IJCC Struggles for recognition and redistribution E Peterson.pdf

International Journal of Care and Caring • vol 2 • no 4 • 459–76 • © Policy Press 2018 Print ISSN 2397-8821 • Online ISSN 2397-883X • https://doi.org/10.1332/239788218X15411481093113 This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons AttributionNonCommercial 4.0 license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits adaptation, alteration, reproduction and distribution for non-commercial use, without further permission provided the original work is attributed. The derivative works do not need to be licensed on the same terms. article Struggles for recognition and redistribution: family carers and domestic workers in Spanish eldercare Delivered by Ingenta IP : 146.158.201.244 On: Tue, 15 Jan 2019 09:16:15 Copyright The Policy Press Elin Peterson, elin.peterson@socarb.su.se Department of Social Work, Stockholm University, Sweden Theories of social justice have identified the revaluation of caregiving work as a global challenge. Still, struggles for recognition are shaped by the specific cultural and institutional contexts in which they emerge. This article explores struggles for the recognition of caregiving work in Spanish eldercare, focusing on advocacy for family carers and for domestic workers. Drawing on interviews, findings reveal that domestic workers’ needs are politicised to a greater extent than family carers’ needs; empowerment and claims for workers’ rights contrast with notions of self-care and mutual support. While the struggles are differentiated, the undervaluation of eldercare is a common theme. key words eldercare • family carers • domestic workers • recognition To cite this article: Petersen, E. (2018) ‘Struggles for recognition and redistribution: family carers and domestic workers in Spanish eldercare’, International Journal of Care and Caring, 2(4): 459–76, DOI: 10.1332/239788218X15411481093113 Introduction Care for older people constitutes culturally and economically undervalued work. Recognition and redistribution are therefore crucial issues for eldercare research. The valuation of care has been approached from theoretical and global perspectives, and improving the status of caregiving work has been considered a key question in the struggle for more just societies (Tronto, 1994; Kittay et al, 2005; Fraser, 2007). At the same time, claims for recognition are articulated in specific struggles and contexts, and the meaning of recognition must therefore be explored in empirical inquiry (Hugemark and Roman, 2007). In this article, I explore the struggles for recognition of caregiving work in the context of Spanish eldercare by comparing and contrasting organised advocacy for family carers and for domestic workers. Care regime research has explored the care dimensions of welfare states and the diverse ways of distributing paid and unpaid, family and non-family, public and private modes of providing care (Anttonen and Sipilä, 1996). Southern European eldercare regimes are familistic, relying on the family, its intergenerational solidarity 459 Delivered by Ingenta IP : 146.158.201.244 On: Tue, 15 Jan 2019 09:16:15 Copyright The Policy Press Elin Peterson and its gender structure to provide help and support (Saraceno and Keck, 2010). A ‘care crisis’ has been linked to the unsustainability of this care model in the context of ageing populations and increasing rates of paid employment among women (Benería, 2008; Ibañez and León, 2014). In Spain, eldercare has been acknowledged as a policy problem. However, social services are still scarce and studies reveal the ongoing overburdening of family carers (Martínez Buján, 2009; Rogero García, 2010; Rodríguez and Marbán, 2013). At the same time, new forms of care have emerged. A transition from a ‘family’ to a ‘migrant in the family’ model of care has been discerned in the care regimes of Southern Europe (Bettio et al, 2006). Numerous studies have examined how care regimes intersect with migration policies and employment models in shaping and consolidating the migrant care model(s) (eg Simonazzi, 2009; Williams, 2012; Da Roit and Weicht, 2013; Ibañez and León, 2014). Studies within this field have exposed the vulnerable positions of domestic workers, related to their migrant status and informal work arrangements (Martínez Buján, 2009; Williams, 2012; Hellgren, 2015). Migrant domestic workers’ lived experiences and worker– employer relations have also been explored (Trandafyllidou and Marchetti, 2015; Vega Solís, 2015). In Spain, a legal reform has reframed domestic work towards a ‘real’ job, improving rights and social protection (León, 2013). Nevertheless, the law fails to acknowledge domestic workers caring for older dependent people. This article builds on research on the family care regime and the migrant care model, emphasising the vulnerability of family carers and domestic workers in the current care regime (Martínez Buján 2009; Vega Solís, 2015). Whereas research on the migrant care model tends to overlook the vulnerable position of family carers, research on informal family care sometimes downplays the role of domestic workers in eldercare. Yet, the low status and valuation of caregiving work affect both family carers and domestic workers, and so this article aims to contribute to bridging the two fields of care research. The eldercare performed by family carers and domestic workers in Spain has been shown to be similar in the diversity of tasks and the 24/7 care function (Rogero and Martín-Coppola, 2010). While family care tends to be represented as a ‘labour of love’, the care performed by domestic workers tends to be represented in terms of ‘affection’, not skill (Bettio et al, 2006; Martínez Buján, 2009; Agrela Romero, 2012). The study also seeks to add to the body of international research on struggles for recognition related to different fields of care work and domestic work (Meagher 2000; MacDonald and Merrill, 2002; Dahl, 2010). By focusing on struggles for recognition, the study aims to contribute to filling the gap between: (1) macroperspectives concentrating on care regimes, public policy and the overall distribution of care; and (2) micro-perspectives exploring care–employment relations, individual experiences and strategies. Studies on advocacy for domestic workers in Spain have revealed transformative feminist discourses (Ruiz, 2015), as well as resignation to harsh economic realities (Hellgren, 2015). Less attention has been paid to advocacy for family carers’ interests (Serrano et al, 2013). Care research has not yet explored advocacy in favour of family carers and of domestic workers from a comparative perspective. Drawing on interview data, I explore the question: how are the struggles for recognition – and redistribution – for these two groups articulated? 