Le processus institutionnel pour la reconnaissance des droits / The institutional process for the recognition of domestic workers' rights in Argentina

POBLETE, LORENA

Montreal

Congreso; CRIMT 2018; 2018

CRIMT (Centre de Recherche Interuniversitaire sur la Mondialisation et le Travail)

This research project is focused on the institutional process for the recognition of domestic workers´ rights initiated in Argentina in 2009 when the international movement for domestic workers´ rights reached their momentum with the creation of a specific ILO Convention for domestic work. This process can be analysed by differentiating two moments, involving various institutions: on the one hand, the making-law process involving the National Congress and, on the other hand, the implementation through compliance and enforcement mechanisms involving the National Tax Agency (which is in charge of collect social contributions), and the implementation through dispute resolution mechanisms involving a special administrative jurisdiction called Domestic Work Tribunal The question that interests me is: How different state institutions, almost at the same time, respond to the demand for the recognition of domestic workers´ rights? Three institutions´ strategies will be analysed here: Congress´s strategies, National Tax Agency´s strategies, and the Tribunal of Domestic Work at Buenos Aires. In 2013, after three years of discussion, the National Congress approved a new Special Regime for domestic work. Since then, the National Tax Agency developed different strategies to promote compliance and to enforce the legislation. In addition, during the last 5 years, the administrative tribunal for domestic workers has introduced some innovations on the procedure for the resolution of labour conflicts.The various strategies developed by these three institutions seem to depend on the way these institutions defined domestic work as a special labour relationship. In all three cases, state agents (legislators, tax agency and Domestic Work Tribunal?s agents) have to face the same dilemma faced by ILO representatives and experts during the standard-setting process. This dilemma was presented by Adelle Blackett (1998, 2011) as the choice between two opposite ways to consider domestic work: (1) as a job like any other or (2) as a job like no other. If domestic work is considered as a job like any other, general employment regime can (or must) apply to this kind of work. At a contrary, if domestic work is considered as a job like no other, legislation must include special provisions for this activity. In that case, a special labour regime maybe the most common type of regulation. However, as Blackett highlighted in her research concerning the ILO Convention 189, the two notions play a role in the standard-setting process. In Argentina?s case, analysing the strategies developed by these institutions, the tension between these two notions remains. However, a new crucial notion plays an important role in the law-making process and during the process of implementation of the new law, which is the definition of the employer as an employer like no other. Domestic workers? employer is another worker, is a family or even another worker woman. The analysis of institutional strategies shows that the two definitions of domestic work are constantly in tension with the definition of the employer.Looking at the three institutions, it seems that the state engaged differently on the recognition of domestic workers´ rights during the last five years. While important regulatory amendments were included in 2013 law to expand labour rights for domestic workers, and innovative enforcement mechanisms have been implemented for the formalization of domestic workers? labour relationships, the mechanism for labour dispute resolution seems to be moving in the opposite direction, encouraging minimal compensation through quick settlements. Meaning, reducing domestic workers´ rights to a convenient amount of money that employers can afford.