Forgotten key workers: why migrant domestic carers deserve greater support

The Covid-19 pandemic has drawn attention to the role of key workers in providing essential services. Michael Leiblfinger and Veronika Prieler examine the case of migrant domestic carers, who perform a vital service in many European countries. They argue that while there has been a great deal of discussion about the service live-in carers provide, there has been relatively little done to improve their working conditions

Impact of COVID-19 policy responses on live-in care workers in Austria, Germany, and Switzerland

Context: The measures taken to counter the COVID-19 pandemic restricted the circular migration of live-in care workers between their countries of origin and the elderly persons’ households. Objective: In this comparative policy analysis, the impact of COVID-19 related policy measures for transnationally organised live-in care in Austria, Germany, and Switzerland is investigated. Method: Policy measures and media debates were analysed and inquiries with care workers, representatives of care agencies, unions, and activist groups were carried out between March and June 2020. Findings: In accordance with their institutionalisation of live-in care, Austria, Germany, and Switzerland responded differently to the challenges the pandemic posed to live-in care arrangements. However, all three countries focused on extending care workers’ rotas and re-establishing transnational mobility. These priorities subordinated the interests of care workers to those of care recipients. Furthermore, the measures remained short-term solutions that failed to acknowledge the fundamental flaws and inequalities of a care model that relies primarily on female migrant workers and wage differentials within Europe. Limitations: This policy comparison is based on an in-depth analysis of COVID-19 related policies, supplemented by inquiries among stakeholders with whom research had been done prior to the pandemic. More in-depth interviews are required to further substantiate the findings concerning their perspectives and gain insight into the longer-term effects of the pandemic. Implications: The pandemic has brought the flaws of the live-in care model to the fore. Countries need to rethink their fragile care policies, which build on social inequality and uninhibited transnational mobility

Elf Jahre 24-Stunden-Betreuung in Österreich. Eine Policy- und Regime-Analyse

Um zu zeigen, wie inter- und supranationale sowie nationale Regulative die 24-Stunden-Betreuung prägen und wie diese in das österreichische Gender-, Care-, Migrations- und Arbeits(markt)regime eingebettet ist, wird einerseits der bestehende Forschungsstand zur 24-Stunden-Betreuung sowie zur Wohlfahrtsstaatlichkeit Österreichs mit Blick auf folgende Fragestellungen systematisch rekonstruiert.Eine Zusammenschau von Daten der Wirtschaftskammer Österreich (WKO) und der Sozialversiche-rungsanstalt der gewerblichen Wirtschaft (SVA) ermöglicht es darüber hinaus, die Betreuungskräf-te, Vermittlungsagenturen und Haushalte bzw. Personen, welche die Betreuungsleistungen in An-spruch nehmen, hinsichtlich soziodemografischer Merkmale relativ genau zu charakterisieren

Impact of COVID-19 policy responses on live-in care workers in Austria, Germany, and Switzerland

Context: The measures taken to counter the COVID-19 pandemic restricted the circular migration of live-in care workers between their countries of origin and the elderly persons’ households. Objective: In this comparative policy analysis, the impact of COVID-19 related policy measures for transnationally organised live-in care in Austria, Germany, and Switzerland is investigated. Method: Policy measures and media debates were analysed and inquiries with care workers, representatives of care agencies, unions, and activist groups were carried out between March and June 2020. Findings: In accordance with their institutionalisation of live-in care, Austria, Germany, and Switzerland responded differently to the challenges the pandemic posed to live-in care arrangements. However, all three countries focused on extending care workers’ rotas and re-establishing transnational mobility. These priorities subordinated the interests of care workers to those of care recipients. Furthermore, the measures remained short-term solutions that failed to acknowledge the fundamental flaws and inequalities of a care model that relies primarily on female migrant workers and wage differentials within Europe. Limitations: This policy comparison is based on an in-depth analysis of COVID-19 related policies, supplemented by inquiries among stakeholders with whom research had been done prior to the pandemic. More in-depth interviews are required to further substantiate the findings concerning their perspectives and gain insight into the longer-term effects of the pandemic. Implications: The pandemic has brought the flaws of the live-in care model to the fore. Countries need to rethink their fragile care policies, which build on social inequality and uninhibited transnational mobility

The Promise of Decent Care and the Problem of Poor Working Conditions: Double Movements Around Live-In Care In Austria

Over the last decades, the marketization of live-in care for the elderly in Austria has been accompanied by new forms of regulation and the contestation surrounding this type of care provision. The article analyzes this process as a Polanyian double movement – the movement of a market-driven provision of care and organization of care work, and countermovements seeking protection from its effects – and asks to what extent the provision of decent care and decent work are affected. Drawing on policy and media analyses as well as interviews with representatives of brokering agencies and other stakeholders in the field, we show how live-in care is embedded in the Austrian care regime, how its marketization entails contradictions between decent care and poor working conditions and how care disputes and attempts to regulate the model have emerged

Völlig legal!? Rechtliche Rahmung und Legalitätsnarrative in der 24h-Betreuung in Deutschland, Österreich und der Schweiz

In Deutschland, Österreich und der Schweiz ist in der letzten Dekade ein transnationaler Markt entstanden, auf dem eine wachsende Zahl von Unternehmen mittel- und osteuropäische Carearbeiter_innen für die Rund-um-die-Uhr-Betreuung betagter Menschen rekrutiert. Das aktuelle Modell der sogenannten 24h-Betreuung ist allerdings umstritten. Agenturen sehen sich mit dem Vorwurf unlauterer und ausbeuterischer Geschäftspraktiken konfrontiert, die gesetzliche (Nicht)Regulierung ist Gegenstand medialer und politischer Debatten. Basierend auf Regime- und Webseitenanalysen untersucht dieser Beitrag in ländervergleichender und -übergreifender Perspektive, wie Vermittlungsagenturen auf ihren Webseiten das eigene Angebot legitimatorisch absichern. Dazu analysieren wir die Legalitätsnarrative und setzen sie mit den länderspezifischen Regulativen in Beziehung. Wir zeigen auf, wie die Bezugnahme auf Legalität prekäre Arbeitsbedingungen und ungleiche Machtverhältnisse entnennt und Prekarität als Problem einzelner unseriöser Agenturen (de)thematisiert.Within the last decade, Germany, Austria, and Switzerland have witnessed the formation of transnational markets with a growing number of agencies brokering care workers from Central and Eastern European countries for around-the-clock elderly care. However, the current model of 24-hour care remains contested. Agencies are accused of acting in dishonest and exploitative ways; the sectors (non-)regulation has been the subject of public debates. Our paper uses regime and website analyses to examine how placement agencies legitimize their services. Adopting both transnational and comparative perspectives, we analyze the agencies legality narratives and link them to the existing regulations. We argue that the notion of legality obscures precarious working conditions and power structures and downplays this precarity by making it the problem of a few dishonest agencies.(VLID)348003

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on live-in care workers in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland

The COVID-19 pandemic has massively restricted the circular migration of live-in care workers between their home countries in Central and Eastern Europe and seniors’ households in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. In this report, we share insights into the consequences of travel restrictions and other COVID-19 related measures for transnationally organised live-in care. We show how these three countries respond differently but how, in each case, the measures taken subordinate the interests of care workers to those of care receivers. Furthermore, the measures remain short-term fixes that fail to acknowledge the fundamental flaws and inequalities of a care model that relies primarily on migrant workers and on wage differentials within Europe