460 Struggles for recognition and redistribution Delivered by Ingenta IP : 146.158.201.244 On: Tue, 15 Jan 2019 09:16:15 Copyright The Policy Press Eldercare in Spain: policies and practices In Spain, eldercare entered the national political agenda in 2006 with the adoption of the Dependent Care Act. Turning care into a policy problem, the Act involved a shift away from the construction of care for older people as almost exclusively a family matter. Within the dependent care system, the ‘level of dependency’ is evaluated through a needs assessment; after that, the kind of support to be provided is established (ie social services, service cheques/vouchers or the care allowance). The policy on the care allowance for family care introduced the right to social security for carers, guaranteeing access to social rights and pensions. However, the Act was adopted without earmarked funding, and its implementation varies greatly across regions (Martínez Buján, 2011; Rodríguez and Marbán, 2013). The all-encompassing austerity measures carried out by the Conservative government in 2012 affected the system harshly. One of these measures cancelled the social security for family carers. At the same time, contrary to the intentions of the law, the use of the care allowance has proliferated instead of social services. Eldercare performed by domestic workers is ignored in the Dependent Care Act but is regulated in legislation on household employment. Paid domestic work has historically been positioned in policy as ‘different’ from other kinds of work. During the Franco regime, domestic workers were excluded from labour law. The Special Regime for Domestic Workers of 1985 gave domestic workers worker status but provided far less social protection than the general social security system (León, 2010, 2013). The International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention 189 concerning Decent Work for Domestic Workers spurred the adoption of Spain’s Household Employment Act in 2011. The Act improved the rights of domestic workers by, for example, introducing minimum wages, sickness benefits from day four and a 40-hour working week. Some improvements for live-in workers were also made: specifying a minimum of 12 hours of rest between workdays; paid ‘presence time’; and the limitation of payments in kind to 30% of the salary. Social protection of domestic workers remains weak and domestic workers are not entitled to unemployment benefits. The law does not recognise care for older dependent people in the definition of tasks and makes no distinction between care and other services. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) health data report that 8.5% of the population aged 65 years and over receive formal long-term care services in Spain, compared to the OECD average of 13%. Long-term care expenditure as a share of gross domestic product (GDP) is 0.8%, while the OECD average is more than twice that share. Home care predominates over residential care; the share of long-term care recipients aged 65 years and older who receive care at home is 79% (OECD, 2017). However, the great majority of older adults who need help to perform daily activities receive informal care only. Consequently, in Spain, as in other Southern European countries, informal carers dedicate more hours to caring tasks than informal carers in other countries; over 50% of informal carers provide more than 20 hours of care weekly (OECD, 2011). Co-residential care is frequent and often associated with more burdensome care. Among the population aged 50 years and over, 11% provide personal care to an older co-resident (Rodrigues et al, 2012). Care is unequally distributed within the family, which means that primary carers shoulder heavy caring duties while other family members provide no or few hours of care (Rodrigues et al, 2012). Most informal carers are women, aged 50 461 Delivered by Ingenta IP : 146.158.201.244 On: Tue, 15 Jan 2019 09:16:15 Copyright The Policy Press Elin Peterson years and over, unemployed, and with a low level of educational qualifications and low socio-economic status. Significant negative consequences of caring have been reported, including psychological, social, economic and health-related effects, and these effects are disproportionately experienced by women (Rogero García, 2010; Calvente et al, 2011). In a European perspective, the Southern European countries are characterised by a weak role for formal and professionalised long-term care services and an unmanaged/ less regulated migration regime. In this context, the direct employment of migrant workers by private households is more frequent (Rodrigues et al, 2012). In Spain, over half-a-million workers belong to the domestic service sector and 95% of these workers are women. Household employment has become an entry route to the informal labour market for migrants, and among migrant women, domestic work is the largest occupation (Ibañez and León, 2014). Migrant care workers often have their origins in South America or Morocco (Rodrigues et al, 2012), and many reside in Spain without residence or work permits (Agrela Romero, 2012). Given the importance of the informal economy, statistics on employment in the domestic service sector are deficient, and it is not possible to differentiate care-related work from other household tasks. However, a national survey has indicated that domestic workers constitute 10.4% of primary carers (INE, cited in Martínez Buján, 2011). While the great majority of informal carers are family members, employing a domestic worker (to live in or out) is a strategy available for families with sufficient economic resources. The payment of these services is private, out of their own pocket. The care allowance is formally granted for family care but it can, in practice, be used to pay for informal care services. Analytical concepts This study focuses on eldercare, defined as the help needed when older persons are no longer able to manage daily activities by themselves (Waerness, 1984). Hence, care includes both personal care and domestic tasks. Ungerson’s (1990) concept of caregiving work is also useful as it encompasses both paid and unpaid care. Caregiving work for older people is generally attributed low economic and cultural value, and is caught up in the intersecting power relations of gender, class and race/ethnicity. Highlighting this, numerous scholars have argued that valorising care is a necessary component of any just society (Tronto, 1994; Fraser, 2000, 2007; Williams, 2001; MacDonald and Merrill, 2002; Kittay et al, 2005). In her theory of social justice, Nancy Fraser (2000, 2007) defines recognition in terms of equal status; claims for recognition seek to establish subordinated groups as ‘full partners in social life’ (Fraser, 2000: 113). In Fraser’s account, institutional recognition stems from laws, governmental policies and practices. She argues that whereas some categories are constituted as normative, others are constructed as inferior, excluded or simply invisible. Fraser argues that cultural and economic injustices are always imbricated with each other and her theory encompasses both recognition and redistribution. She argues that feminist struggles for redistribution cannot succeed unless they are joined with struggles for cultural change aimed at revaluing caregiving work. Likewise, in view of gross economic inequalities, recognition claims are liable to the charge of being ‘merely symbolic’ if they are not linked to questions of redistribution (Fraser, 2007: 32–3). My empirical analysis 462 Delivered by Ingenta IP : 146.158.201.244 On: Tue, 15 Jan 2019 09:16:15 Copyright The Policy Press Struggles for recognition and redistribution draws upon Fraser’s work, examining recognition struggles and redistributive claims, as well as their interconnections. I also draw on MacDonald and Merrill’s (2002) research on care workers’ advocacy. They contend that Fraser’s definition of recognition is too narrow in its focus on institutional recognition. Intersubjective recognition needs to be included, meaning attention to the experience of recognition, ‘the subject–subject forms of mutuality that contribute to self-esteem and identity’ (MacDonald and Merrill, 2002: 72). In this vein, I also build on Meagher’s (2000) research on paid domestic work as she points at the analytical usefulness of teasing out the different levels involved in recognition struggles. Meagher distinguishes between the interpersonal level (intersubjective recognition) and the societal level (institutional recognition). My analysis also reveals and discusses an additional level: how certain claims are framed as individual and internal processes of recognising one’s owns