authors\":\"David de Kort, Sonja Bekker\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/spol.12989\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In the Netherlands, many part-time domestic workers fall within the scope of a particular type of labour law, that gives them fewer social protection rights and that renders private actors (households and workers) responsible for exercising those rights. Over the years, this policy has been criticised for institutionalising the differential treatment of domestic workers, which goes against ideas propagated in international initiatives, like the European Pillar of Social Rights. This contribution explores Dutch domestic workers' access to social protection in greater detail. Drawing on semi-structured interviews with 30 domestic workers, we show that the actual access to social protection greatly varies over different workers and over different employment relationships of individual workers, but generally falls below par. Our findings indicate that this is partly due to the fact that the Dutch policy option underestimates domestic workers' wariness of placing demands on the households they work for, which raises questions over the desirability of non-mediated employment relationships in the sector. We conclude with a brief discussion and suggestions for future policy directions.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47858,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Social Policy & Administration\",\"volume\":\"49 9 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Social Policy & Administration\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.12989\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"DEVELOPMENT STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Policy & Administration","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.12989","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DEVELOPMENT STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在荷兰,许多兼职家庭佣工属于一种特殊类型的劳动法范畴,这种劳动法赋予他们较少的社会保护权利,并要求私人行为者(家庭和工人)负责行使这些权利。多年来,这项政策一直受到批评,因为它将家庭佣工的差别待遇制度化,违背了《欧洲社会权利支柱》等国际倡议所宣传的理念。本文将更详细地探讨荷兰家庭佣工获得社会保护的情况。通过对 30 名家庭佣工进行半结构式访谈,我们发现,不同工人和不同雇佣关系的工人实际获得的社会保护差别很大,但普遍低于标准。我们的研究结果表明,造成这种情况的部分原因是荷兰的政策方案低估了家庭佣工对向其工作的家庭提出要求的戒备心理,这就提出了该行业非中介雇佣关系是否可取的问题。最后,我们对未来的政策方向进行了简要讨论并提出了建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Excluded workers and exempted employers: A qualitative study on domestic workers' access to social protection in the Netherlands
In the Netherlands, many part-time domestic workers fall within the scope of a particular type of labour law, that gives them fewer social protection rights and that renders private actors (households and workers) responsible for exercising those rights. Over the years, this policy has been criticised for institutionalising the differential treatment of domestic workers, which goes against ideas propagated in international initiatives, like the European Pillar of Social Rights. This contribution explores Dutch domestic workers' access to social protection in greater detail. Drawing on semi-structured interviews with 30 domestic workers, we show that the actual access to social protection greatly varies over different workers and over different employment relationships of individual workers, but generally falls below par. Our findings indicate that this is partly due to the fact that the Dutch policy option underestimates domestic workers' wariness of placing demands on the households they work for, which raises questions over the desirability of non-mediated employment relationships in the sector. We conclude with a brief discussion and suggestions for future policy directions.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
6.20%
发文量
93
期刊介绍: Social Policy & Administration is the longest established journal in its field. Whilst remaining faithful to its tradition in academic excellence, the journal also seeks to engender debate about topical and controversial issues. Typical numbers contain papers clustered around a theme. The journal is international in scope. Quality contributions are received from scholars world-wide and cover social policy issues not only in Europe but in the USA, Canada, Australia and Asia Pacific.
期刊最新文献
The Use and Impact of Well‐Being Metrics on Policymaking: Developers' and Users' Perspectives in Scotland and Italy Practising Resilience: Lived Experience, Agency and Responses to the Cost‐of‐Living Crisis Profiles Among Women Without a Paid Job and Social Benefits: An Intersectional Perspective Using Dutch Population Register Data Work inclusion of marginalised groups in a troubled city district—How can active labour market policies improve? No welfare without workfare? Revisiting varieties of minimum income schemes in Europe (2008–2022)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1