1. FÁTIMA SULEMAN, CONCEIÇÃO FIGUEIREDO,CARMO BOTELHO THE FOURTH CONFERENCE OF THE REGULATING FOR DECENT WORK NETWORK, GENEVA, 8 – 10 JULY 2015 THE IMPACT OF FORMALITY, TRUST AND SKILLS ON THE RISK OF ABUSES IN DOMESTIC WORKERS IN PORTUGAL

2. OUTLINE The working conditions in domestic work Types of abuses and harassments in domestic work Data and empirical strategy Cluster analysis Multinomial logistic regression Empirical findings Typology of abuses Predictors of abuses Discussion and policy implications

3. WORKING CONDITIONS IN DOMESTIC WORK Pervasive substandard working conditions Vulnerability to abuses and mistreatments The high-risk group for gender-based violence Migrants are particularly vulnerable and powerless Invisibility and lack of regulation

4. TYPES OF ABUSES AND HARASSMENTS IN DOMESTIC WORK Verbal, psychological, physical and sexual abuses and harassments, including rape Imprisonment in the employers’ house, substandard food and accommodation Non-payment of wages, wages arrays, underpayment of wages, excessive working time, no payment of overtime, and violations of rules agreed in contracts Maternalist relationships to reinforce their inferior status Giving of gifts as substitute of benefits or earnings raise Spatial arrangements, such as separate entrances, separate stairwells, outdoor toilets

5. FACTORS INCREASING VULNERABILITY Live-in status and isolation Migration and especially illegal immigration Informal employment relationship Lack of regulation to protect domestic work

6. THE DATA Original cross-sectional dataset of domestic workers in Portugal collected in 2010 for an international project The data were gathered in face to face interviews within a snowball sampling Include information on socio-demographic characteristics, demand for skills, wages, contracts, tasks to be performed, working hours, formality, abuses and harassments, and employers’ characteristics (N = 684).

7. Nationality : Portuguese African 0.1246 (0.3305) Brazilian 0.1232 (0.3289) European 0.0836 (0.2770) Social Security (Yes = 1)0.6976 (0.4596) Job characteristics: Multiple Living in a house 0.1248 (0.3308) Single employer 0.3176 (0.4659) Demand for particular skills (Yes = 1) 0.2739 (0.4463) Tasks performed: Cleaning Child caring tasks 0.3605 (0.4806) Elderly caring tasks 0.3146 (0.4648) Employer present (Yes = 1) 0.4035 (0.4910) Key of the house (Yes = 1) 0.7526 (0.4318) References (Yes=1) 0.2163 (0.4121) Household (Yes = 1) 0.3669 (0.4823) Gifts (Yes = 1) 0.5871 (0.4927) Observations 684 Descriptive statistics [mean, (SD)]

8. DOMESTIC WORK IN PORTUGAL Legislation dates back to 1980 but much progress was made in the early 1990s. The Decree-law 235/92 stipulates the working conditions, namely the tasks to be performed, the pay and pay components including paid holidays and Christmas bonus, and other working conditions Declaration of the employment relationship to social security and payment of contributions is compulsory Domestic workers are entitled to the national minimum wage It is a job opportunity for both native and migrant women (especially from Portuguese ex-colonies and more recently from Eastern European countries)

9. EMPIRICAL STRATEGY FIRST STEP Towards a typology: grouping the set of abuses and harassments reported by domestic workers – multiple correspondence and cluster analysis Wage arrears; Unpaid allowances; Unpaid overtime; Unpaid social contributions; Forced to perform tasks not agreed; Deprivation of time of rest; Deprivation of food; Deprivation of holidays; Sexual harassment; Physical violence; Psychological violence; Discrimination; Forced to perform tasks against will; Spatial segregation

10. EMPIRICAL STRATEGY SECOND STEP Towards the factors that increase/decrease vulnerability: explore the predictors of each group of abuses and harassments – multinomial logistic regression: Socio-demographic characteristics : nationality Social protection : registration with social security authorities Job characteristics : live-in; required skills; tasks; multiple employer Power and control : employer present to control Trust issues : key of the house; demand for references Employer’s characteristics : workplace, apartment or detached Maternalist relationship : offer of gifts

11. THE FINDINGS TYPOLOGY OF ABUSES AND HARASSMENTS No abuses : 51.8% More than 85% reported as not having abuses and harassments Labour abuses : 34.2% Wage arrears Unpaid allowances Unpaid overtime Unpaid social contributions Multiple abuses : 14.0% Labour abuses Plus all other abuses More frequent: Forced to perform tasks not agreed; Deprivation of time of rest; Forced to perform tasks against will; Discrimination Less frequent: Physical violence; Spatial segregation; Sexual harassment