needs (intra-subjective recognition). Recognition struggles are struggles over meaning. Moreover, struggles for recognition are ongoing processes contingent upon specific cultural and institutional settings (Dahl, 2010). The struggles involve a process of the interpretation and politicisation of needs (Fraser, 1989; Meagher, 2000). In this vein, the actors involved challenge prevailing definitions of work and care, as well as the current distribution of care between the state, family and market. Methods The qualitative analysis presented here is based on 17 semi-structured interviews conducted in 2014 with a total of 24 representatives of advocacy organisations. Using a purposive selection, organisations were chosen to capture the diversity of scale, target group and standpoint. Three interviews with academic experts and guidance from informants were helpful in the selection of organisations. Within the selected organisations, key informants who, by virtue of their organisational positions, were involved in public debates on eldercare and had an overview of the work of the organisation, as well as its strategies, problems and reform proposals, were included. The interviews were all conducted by the author in Spanish. To complement and contextualise the interviews, written material was also gathered from the different organisations. While the focus was organisations that advocate the interests of family carers and/ or domestic workers, many also promote the interests of older dependent people, and these were not excluded. The organisations promoting the interests of family carers include a family carers’ association, an Alzheimer’s association, a social workers’ association, two trade unions, two women’s organisations and a foundation for personal autonomy and dignity. The organisations promoting the interests of domestic workers encompass two trade unions, a domestic workers’ association, a migrant domestic workers’ association, a non-governmental organisation (NGO) for international development, a women’s organisation and an association for dignified work and care. The organisations span from national, well-established large organisations to smaller, locally rooted associations. The women’s organisations selected adhere to the feminist/women’s movement. The trade unions are the two main trade unions in Spain: Workers’ Commissions (CCOO) and General Workers’ Union (UGT). In the case of the trade unions, I interviewed both national and local (Madrid area) representatives. Likewise, I interviewed representatives of both the national Spanish 463 Delivered by Ingenta IP : 146.158.201.244 On: Tue, 15 Jan 2019 09:16:15 Copyright The Policy Press Elin Peterson Alzheimer Confederation (CEAFA) and a local (Madrid area) Alzheimer’s association (AFA). I generally interviewed the chair or director of the organisation, or the person(s) responsible for the issues at stake. While the majority of the informants were professionals employed by the organisations, some were engaged on an unpaid basis motivated by their own experience as family carers or domestic workers. I informed prospective informants about the aims of the study in writing before the interviews and each individual informant gave their consent to participate. As advocates, they were generally very eager to share their perspectives, wishing to contribute to the visibility of eldercare issues and to promote the work of their respective organisations. As selected informants had gained privileged insights into the problems and dilemmas of eldercare in Spain through their advocacy, work and/or care experiences, their accounts can contribute to an understanding of current challenges regarding caregiving work for older people. The interview questions were structured along three themes: (1) characteristics and activities of the organisation; (2) perspectives on public policy; and (3) perceptions regarding caregiving work for older people. The duration of the interviews was approximately 1.5 hours. The interviews have been fully transcribed, coded and thematically analysed and compared (Bogner et al, 2009). For the purposes of this article, I did a theoretically informed analysis of the interviews, drawing on the analytical concepts of recognition and redistribution. These were used as sensitising concepts that guided the reading, organisation and analysis of the data. Family carers and struggles for recognition The interviews show that care for older people is strongly associated with 24/7 caregiving work. The informants accentuated the burdensome nature of family carers’ responsibilities, linking these to social, psychological and economic problems. Some underlined that the situation is particularly difficult when it comes to care for people with Alzheimer’s due to the stigma that accompanies this disease. Overall, carers were described as ‘trapped in care’. In Spain, one informant argued, many people are “condemned to do it” due to the lack of alternatives, that is, publicly financed social services. Carers were also represented as trapped in care, referring to the effects of being a primary carer. As one informant put it, with reference to her own experience: “you give up your own life to care for someone”. It was emphasised that the care burden and the carers’ isolation in the home frequently leads to depression and burnout. Some also pointed out that the carer’s burdensome load results in inadequate care. That carers are predominantly women was mentioned in all of the interviews. This was, in most cases, explained with reference to cultural norms constructing care as women’s work. The Dependent Care Act was generally perceived of as an important step, advancing support for older dependent people and making care a visible political problem. However, the informants were concerned about the shortcomings of the law and, in particular, the failures of implementation. The problems of implementation were related to a wide range of issues, such as the lack of funding, lack of adequate and flexible care services, and long administrative processes. While it was underlined that the support provided does not correspond to individual care needs, many informants were even more concerned about the number of older dependent people who never enter the system. The austerity measures were largely censured, particularly 464 Struggles for recognition and redistribution the scarcity of social services, the increase in user fees and the cancellation of social security for carers. Delivered by Ingenta IP : 146.158.201.244 On: Tue, 15 Jan 2019 09:16:15 Copyright The Policy Press Recognition A variety of organisations promote the interests of family carers as part of their wider claims making surrounding issues of eldercare. There is no national organisation specifically representing family carers, but local carers’ associations are developing. The question of who has a legitimate voice to define family carers’ interests is articulated not as a controversial one, but rather as a non-issue. The informants all emphasised the invisibility of family carers and their caregiving work. Consequently, they agreed on the need to make caregiving work for older people more visible in society. As unpaid work, its low economic valuation in society was also accentuated. Nevertheless, the interviews reveal different ways of articulating the struggle for recognition and contrasting perceptions of carers’ needs. Whether or not an organisation had direct engagement with carers to support them in their everyday life concerns tended to shape the perspective it adopted. An organisation that has made engagement with carers a central activity is the Alzheimer’s association, with over 300 local associations (AFAs). One AFA representative emphasised that when carers get