Three years after enactment, only 1% of domestic workers covered by Domestic Workers Act
By Park Ju-yeon
Published June 23, 2025
Translated by Marilyn Hook
On June 16, 2022, the Domestic Workers Act (Act
on the Employment Improvement of Domestic Workers, etc.) came into effect. This
law requires domestic service companies to directly hire their domestic workers
and enter into contracts with customers to provide services.
The enactment of the law granted legal
protection to domestic workers for the first time, 68 years after the passing
of the Labor Standards Act in 1953. However, the Domestic Workers Act has faced
criticism from the time of its enactment for its clear limitations. This is
because the law does not apply to domestic workers who work through job
placement services like brokerage platforms rather than as employees of
domestic service companies, nor to workers employed by agencies that are not
government-certified. (Related [Korean language] article: Are
labor rights guaranteed only to domestic workers employed by
government-certified companies?)
Three years after the Domestic Workers Act went
into effect, it is clear that, as feared, only 1% of domestic workers are
actually subject to the law.
 |
| Participants in the discussion forum "Three Years of the Domestic Workers Act: Protecting the Rights of All Domestic Workers” pose for a commemorative photo, holding signs demanding stable jobs, the protection of the Labor Standards Act, and wage increases. © Korean Women Workers Association |
On June 16th, International Domestic Workers' Day, a forum titled "Three Years of the Domestic Workers Act: Protecting the Rights of All Domestic Workers" was held at the National Assembly Members' Hall. The participants discussed changes in the working environment for domestic workers over the past three years, their evaluation of the act, and areas for improvement. The forum was cohosted by the Korea Domestic Workers' Association, the Korean Women Workers' Association, the Korean YWCA Federation, the Housework and Care Union, and National Assembly members Lee Su-jin, Kim Joo-young, Jeong Chun-saeng, and Jeong Hye-gyeong.
Out of 300,000 domestic workers, only 3,607
covered by Domestic Workers Act
Cho Hyuk-jin, a researcher at the Korea Labor
Institute, announced the results of its “Survey to Revitalize the
Government-certified Domestic Services Market.” The survey involved 44 of 110
government-certified domestic service providers, along with 122 uncertified
providers. Participants included 265 directly employed domestic managers and
169 domestic workers employed through brokerage services. Five hundred service
users also participated.
According to Mr. Cho, “Since the enactment of
the law, the number of government-certified domestic service providers has
steadily increased, as has the number of domestic workers employed.” He
explained, “As of the end of December 2024, there were 122 government-certified
domestic service providers, employing 3,607 people. In 2022, there were 35
providers, employing 370 people, and in 2023, there were 88 providers,
employing 1,190 people.”
The working conditions of domestic workers subject
to the Domestic Workers Act were "somewhat better" than those of
other domestic workers: "Their average weekly working hours (32.2 hours)
were shorter than those of other domestic workers (36.8 hours), and the average
hourly wage was 12,900 won, slightly higher than that of domestic workers
(12,800 won). Furthermore, the conditions were also more favorable in terms of
the average number of homes visited per week (2.6 for covered workers vs. 4.1
for others) and having a guaranteed break time.”
Access to education and training was also
higher. Mr. Cho explained, "While 95.5% of government-certified domestic
service providers provide education and training to their workers, the rate
among uncertified providers was low at 68.9%."
There were also differences in the rates of
experiencing unfair treatment: "The rate of experiencing unfair treatment
on the job was 19.6% for covered domestic workers and 55% for non-covered
domestic workers." Mr. Cho explained, "Because the Domestic Workers
Act requires there to be a service contract, services provided by
government-certified domestic service companies are relatively clear in scope. In
contrast, with the brokerage system, there seem to be frequent conflicts
between clients and workers regarding the scope of work."
While the direction of change is encouraging,
the problem is that domestic workers working at government-certified domestic
service providers still represent only a tiny fraction of the total number of
domestic workers. "If we calculate the number of domestic workers [whose
work should make them] eligible for the Domestic Workers Act, it would be
300,000 as of 2023," meaning the 3,607 domestic workers actually covered
by the law represent a mere 1% of the total.
Bae Jin-kyung, head of the Korean Women Workers
Association, proposed measures for better establishing the Domestic Workers
Act. The first, she emphasized, is "increasing social insurance
premium support” for government-certified domestic service providers: “that's
the key."
She explained, “Certified companies report that
government subsidies for their employees’ social insurance premiums are helpful
for their operations. However, [this support] is woefully inadequate. It only
helps with the national pension and employment insurance, and it's a temporary
three-year grant. As the three-year period nears its end, certified companies
say they face daunting challenges in maintaining their operations. Furthermore,
elderly housekeepers are requesting support for national health insurance
rather than the national pension system.”
Ms. Bae also pointed out the problem of
"most certified companies being concentrated in the Seoul metropolitan
area," and said a "fact-finding survey to determine the cause"
is necessary. She added that "as the government expands care-related
services, the Ministry of Health and Welfare and the Ministry of Labor should collaborate
as the primary relevant organizations so that [Ministry-of-Labor-]certified companies
receive preferential treatment in the Ministry of Health and Welfare's care
programs [such as when they apply for funding under them], or certifications
should be made mandatory and support programs for domestic services should be
expanded."
