Acceso usuarios
Argentina
Paid domestic work is governed simultaneously by several normative frameworks that have different sources. Traditionally, it has been regulated by what Adelle Blackett defines as the “law of the household workplace,” as well as by state law. Thus, the tension between these two normative frameworks makes effective access to rights uncertain for domestic workers, even those with formal labour contracts. In addition, when digital platforms intervene, their rules also apply. From a sociological perspective, and using the categories forged by historical institutionalism to study dynamics of institutional change, this article aims to understand how different normative systems — formal and informal — come into tension when regulating paid domestic work. It does so by focusing on the formalisation of the labour relationship.
The question confronted here is not why formalisation occurs (or, more often, why it does not), but rather when it occurs (or when employers and domestic workers expect it to occur).
This question appears to be linked to the particular uses and interpretations of three key issues: the trial period established by labour law, the time required to build a relationship of trust according with the “law of the household workplace,” and the “satisfaction guarantee” established by the digital platform. I argue that the overlap between these three competing, albeit co-existing, normative frameworks creates a space of regulatory ambiguity that allows domestic workers, employers, and the digital platform to reinterpret the legal norms and tailor enforcement mechanisms to their own interests.