in contact with the association, it is often the first time that someone listens to them and attends to their needs. Carers meet professionals who evaluate their caring load and help them develop coping strategies. The carers also get information about existing legal and social resources. The carers who join the association are offered psychological support and can attend training and workshops on issues such as Alzheimer’s and other dementias, managing the caring burden, treatments, person-centred care, communication, movements, physiotherapy, and so on. Additionally, carers are encouraged to engage actively as voluntary workers and thereby help other carers. It was emphasised that the families constitute the core of the organisation. Carers’ vulnerability was emphasised and the organisation’s activities were framed as ‘caring about the carer’. When speaking about carers’ needs, intersubjective recognition comes to the fore. Recognition was represented as being seen, listened to and understood, particularly in the relationship with other carers. Mutual support groups were defined as a key activity and sharing experiences among carers was described as crucial. That nobody understands a carer like another carer was a central narrative. For example, one representative reported: “You share experiences because you meet people who have gone through the same process as you are going through at the moment, and they give you the tools to manage the disease, to know the disease, to care for yourself, and it is a space in which you understand each other. It is enriching, it helps us and it is a way to get relief, to say ‘Today this happened to me’ – and I cry because it is a space where I vent all my sorrows.” (Voluntary worker, AFA, local Alzheimer’s association)1 The preceding quote refers to the Alzheimer’s association’s formally established support groups, but similar ideas emerge in different settings. The chair of a small family carers’ association also emphasised recognition in terms of mutual understanding 465 Delivered by Ingenta IP : 146.158.201.244 On: Tue, 15 Jan 2019 09:16:15 Copyright The Policy Press Elin Peterson among carers. In her account, this was embodied in the weekly lunch with the members of the association. She reported: “The Thursday lunch is sacred. It may seem silly, but it is not. It is like group therapy”. Getting some time out to meet with other carers was depicted as indispensable to being able to “continue the struggle” of everyday life. Hence, coming together with other carers is represented as contributing to a sense of relief, belonging and meaning. The informants connected the recognition of carers’ needs with the concept of ‘self-care’, which stresses that carers need to take care of themselves. The discourse on self-care can be understood as endorsing intra-subjective recognition, focusing on internal processes where the individual carer becomes aware of and responds to her/ his own needs. Some informants articulated self-care as crucial not only for the sake of the carer’s own well-being, but also for the care recipient. For example, both local and national representatives of the Alzheimer’s association stressed that carers need knowledge and training to be able to provide adequate care. However, carers also have to learn to care for themselves and to know their limits. As such, they framed self-care as part of good care. Other informants were vigilant about the way in which the concept of self-care is transmitted to carers. In contrast to the aforementioned representatives, these belonged to organisations that link caregiving work with unequal gender relations. The foundation Pilares for Personal Autonomy and Dignity and the Women’s Foundation both organise activities with family carers. The representatives of these organisations contended that promoting self-care may suggest that the carer should go on ‘caring as usual’, with no alteration in the care burden. They underlined the risk of enhancing the expectations on the female family carer and reinforcing the sense of obligation to care. To counter this, self-care must focus on the ‘quality of life’ of the carer: “We say: ‘Self-care is care for oneself, right?’ That is, focusing on the wellbeing of the person not so much on the obligation to care because we think that often these programmes [support programmes for carers] have an additional burden for women. Apart from caring as always, they have to learn to be psychologists, nurses, cleaners, physiotherapists.” (Technical advisor, the Women’s Foundation) In these accounts, the meaning of recognition goes well beyond intra-subjective recognition. Carers’ needs were linked to strategies to enable change in the carers’ life situations. The activities were described as helping carers to develop their capacity to defend their interests. Knowledge about rights, benefits and social services (mainly the rights of the care recipient) was considered vital, together with the capacity to claim rights vis-a-vis public authorities. Additionally, carers need information to be able to make considered decisions about their role as (primary) carers and to eventually plan for an exit. The support programme offered by the Women’s Foundation also included assistance with job search and applications, the promotion of ‘co-responsibility’ between men and women, and training in the negotiation of care responsibilities within the family. Despite agreeing that carers’ lack of visibility in society was a problem, not all informants articulated recognition at the societal level as a central concern. Still, there was convergence on one point: family carers have a right to social security, which 466 Struggles for recognition and redistribution had been abolished in the name of austerity. In view of the current legal position of family carers, none of the informants interpreted the care allowance as institutional recognition. Given that care for older family members is unpaid, some informants considered the care allowance as a welcome ‘family support’ for those lucky enough to receive it. However, the majority pointed out that, with the care allowance, the carer continues providing intensive care for very little money. The women’s organisations were particularly critical, framing the care allowance as misrecognition – ‘institutionalising’ women’s precarious caregiving work for older people. While all informants confirmed that care for older dependent people is ‘hard work’, only representatives of women’s organisations spoke about family carers as ‘workers’. Delivered by Ingenta IP : 146.158.201.244 On: Tue, 15 Jan 2019 09:16:15 Copyright The Policy Press Redistribution While the women’s organisations tended to emphasise both recognition and redistribution, redistribution claims predominated in the interviews with representatives of the trade unions, the social workers’ association and the CEAFA. Strategic advocacy was assumed to be linked to redistribution claims, whereas recognition claims were downplayed, and activities engaging carers were not central activities. Claims for redistribution implied advocacy for a transformation of the care model. Redistribution claims were framed as a question of redistributing care responsibilities and resources in society, from unpaid family care to publicly financed social care services. Eldercare was articulated as a public issue, not a private matter, hence the strong defence of the Dependent Care Act and a public system of social care services. Sufficient and stable funding to implement the law was considered vital. Redistribution was framed as the change that family carers ‘really’ need because it is publicly financed social services, such as home care, day-care centres and nursing homes, that relieve their burden. At the