Labor Standards Act’s domestic worker exclusion
clause should be abolished
In the discussion, it was argued that not only
should the number of domestic workers covered by the Domestic Workers Act be
increased, but also the Labor Standards Act provision excluding domestic
workers from its scope should be abolished.
Park Gwi-cheon, a professor at Ewha Womans
University Law School, criticized, “The Labor Standards Act, enacted in 1953,
long before industrialization began in earnest in our country, has a single
provision that excludes domestic workers from the scope of application of the
law, and this has served as a strong basis for excluding legal protection for
almost all domestic workers to this day.”
 |
| Table entitled “Exclusion clauses for domestic workers and employment activities within the household under current law” from the presentation by Professor Park Gwi-cheon at the forum. The first column lists the names of the laws, the second column lists the terms each uses for domestic workers, and the third lists the relevant clauses. |
Professor Park explained, “Article 11, Paragraph 1 of the Labor Standards Act stipulates the law’s scope of application, and in a proviso, it stipulates an exclusion: ‘this Act does not apply to servants hired for the employer’s domestic works.’ Not only the Labor Standards Act, but also the Minimum Wage Act, the Act on the Protection of Fixed-Term and Part-Time Employees, and the Equal Employment Opportunity and Work-Family Balance Assistance Act contain provisions excluding domestic workers from their scope.”
Professor Park Gwi-cheon explained that these
laws “do not define what is meant by domestic servants or employment activities
within a household.”
She also said, “When it comes to terms or
concepts related to domestic workers under the current law, in addition to
‘domestic servants’ under the Labor Standards Act, there are also provisions
regarding ‘domestic workers’ and ‘live-in domestic workers’ under the Domestic
Workers Act,” and pointed out, “There is not much difference between [any of] these
groups in the work they perform—cooking, cleaning, childcare, and other care
within a private home—but there are many differences in their legal status.”
Namely, that “less than 1% of all domestic
workers are covered by the Domestic Workers Act, and the majority of domestic
workers are excluded from the protection of basic labor laws; there is a wide
blind spot.”
Professor Park emphasized, “Ultimately, it is
correct to view the complete exclusion from labor laws of domestic work, which
has been overwhelmingly performed by women for such a long time, as gender
discrimination,” and called for change.
Stop delaying adoption of standards of ILO’s
Domestic Workers Convention
Professor Park Gwi-cheon also explained, “During
its 100th general conference on June 16, 2011, the ILO [International Labour
Organization] adopted the ‘Convention concerning decent work for domestic
workers’ (No. 189). It clarified that domestic workers deserve written employment
contracts specifying wages and other working conditions, at least one day off
per week, the guaranteeing of their basic labor rights, and compensation for
workplace injuries.” However, South Korea "supported the adoption of the
convention, but has not yet ratified it."
Recently, there has also been criticism of the
national and local government programs promoting the of hiring of foreign
domestic workers for low wages. (Related [Korean language] article: "You
want me to pass my domestic work off to a foreigner ‘for cheap’ and have
children?")
Professor Park: “Korea, which had supported the
adoption of the Domestic Workers Convention at the ILO General Conference in
2011, has shown itself to be going against the spirit of the convention in
recent years with the introduction of foreign domestic worker programs.”
 |
| On April 2, 2025, a press conference was held in front of Seoul City Hall to call for an end to the city’s Foreign Housekeeping Worker Pilot Program. The banner says the program “discriminates against migrant workers and creates a blind spot for labor laws.” (c) Korean Women Workers Association |
Professor Park pointed out a host of problems one by one: “Despite the growing need for domestic workers amidst various social changes such as the increase in women’s economic activity and the aging population, domestic labor is still undervalued; domestic labor is mainly performed by vulnerable members of society such as women and immigrants, so they are vulnerable to discrimination and human rights violations and are not guaranteed proper working conditions; and it is mainly domestic workers from developing countries who lack formal employment opportunities who are crossing the border to engage in domestic labor.”
She continued, “Though late, at nearly 15 years
after the ILO adopted the Domestic Workers Convention, Korea needs to ratify
the Convention to demonstrate a more responsible stance in the international
community and raise awareness of the value of domestic work and women’s labor.”
She emphasized that, to this end, “domestic laws
need to be improved and reorganized,” and above all, “we must abolish domestic
workers exclusion clauses, which completely exclude the broad category of
workers called ‘domestic workers,’ whose concept is not legally defined and
whose meaning is unclear, from the labor laws.”
In addition, Lee Mi-ae, a research professor at
Jeju National University argued, "We need to go beyond abolishing the
concept of 'domestic servants' that comes from the Japanese colonial period
over a century ago and transition from a legal system centered on productive
labor to an inclusive one centered on care." She added, "Through
this, we can create a society where the rights of all care workers are
guaranteed, regardless of whether they are indigenous or immigrants, and where
the value of care is justly recognized."
*Original article: https://www.ildaro.com/10211
No comments:
Post a Comment