12. 12 Multiple abuses vs Ño abuses Labour abuses vs Ño abuses Nationality (Portuguese) African0.0228 (0.4887) -0.2645(0.3578) Brazilian1.6998*** (0.4104) 0.8053***(0.3020) European1.3307*** (0.4780) 0.0813(0.3998) Social Security(Yes=1) -0.2299 (0.3222) -0.4248*(0.2185) Job characteristics (Multiple employer) Living in a house 0.3188 (0.4406) 0.2339(0.3543) Single employer 0.2037 (0.3320) -0.5561**(0.2352) Personal traits 0.1334 (0.1433) -0.0601(0.0985) Specific skills -0.1833 (0.1384) -0.2221**(0.0989) General skills 0.2587* (0.1386) 0.2947***(0.1098) Demand for particular skills (Yes = 1) 0.6770** (0.3309) 0.7066***(0.2416) (*) Statistically significant at the 0.10 level; (**) at the 0.05 level; (***) at the 0.01 level THE PREDICTORS OF ABUSES IN DOMESTIC WORK

13. 13 Multiple abuses vs Ño abuses Labour abuses vs Ño abuses Occup. Structure (Cleaning tasks) Children caring tasks -0.7118** (0.3567) 0.2580(0.2051) Elderly caring tasks 0.5724* (0.3156) 0.2665(0.2209) Employer present(Yes=1) 0.3327 (0.3176) -0.1356(0.2102) Key of the house(Yes=1) -0.4247 (0.3932) -0.4743**(0.2390) References (Yes=1) 0.5034 (0.3556) 0.8227***(0.2418) Household(Yes=1) 0.5843* (0.3150) -0.0975(0.2098) Gifts (Yes=1) -0.6431** (0.3058) -0.7541***(0.2029) Constant -1.8610*** (0.4784) 0.3542(0.3235) Pseudo R2 0.1105 Observations 559 (*) Statistically significant at the 0.10 level; (**) at the 0.05 level; (***) at the 0.01 level THE PREDICTORS OF ABUSES IN DOMESTIC WORK

14. THE FINDINGS THE SIGNIFICANT PREDICTORS “Labour abuses” VS “No abuses”: Increase vulnerability: Brazilian; demand for general skills; requirements of particular skills; demand for references from the network Decrease vulnerability: having a formal employment relationship; working for single employer; having the key of the house; working in a house; and receiving gifts “Multiple abuses” VS “No abuses”: Increase vulnerability: Brazilian and European ;demand for general skills; requirements of particular skills; elderly caring tasks; working in a house Decrease vulnerability: children caring tasks; receiving gifts

15. Multiple abusesNo abusesLabour abuses Probability0.09780.54680.3555 Nationality (Native) Brazilien 0.1701*** -0.2552*** European 0.1736** Social Security(Yes = 1)0.0953*-0.0905* Job characteristics (Multiple employer) Single employer 0.0912* -0.1292*** Specific skills0.0530**-0.0445** General skills-0.0711***0.0585** Demand for particular skills (Yes = 1)-0.1733*** Tasks performed (Cleaning tasks) Children caring tasks -0.0663*** 0.0829* Key of the house(Yes = 1) 0.1153** -0.0947* References (Yes=1)-0.1870***0.1760*** Household (Yes = 1) 0.0585** Gifts (Yes = 1)0.1797***-0.1498*** Observations 559 MARGINAL EFFECTS FROM MULTINOMIAL REGRESSION MODEL

16. DISCUSSION Vulnerability of migrant domestic workers to more severe abuses; Brazilian workers are the most vulnerable category Elderly caregivers are vulnerable to multiple abuses, while children care reduces that likelihood Formal employment relationships appeared to be crucial to protect against labour abuses Gifts seem to be an attempt to provide the sense of kindness, benevolence and caring to domestic workers rather than a substitute of benefits of earnings raises

17. CONCLUDING REMARKS Substandard working conditions and mistreatments reflect structural disadvantages of workers employed in domestic work, namely migrant women and especially informal workers Multinomial logistic regression allowed us to examine risk but also protection factors, i.e. the factors that increase or decrease the vulnerability to abuses Migrants are a heterogeneous group – Brazilian are the most vulnerable group Regulation through social security has a positive impact to reduce vulnerability, especially to reduce labour abuses Trust is crucial in domestic work