same time, the professionalisation of care was represented as a vital and strategic issue. The informants perceived the professionalisation of care as a solution to different persistent social problems: unemployment, on the one hand, and the ageing population, on the other. To generate qualified and quality jobs in the formal care sector was thus considered a priority. It was argued that an increase in social services should be seen as an ‘investment’, not a ‘cost’. This way of framing the issue can be seen as a strategy to counter the discourse on austerity that legitimises cutbacks in social services. A discourse on universalism and rights was called upon to legitimise the claims for redistribution. The informants stressed that the right to receive care must include all citizens who need care, and services must be affordable, flexible and cover the actual needs. The Dependent Care Act introduced a universal right in terms of eligibility but, in practice, many older people who need care are excluded and the intensity of services is inadequate. Consequently, citizens have not come to perceive the law in terms of rights. A representative of a trade union described the strengthening of the rights discourse as a key challenge: “If the right was really conceived and understood, if we, the public administration, social agents, citizens, all of us really, assumed this as right and not a grant, then we would advance enormously” (head of Department of Social Policy and Equality, trade union CCOO, Madrid section). The informants admitted that claims for economic redistribution face great obstacles in the context of severe austerity measures. Meanwhile, carers need urgent support in 467 Elin Peterson Delivered by Ingenta IP : 146.158.201.244 On: Tue, 15 Jan 2019 09:16:15 Copyright The Policy Press their everyday lives. The head of CEAFA underlined that, in this context, the local Alzheimer’s associations fill some of the gaps in the welfare provision as they work to support (some) people with Alzheimer’s and their carers. This, he acknowledged, presents a dilemma. Practical engagement with carers requires time and effort. This means less engagement in strategic work, such as articulation of political claims for institutional change and redistribution. In conclusion, local organisations engaging with carers and supporting them in their everyday lives tended to emphasise the recognition of carers and carers’ needs. Redistribution claims became central in the organisations that work at the national level and focus primarily on strategic claims making. Informants adopting a feminist discourse on caregiving work, stressed the importance of both recognition and redistribution, and highlighted change at the societal level. These accounts contrast with the narratives that accentuated self-care, individual coping strategies and mutual support among carers. Domestic workers and struggles for recognition The representatives of organisations advocating the rights of domestic workers spoke about domestic workers as underpaid and overworked. They described the working conditions in the domestic service sector as precarious and exploitative. For example, it was stressed that, in many cases, domestic workers are paid less than the minimum wage and that, at the same time, they do unpaid overtime. The informants also highlighted the general negative effects of the economic crisis on wages and working conditions. One informant, who worked as a domestic worker herself, exclaimed: “those who are above us are in a precarious situation, so imagine how we are doing”. Paid domestic work was represented as the last option, performed by people who find no alternatives, mainly migrant women. The informants converged in connecting the figure of the migrant live-in domestic worker with eldercare. Live-in domestic workers are sought particularly for care work with dependent older people who need care and surveillance 24/7. Some stressed that there are families who leave the whole care burden to the domestic worker, and that live-in workers cannot have a “life of their own”. Sleep deprivation comes from attending to the needs of the older person at nighttime, and yet live-in domestic workers are not paid for night work. The salary can even be reduced on the basis that housing is included. Several of the informants also accentuated the disproportionate responsibility delegated to domestic workers who care for people with diseases such as Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s. The Household Employment Act 2011 was considered an important step in advancing domestic workers’ rights. The informants emphasised that they had been active in promoting a change in this direction, and the trade union representatives underlined that they had taken an official part in the initiation and negotiation of the reform. At the same time, the informants criticised the remaining gap in social and labour-related rights between domestic workers and other categories of workers. Moreover, it was strongly emphasised that the law has not adequately been implemented and enforced. The modification carried out shortly after the adoption of the Act was described as a reversal. Some informants underlined that the care allowance for family care is misused as some families use the money to hire migrant domestic workers for informal eldercare. 468 Struggles for recognition and redistribution Delivered by Ingenta IP : 146.158.201.244 On: Tue, 15 Jan 2019 09:16:15 Copyright The Policy Press Recognition In contrast to family carers, the question of who has a legitimate voice to speak for domestic workers is contested. The organisations involved in the advocacy for domestic workers’ rights are diverse and they all strive to represent the ‘voice’ of domestic workers. Several of the informants mentioned tensions and conflicts but, at the same time, also highlighted the attempts to go beyond ‘old’ divisions, forge alliances and establish common strategies. The interviews reveal common ideas and claims for recognition but also some tensions in relation to caregiving work. The informants all framed their advocacy in terms of a struggle for the recognition of domestic workers as workers. Institutional recognition comes to the fore, as the objective is equal rights by law. Additionally, the informants converged in the call for the effective implementation of current legislation, inspections and increased oversight of domestic service agencies. The notion of decent work was central and the ILO Convention on Decent Work for Domestic Workers was a key reference. The informants agreed on the importance of the ratification of the Convention as a symbolic advance and to impede reversal in this matter. The Convention was also widely used to legitimise the struggle for domestic workers’ rights. Legal rights were accentuated but a variety of strategies were considered necessary to construct domestic work as ‘real work’. For example, consciousness-raising was mentioned as a way to change the perception of domestic work from a family relation to a labour relation. One trade union representative emphasised that the work should be mediated through public employment agencies. Another trade union representative argued in favour of domestic service companies to allow for collective agreements. All in all, the challenge was framed as turning domestic workers into ‘real’ workers: “All [the policy measures] that mean equalising, normalising, putting on the same level, are positive because they turn the workers, these female domestic workers, into workers” (former chair, Forum of Feminist Politics). The informants all framed the struggle for domestic workers’ rights as a gender issue. The representative of the Forum of Feminist Politics emphasised that