Sradda Thapa

Between the constitution not being drafted, the yuppies’ rally against that fact, CK Lal’s observation to their reaction and the response to that observation, there has been little else discussed, on and offline, these past few days in Kathmandu. This includes the recent international scandal to hit most other non-revolution inclined souls across various social networking sites. It seems Dominque Strauss-Kahn who, as of last week, is now known as the former chief of the International Monetary Fund has gotten himself in trouble, again - I might add, to the joy of Nicholas Sarkozy (who has one less contender for the 2012 French election) and the dismay of the Europeans (who by tradition declare the IMF chief while America does the sister-institution, the World Bank).

But, this piece isn´t to speculate his guilt (if it was indeed successful assault attempted rape) or innocence (if the activity was consensual). Instead it is to consider current socio-political issues shaping up in Nepal in light of an opinion piece penned by Jacob Tomsky for The New York Times, titled ‘Behind Closed, Sequentially Numbered Doors’ and published on May 22, 2011.

Tomsky, with his experience in the luxury hospitality business describes the “difficult position” that the 250,000 housekeepers in the United States frequently and unwillingly find themselves in. He details the predicament they often face – “routinely accused by guests of stealing money from nightstands, making international calls from the room phones, rifling through luggage and pocketing jewelry” – that is, in addition to sexual favors, requested or demanded as by Strauss-Kahn to one such 32-year old housekeeper from Guinea.

Tomsky’s words read less like a piece about sexual harassment and more like a piece that reflects the plight of un-numbered kaam garnes that mark the middle-class urban household in Nepal.

My suspicion was further fueled as Tomsky ended his piece by applauding the advantages housekeepers in the Big Apple do enjoy, the grandest probably being membership in the New York Hotel Workers’ Union.

I understand hotel cleaners and household help are two very different professions, but seeing the situation of female housekeepers in luxurious American hotels shed some light on the myriad of domestic workers that sweep, dust, mop and cook for the average urban family, it seemed only appropriate that we take a cue.

Truth is, we have little to zero data on the number and situation of household help. If we did collect more and that too, thorough data to stand as evidence, we would know that abuse is rampant and simultaneously underreported. Furthermore, that such abuse doest not start at sexual harassment.

According to ‘A Study of the Domestic Labor in Nepal’ (found over at www.domesticworkerrights.org), over 40 percent of household helpers in the three sample districts were between 10 and 14 in 2006. Whereas Tomsky was able to confidently claim the number of (documented) housekeepers across America, there is no such reliable data available in Nepal of our domestic workers. Without data, there is little wiggle room to address issues.

Stories as those recently published by Republica, ‘Government Employee Rapes Domestic Help” and ‘Government Mulls Rescuing Domestic Child Workers,’ both by Arjun Poudel, speak volumes regarding the abuse that domestic workers have to put up with.

Stories of overworked, underpaid helpers have yet to make headlines, probably because it is the norm and it contains no shock value.

As middle-class Kathmanduties with more exposure and education than generations prior, we hope more and more families that rely on assistance to run their household treat those assisting with dignity and respect.

And yet, precisely because abusing helpers is the norm and not the anomaly, the thought of a Domestic Workers’ Union appeared every bit reasonable. It shouldn´t take the household owner’s decision to determine the parameters of the helpers’ work and existence.

The demands of the Nepal Independent Domestic Workers Union (NIDWN) baffle the average urban-dweller: Contracts? Minimum wage? Medical assistance? Labor laws? Fixed working hours? Family visits? Holidays and transportation allowance?

The fact that these basics were termed as “demands” seemed absurd – it seems NIDWN only sought basic arrangements. How logical each of the demands seemed to be borderline pathetic – if we sign contracts with employers, set the salary, abide by office hours and get holidays, why shouldn´t domestic workers? It seemed ridiculous that such obvious labor rights had to be demanded by a group. No wonder a union had to be formed.

Of course historical business giants such as Henry Ford vehemently opposed unions. And politicized unions are more occupied with national level politics than they are with the simple business of unions as it were in Nepal (where the objective ought to be to support workers’ rights as a collective body and to regulate unfair expectations of the employer).

Domestic workers can be exploited, just as unions can use their right to exploit the system as well. No individual is less willing to be exploited than to exploit. For the middle class of us, those who rely on the help provided by others, it seems only fair that we give our helpers a proper deal – contract, minimum wage and holidays, to begin with. We don’t need to wait for the constitution, we don’t need to tweet about it, vent about a banda and we really don’t need to wait for the Ministry of Labor to advocate it either.

It isn’t clear if the cleaning lady Strauss-Kahn pounced on resorted to the New York Hotel Workers’ Union assistance, but it is clear that if the minorities that hide behind middle-class walls knew their rights, there would be less abuse—even amidst our faulty social and legal system combined.

Published on: 26 May 2011 | Republica