A reader writes to me about the ethics of employing domestic servants when living abroad:
I spent several years working in Africa and faced this issue. I now have good friends on long term appointment in Malawi and have been chatting with them about it as well, so we’re looking for some outside advice — especially from an economist and some-time resident of an African country. What are the economic pros/cons of Americans/Europeans hiring domestic help and from your experience/perspective cultural implications of doing so or not? FYI – this particular couple has some pretty strong ideological biases of their own against hiring such help.
My first reaction: there are down sides to hiring help?
In my experience, the local job options are nasty, brutish and short. The chance to work indoors, at relatively light labor (cleaning, washing, guarding) is highly sought after. There is little stigma associated with household work (at least relative to other unskilled labor). The bias against hiring help seems to be peculiarly Western. Why is that? Perhaps because the wage paid to domestic servants in the U.S. and Europe is often below the average unskilled wage. Not so in many poorer countries.
What’s more, in most places I have worked, the wealthy (especially Westerners) are expected to hire help, principally as a means to share wealth. To not hire help is at best odd and at worst improper. Help often become part of the family circle, and employers may help them with children’s school fees, emergency loans, and health problems.
In Uganda, the woman who cleaned our house/office worked for Jeannie or me on and off for nine years. She is a friend that we visit when in town, and we’ve helped with her father’s funeral expenses and legal fees for her land. Our gardener was our neighbor, as he wanted a little extra work in his retirement, as well as some land to till. They would be the last, I think, to call such relationships unethical.
Paradoxically, it is when foreigners employ skilled labor we may need to be most concerned. Skills are the scarcer resource. Generous NGO and research project salaries give the educated and talented the incentive to work in the social sector rather than the productive one. That may or may not be the ideal allocation of resources, especially when these bright and educated people are employed as UN drivers rather than social workers or business persons. I am not terribly worried about this problem, however, except in extreme cases, such post-war zones.
Skilled or unskilled, I think the key consideration is how you treat your employees. If as chattel, squeezed for every penny, shame on you. If congenially and generously, I fail to see the problem.
Are there contrary opinions?
5 Responses
I have been living in Malawi for a year and a half, and employ a housekeeper, gardener, and two guards. The rational part of me goes through the same reasoning the Chris does, and I am relatively generous with my staff (interest-free loans, etc).
The part of my that grew up on South Carolina, though, has always been uneasy with having black staff. Employment is by no means slavery, but what remains of the aristocracy in South Carolina continues to employ black staff, in my opinion to maintain an image they see as proper.
My other concerns are with lifestyle. I wonder how children of long-term expatriate workers see the local population after having them as staff/personal drivers for so long. Several development workers I know are a little too used to be waited upon.
Anyway, it is perfectly rational, and I do it, but irrationally is still makes cringe from time to time.
Good post Chris and good discussion.
I think the issue of ‘crowding out’ is the strongest argument against hiring help, particularly if you are hiring somebody who could be “doing more” because of their background as skilled labor. BUT that argument is susceptible to charges of limiting individual choice: I think it’s a safe assumption that the decision on where to work is based on rational decision making where one weighs costs and benefits. If one works as a gardener but is trained as accountant, he/she has made a decision, and probably reassesses regularly, that the decision of working as a gardener for an expat is “better†for him (maybe financially, or in terms of flexibility, or job security?) than finding employment as an accountant. But, as you say Chris, the potential downside to employing him could be that he may be of more “productive” use to the economy as a whole if he were working as an accountant somewhere. Should we limit his choice by saying that he can’t work as a gardener because he needs to sacrifice what he feels is best for him for “the greater good of the economy.” I don’t think so. On the individual level, I think you should offer that choice in the short term and in the long term, figure out how to incentivize skilled labor to work in skilled labor employment.
I have mixed feelings about Chris’ answer. First, being a Brazilian and now working in Mozambique, I’ve relied on domestic servants for most of my live, and have usually thought in a similar vein to Chris. However, when I met my now ex-wife, she challenged my beliefs. She was also born in Brazil, but her family never employed domestic servants. Why? Well, their reasoning was that one has to clean one’s own dirt, and that it was unethical, from a Kantian not an utilitarian point of view, to use someone’s else work to clean the dirt one had made. While we were married, we hired servants but once a month, to clean our windows or something of this sort. Secondly, culture matters, but I don’t know whether one should give up to one’s ethical beliefs in accordance to the context. I guess this discussion is similar to that one questioning labour standards in the developing world and so on, whether one should buy products made by people in worse conditions than those one finds acceptable. In both cases, workers accept what they’re offered (and are happy with it) because there seems to be nothing better. It’s a typical sour grapes’ case. In the Western world, workers (and employers) know they can get better jobs, and feel angry when working as domestic servants.
Ok, that’s a lawyer’s answer.
I agree with you and Ally. When working in developing countries I have regularly had to rely on household staff, especially when I had young children. But even without children, the local system simply demands is – e.g., the window-cleaners at my current Hong Kong apartment come when I am out working, but my Filipino helper is home. Also, one cannot entertain without staff in many places.
I pay well above average, respect my employee’s free time, and hfeel good about it.
It does takes a while to get used to the lack of privacy that live-in staff implies.
– Like Ally, I have found that being TOO generous and kind can backfire on occasion, as your employees may take you for a wimp. Unless a close relationship has already been established, one should be generous within the local parameters, not go way beyond them.
Firstly Chris…I’m a fan. I really look forward to reading your blog. So thanks for posting.
On this particular point, I agree with you. I think people should look at it as a way of providing dignified employment to people who really need it. Most of the “help” want to be employed and it gives them pride, rather than taking charity. The point is really treating them with dignity and being there when they need you. Its not what job you give them, but how you treat them.
Finally a warning to the good people who do employ help. Draw your boundaries early on and be firm. Don’t let them take advantage of your goodness…kindness is also seen as weakness (I say this from personal experience).