domestic workers’ rights constitute a very “heartfelt” claim for the feminist movement because there is a lot of awareness that “if this sector was not occupied by women, and they did not perform tasks in the home, things would have been different”. While female domestic workers’ visibility in society was a general aspiration, one informant saw a risk of overemphasising this, thereby reproducing existing gender norms that position domestic work as women’s duty. Some informants mentioned an increase in the share of domestic workers who are male but this was interpreted not as a shift towards equality, but as a sign of the harsh economic realities facing migrants. All informants stressed workers’ rights but there were differences in how their organisations approach care. For example, information material on domestic workers’ rights elaborated by the trade union UGT displays images associated with household tasks, particularly cleaning, featuring gloves, cleaning products, brooms and so on. In the interview, though, the representative of this trade union stressed that domestic workers are filling the care gap. The representation of domestic work in the information material can be understood as the trade union’s official approach on what domestic work should be. As a contrast, the information sheets and campaigns of a domestic worker association (ATE-ELE) are illustrated with images of workers taking care of older people and people with disabilities. Specific attention is paid to 469 Delivered by Ingenta IP : 146.158.201.244 On: Tue, 15 Jan 2019 09:16:15 Copyright The Policy Press Elin Peterson the situation of live-in workers who care for older people. Claims that concern this vulnerable group of workers include calls for the limitation of the working week to 40 hours, the legal recognition of night work and the prohibition of reducing the salary for housing. Live-in domestic workers are hence framed as ‘regular’ workers. Another approach is taken by the association Path of Care, which advocates ‘dignified work and care’. The association underlines the link between decent working conditions and dignified care. The association’s activities are oriented towards matching persons who need care with migrant workers, helping them to establish a work contract respecting the needs of both parties, and doing follow-ups to ensure decent work and adequate care. While employers must respect the rights, salary and working conditions established by the association, the workers receive some training in caregiving work for older people. Care is articulated as a relationship of mutual vulnerability, promoting intersubjective recognition between the carer and care recipient. The representative of the organisation stressed this as a strategy of resistance in the absence of rights and redistribution. One strategy concerning the revaluation of caregiving work mentioned in several interviews was the establishment of different categories of household employment. Care for older dependent people should be recognised as a specific category. Accordingly, workers who perform ‘care for dependent older people’ and ‘night work’ (ie constant care) should be paid a higher salary than other domestic workers. Different organisations have been engaged in the elaboration and diffusion of tables of recommended wages. The idea is to promote higher status and the recognition of care as skilled work in the interpersonal relations between workers and employers, as well as in society as a whole. The assumption of the interconnectedness of economic value and cultural status underpins the proposal. At the same time, some informants questioned the feasibility of this strategy. For example, one informant doubted that the revaluation of caregiving work is plausible as long as basic labour rights are still pending. “Of course you can say that you should not get the same salary for ironing shirts as you get for caring for a person with Alzheimer’s. That is, we have already said how it should be, we elaborated a law proposal which we still have at the office today. It distinguishes between tasks and so on. We do not think it is a good thing that the Spanish law does not recognise qualifications, or degrees of knowledge, nothing. Everything is the same pay, the same conditions, but I mean, we are here to struggle for this, to recognise categories and so on. What happens is that our fight now is not there because we cannot believe in it.” (Co-founder, ATE-ELE, domestic workers’ association) Change is definitively not expected to come from above. In this vein, many organisations mentioned that they offer training and workshops with a focus on empowerment. For example, a migrant domestic workers’ association offered workshops aimed at informing domestic workers about the Household Employment Act and migration laws, as well as at capacitating workers to claim rights and negotiate with employers. At the same time, the representative of this organisation emphasised that the struggle is political: “we go for political influence because this is a political problem” (chair, SEDOAC, migrant domestic workers’ association). Hence, street 470 Struggles for recognition and redistribution protests, gatherings and meetings with politicians were described as central activities. In a similar vein, the representative of an NGO for international development emphasised that empowerment means generating social participation and leadership among female migrant domestic workers. Hence, the strategy was articulated as working for change through consciousness-raising, collective struggle, activism and grass-roots engagements. A representative of the organisation rejected strategies focused on ‘helping’ and on ‘employability’. Generating leadership, the aim was to encourage agency. In the long run, institutional and societal change was envisaged. Delivered by Ingenta IP : 146.158.201.244 On: Tue, 15 Jan 2019 09:16:15 Copyright The Policy Press Redistribution Redistribution claims encompass demands for more resources to enforce the legislation on household employment. Nonetheless, advocates ultimately rejected the migrant care model as unsustainable. Informants argued that domestic workers should not care for older dependent people because their caregiving work is not recognised in the law. Additionally, many domestic workers do not have adequate qualifications; hence, the demands of the work are unreasonable. What is more, domestic workers who care for older people largely lack decent working conditions and basic labour-related rights. The informants expressed scepticism about the prospects of a professionalisation of paid domestic work. Improvement was sometimes associated with individual mobility, going from live-in to live-out worker and then leaving the sector. Moreover, some informants pointed out that a substantial improvement of the working conditions of migrant domestic workers would actually make the migrant care model economically unsustainable. When it comes to the most infirm older people, live-in workers provide 24/7 care. The informants pointed out that in order to do this work in decent conditions, at least three workers would be required in shifts each day. Most households would not be able to pay for such care in the home, and the eldercare system would not assume the cost of having a domestic worker available in the home at all hours. From this perspective, the redistribution claims promoted a shift from migrant care to publicly financed care services in the long run. The fact that care provided by migrant domestic workers is the ‘cheapest’ form of care was referred to as an obstacle to change. It is not in the interests of politicians and policymakers to raise these issues given that the priority is to keep costs down, not least in