Skip to content
Sign up free
News

Why I Don’t Support The Domestic Workers’ Bill of Rights

Why I Don’t Support The Domestic Workers’ Bill of Rights

By Raul Carranza

3-minute read

Credit: scdd.ca.gov

Why I Don’t Support The Domestic Workers Bill of Rights

Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco) has introduced and passed AB-241, which writes a “Domestic Workers' Bill of Rights” into law. This is Ammiano's second try at such a bill, which attempts to solve the problem of low wages and unfavorable working conditions.

According to the bill:

“Domestic workers usually work alone, behind closed doors, and out of the public eye, leaving them isolated, vulnerable to abuse and exploitation by some employers, and unable to advocate collectively for better working conditions. This bill recognizes that many personal attendants have positive working relationships with their employers""However, it must also be recognized that there are other situations where domestic workers are verbally and physically abused or sexually assaulted, forced to sleep in conditions unfit for human habitation, and stripped of their privacy and dignity.”

A recent report titled “Home Economics: The Invisible and Unregulated World of Domestic Work” and published by the National Domestic Workers Alliance and the Center for Urban Development at the University of Illinois cites some statistics on their working conditions.

“Low pay is a systemic problem in the domestic work industry. 23 percent of workers surveyed are paid below the state minimum wage. 70 percent are paid less than $13 an hour.”

The previous version of the bill, AB-889, was ultimately vetoed by Governor Brown after citing concerns over the potential impact it could have on the disabled. His veto message included the following question:

“What will be the economic and human impact on the disabled or elderly person and their family of requiring overtime, rest and meal periods for attendants who provide 24 hour care? What would be the additional costs and what is the financial capacity of those taking care of loved ones in the last years of life? Will it increase costs to the point of forcing people out of their homes and into licensed institutions?”

I myself am disabled and require domestic services. I receive them under a state program called In-Home Support Services (IHSS). It allows me to hire anyone I want (provided they can pass a background check) at $9.50/hour for about 100 hours a month.

I currently employ my mother, but a few years ago I hired a girl from Chicago. She moved to California and lived with me in the dormitories at UCLA. It was thanks to her that I was able to do so.

The original bill applied to the IHSS program, but this version exempts it. Still, it's important to understand the reality for a lot of people who hire domestic workers.

Disability Rights of California (DRC)*, who opposes the bill, put out the following statement,

“Californians with disabilities, including seniors, are among the poorest people in the state... 19.2% live on less than the Federal Poverty Level. 28.6% have from 100% to 199% of the FPL. 17.4% have from 200-299% of the FPL. 34.8% have at least 300% of the FPL.”

For the majority of disabled Californians, a simple bill like this could severely hamper their ability to live independently. Even the smallest wage increase could mean the difference between living independently or living in an institution, which would be even more expensive for taxpayers. Still, there's no denying that there's a very real problem.

One solution might to expand IHSS eligibility and raise providers' wages. The program is already considered to be cost effective. A 2010 study concluded that if California simply transitioned one third of nursing home residents back to the community, the state would save almost 300 million dollars.

However, that idea might have trouble gaining traction considering the $2.7 million organizations who support the bill spent to have it pass.

*DRC is currently representing me in an unrelated matter.

Tags: News

Adhere to the IVN etiquette

By posting a comment, you agree to adhere to our etiquette rules: No partisan attacks, no personal attacks, substantiate your sources, no self-promotion.

Get IVN’s Free Weekly Newsletter:Get IVN’s Free Newsletter

Get IVN’s Free Weekly Newsletter:Get IVN’s Free Newsletter

Nonpartisan Issues. Diverse Perspectives.

Check your inbox and click the link to confirm.

Republish this article

Republishing guidelines

Republish IVN articles for free. Independent Voter News articles may be republished online or in print under a Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 4.0 license, on these terms:

  1. Credit the author and IVN. Keep the byline ("By Author Name, Independent Voter News") and the attribution note at the end, which links to the original.
  2. Keep the meaning. You may update time and place references and apply your house style. You may trim for length, as long as the cuts don't change the meaning or misrepresent the author. Keep the headline. Mark any additions as your own (for example "Additional reporting by ...").
  3. Translations are welcome. Translate faithfully, add "Translated from English by [your outlet]", and tell us at editor@ivn.us.
  4. Keep the links, including the link to the original article.
  5. Keep the tracking image. The HTML includes a 1-pixel image that counts readers on your page. It collects no personal information.
  6. Photos and illustrations. Images credited to IVN may be used with this article only. Images credited to others (AP, Getty, Unsplash, Wikimedia and so on) stay under their owners' terms. Secure the rights or switch "Include images" off.
  7. Don't sell it. You can't sell our articles or sell ads specifically against them. Your normal site advertising is fine.
  8. No implied endorsement. Don't suggest that IVN or the author endorses you, your candidates or your causes, or that donations to you support IVN.
  9. Keep labels. Opinion or analysis pieces keep that label.
  10. Point search engines to the original. Set the canonical URL of your copy to the original IVN article (the HTML we give you includes the tag).
  11. No bulk or automated republishing, and don't submit our articles to aggregators (Apple News, Google News, MSN) as your own.
  12. Corrections and removals. Update your copy when we correct it, and remove it promptly if we ask. We'll contact you at the email you give us.
  13. Questions or print republication: editor@ivn.us.

IVN staff: fill in who you're inviting above, then create the invite.

Preparing the article

Why I Don’t Support The Domestic Workers’ Bill of Rights

Choose a format
  • HTML
  • Email HTML
  • Markdown
  • Formatted (.docx)
  • Plain text
  • WordPress blocks
  • PDF
Choose a platform

Photos credited to others need their owners' permission.

To for

Republishing somewhere else? Questions? editor@ivn.us