times of austerity. To contest their silence, the informants highlighted the struggle to spur political debate to keep care for older people and domestic workers’ rights on the agenda. Some pointed to the connection between the exploitation of domestic workers and insufficient or inadequate care. The representative of the domestic workers’ organisation ATE-ELE argued that the way to promote change is to continuously tell stories about the conditions of domestic workers who provide care because these stories also tell us about the situation of older dependent people receiving care. Thereby, she hoped, this care model will “break down some day”. In sum, all the informants considered advocacy a gender matter and a struggle for workers’ rights. Cultural and economic injustices were perceived as interconnected; hence, recognition and redistribution claims were generally articulated as reinforcing each other. While all agreed on the importance of reframing domestic work towards ‘real’ work, some tensions emerged in the narratives regarding the care dimension of domestic work, affecting the claims articulated. Focusing on migrant women, 471 Elin Peterson some organisations also articulated a discourse on empowerment in their struggle for societal and institutional change. The table presented below summarises key themes found in the interviews, related to the framing of problems, recognition and redistribution. The next section discusses the findings and compares the advocacy for family carers and for domestic workers. Delivered by Ingenta IP : 146.158.201.244 On: Tue, 15 Jan 2019 09:16:15 Copyright The Policy Press Table 1: Overview: framing problems, recognition and redistribution Eldercare Family carers Domestic workers Framing problems Weak implementation of the Dependent Care Act: lack of economic resources and social services Family carers: vulnerability, 24/7 care, burnout Cultural injustice: caregiving work for older people is invisible work, undervalued and constructed as women’s duty Economic injustice: unpaid work, lack of social protection and pension Weak implementation of the Household Employment Act: rules on wages and working conditions not enforced Live-in domestic workers: vulnerability, 24/7 care, burnout Cultural injustice: invisible work, undervalued, constructed as women’s work and performed by migrants Economic injustice: low wages, lack of/ deficient social protection Recognition Framed as: visibility of carers and caregiving work; recognition of carers’ needs Individual level: self-care Interpersonal level: mutual support among caregivers; capacity to negotiate care with family members; capacity to defend one’s interests vis-a-vis public authorities Societal level: visibility of family carers and caregiving work for older people in society; social security for carers Framed as: recognition as ‘real’ workers; recognition of caregiving work Individual level: empowerment Interpersonal level: capacity to defend one’s rights and negotiate with employers; mutual recognition of carers and care recipients; collective empowerment through mobilisation and action Societal level: equal workers’ rights; cultural/legal/economic recognition of caregiving work Redistribution Redistribution of resources: more resources to the public system of social services Redistribution of care: from unpaid family care to social care services Legitimising norms: universalism; rights of dependent older people; professionalisation Redistribution of resources: more resources to enforce the law; higher salary for caregiving work; more resources to public eldercare system Redistribution of care: from migrant care to social care services Legitimising norms: equal rights; decent work for dignified care; sustainability Comparison and conclusions This article has explored struggles for recognition in the context of Spanish eldercare, focusing on organised advocacy for family carers and for domestic workers. The comparison reveals both similarities and differences in the way in which these struggles are articulated by advocates for the two groups. The respondents’ accounts show similarities in the framing of problems: the deficient implementation of policies; the low cultural value of caregiving work; invisibility; vulnerability; burdensome care loads; and (most often) the gendered nature of the work. They emphasise the economic injustice of care being unpaid or underpaid work. Analogies can be found in the informants’ visions of a more just and sustainable care model, emphasising 472 Delivered by Ingenta IP : 146.158.201.244 On: Tue, 15 Jan 2019 09:16:15 Copyright The Policy Press Struggles for recognition and redistribution universal rights and social services. The undervaluation of care is perceived as an obstacle to change, explaining the lack of resources and political will to transform the eldercare system. The interviews also reveal differences in the articulation of recognition. Struggles for recognition involve a process of the ‘politicisation of needs’ (Fraser, 1989; Meagher, 2000), and carers’ needs are interpreted in different ways by different actors. Needs are politicised to a greater degree in the discourse on domestic work, which emphasises the political nature of the struggle, rights, empowerment and agency. The informants’ accounts emphasise activities promoting social and legal change through collective action, refraining from a focus on ‘helping’. The respondents converge in the framing of domestic work as ‘real’ work and in the emphasis on institutional recognition and equal rights. Additionally, advocacy is framed as a gender matter, and recognition and redistribution claims reinforce each other. In contrast, family carers’ needs are less politicised. The discourse on self-care, mutual support and coping strategies attends more to the individual and interpersonal levels of recognition rather than to the societal level. The weak mobilisation of family carers themselves for political claims making explains why a discourse on ‘helping’ carers prevails and ‘empowerment’ is absent. Nevertheless, the interviews also reveal divisions in the interpretation of family carers’ needs, and gender is a dividing line. Those informants who draw on feminist discourses emphasise change at the societal level and connect recognition with claims for redistribution. The findings can be understood in relation to family carers’ and domestic workers’ different positions in public policy. For family carers, recognition implies recognition as carers, whereas the advocacy for domestic workers focuses primarily on recognition as workers. With a legal framework that denies family carers’ worker status, the claim for recognition of family carers as workers has generally not been perceived as feasible. The advocacy for domestic workers is historically connected with a policy that has positioned domestic work as ‘different’. While worker status most likely facilitates the politicisation of needs, the law overlooks domestic workers as carers. Family carers and domestic workers performing eldercare can definitely be perceived as both carers and workers, but their different positions shape claims making. Limitations of the study and future research Limitations to this study are recognised. It is possible that the inclusion of a wider selection of advocacy organisations would have revealed other perspectives on recognition and redistribution. Further, this qualitative study is not able to evaluate the relative importance and influence of the organisations included. Additionally, the framing of the study, which focuses on issues of recognition and redistribution, may not have captured all the issues considered important by the advocacy organisations. Indeed, the findings point to the need for policymakers to recognise the multiple voices involved in advocacy in favour of different groups of caregivers and care workers. Accordingly, future studies could extend the analysis by exploring the opportunities and challenges that advocacy organisations face as they seek to shape the political agenda. Finally, comparisons across different care fields and national contexts could shed new light on strategies and claims making for care workers, paid and unpaid. 473 Elin Peterson Funding This research was carried out within the framework of an International Postdoctoral Research Fellowship, granted by Stockholm University and located at the Department of Social Work. Conflict of interest statement The author declares that there is no conflict of interest. Delivered by Ingenta IP : 146.158.201.244 On: Tue, 15 Jan 2019 09:16:15 Copyright The Policy Press Acknowledgements I wish to express my gratitude to the participants for sharing their experiences and perspectives with me. I also wish to thank the anonymous reviewers of the journal for useful comments and, particularly, Gabrielle Meagher for helpful comments on various versions of the article. Note 1. The quotes have all been translated by the author from Spanish to English. References Agrela Romero, B. (2012) Towards a model of externalisation and denationalisation of care? The role of female migrant care workers for dependent older people in Spain, European Journal of Social Work, 15(1): 45–61. Anttonen, A. and Sipilä, J. (1996) European social care services: is it possible to identify models?, Journal of European Social Policy, 6(2): 87–100. Benería, L. (2008) The crisis of care, international migration and public policy, Feminist Economics, 4: 1–21. Bettio, F., Simonazzi, A. and Villa, P. (2006) Change in care regimes and female migration: the ‘care drain’ in the Mediterranean, Journal of European Social Policy, 16(3): 271–85. Bogner, A., Littig, B. and Menz, W. (2009) Interviewing experts, New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Calvente, M.G., Del Río Lozano, M. and Marcos, J.M. (2011) Desigualdades de género en el deterioro de la salud como consecuencia del cuidado informal en España [Gender inequalities in deteriorating health as a consequence of informal care in Spain], Gaceta Sanitaria, 25: 100–7. Dahl, H.M. (2010) An old map of state feminism and an insufficient recognition of care, Nordic Journal of Women’s Studies, 18(3): 152–66. Da Roit, B. and Weicht, B. (2013) Migrant care work and care, migration and employment regimes: a fuzzy-set analysis, Journal of European Social Policy, 23(5): 469–86. Fraser, N. (1989) Unruly practices: Power, discourse and gender in contemporary social theory, Cambridge: Polity Press. Fraser, N. (2000) Rethinking recognition, New Left Review, 3: 107–20. Fraser, N. (2007) Feminist politics in the age of recognition: a two-dimensional approach to gender justice, Studies in Social Justice, 1(1): 23–35. Hellgren, Z. (2015) Markets, regimes, and the role of stakeholders: explaining precariousness of migrant domestic/care workers in different institutional frameworks, Social Politics, 22(2): 220–41. 474 Delivered by Ingenta IP : 146.158.201.244 On: Tue, 15 Jan 2019 09:16:15 Copyright The Policy Press Struggles for recognition and redistribution Hugemark, A. and Roman, C. (2007) Diversity and divisions in the Swedish disability movement: disability, gender, and social justice, Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 9(1): 26–45. Ibañez, Z. and León, M. (2014) Resisting crisis at what cost? Migrant care workers in private households, in B. Anderson and I. Shutes (eds) Migration and care labour. Theory, policy and politics, Houndmills and Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp 110–29. Kittay, E.F., Jennings, B. and Wasunna, A.A. (2005) Dependency, difference and the global ethic of longterm care, Journal of Political Philosophy, 13: 443–69. León, M. (2010) Migration and care work in Spain: the domestic sector revisited, Social Policy & Society, 9(3): 409–18. León, M. (2013) A real job? Regulating household work: the case of Spain, European Journal of Women’s Studies, 2(2): 170–88. MacDonald, C.M. and Merrill, D.A. (2002) ‘It shouldn’t be a trade’: recognition and redistribution in care work advocacy, Hypatia, 17(2): 67–83. Martínez Buján R. (2009) The entry of female immigrants into personal home care services in Spain, in H. Fassman, M. Haller and D. Lane (eds) Migration and mobility in Europe. Trends, patterns and control, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp 161–90. Martínez Buján, R. (2011) La reorganización de los cuidados familiares en un contexto de migración internacional [Reorganisation of family care in the context of international migration], Cuadernos de relaciones laborales, 29(1): 93–123. Meagher, G. (2000) A struggle for recognition: work life reform in the domestic service industry, Economic and Industrial Democracy, 21: 9–37. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) (2011) Health at a glance 2011: OECD indicators, Paris: OECD Publishing, http://dx.doi. org/10.1787/health_glance-2011-en OECD (2017) Health at a glance 2017: OECD indicators, Paris: OECD Publishing, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/health_glance-2017-en Rodrigues, R., Huber, M. and Lamura, G. (2012) Facts and figures on healthy ageing and long-term care, Vienna: European Centre for Social Welfare Policy and Research. Rodríguez, G. and Marbán, V. (2013) Long-term care in Spain: between family care tradition and the public recognition of social risk, in C. Ranci and E. Pavolini (eds) Reforms in long term care policies in Europe, New York, NY: Springer, pp 201–19. Rogero, J. and Martín-Coppola, E. (2010) Un estudio exploratorio del cuidado provisto por inmigrantes [An exploratory study of care provided by immigrants], Index de Enfermería, 19(1): 29–33. Rogero García, J. (2010) Los tiempos del cuidado. El impacto de la dependencia de los mayores en la vida cotidiana de sus cuidadores [Care time. The impact of older people’s dependency on carers’ everyday life], Madrid: IMSERSO. Ruiz, S. (2015) Power and representation: gender challenges at work, Revista Española de Ciencia Política, 39: 195–220. Saraceno, C. and Keck, W. (2010) Can we identify intergenerational policy regimes in Europe?, European Societies, 12(5): 675–96. Serrano, A., Artiaga, A. and Davila, M.C. (2013) Crisis de cuidados, ley de dependencia y confusión semántica [Care crisis, the Dependent Care Act and semantic confusion], Revista Internacional de Sociología, 71(3): 669–94. 475 Delivered by Ingenta IP : 146.158.201.244 On: Tue, 15 Jan 2019 09:16:15 Copyright The Policy Press Elin Peterson Simonazzi, A. (2009) Care regimes and national employment models, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 33: 21132. Triandafyllidou, A. and Marchetti, S. (2015) Employers, agencies and immigration: Paying for care, Farnham: Ashgate. Tronto, J. (1994) Moral boundaries: A political argument for an ethic of care, New York, NY: Routledge. Ungerson, C. (1990) Gender and caring: Work and welfare in Britain and Scandinavia, New York, NY: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Vega Solís, C. (2015) Dilemmas of paid home-care for the elderly in Spain: daughters, elderly and domestic employees, in A. Triandafyllidou and S. Marchetti (eds) Employers, agencies and immigration: Paying for care, Farnham: Ashgate, pp 73–93. Waerness, K. (1984) The rationality of caring, Economic and Industrial Democracy, 5: 185–211. Williams, F. (2001) In and beyond New Labour: towards a new political ethics of care, Critical Social Policy, 21(4): 467–93. Williams, F. (2012) Converging variations in migrant care work in Europe, Journal of European Social Policy, 22(4): 363–76. 476