Living in the United States as a woman is difficult. Living in the United States as a poor woman of color, on the other hand, is a completely different burdensome situation. Not only are women of color subject to the trifecta of sexism, racism, and classism, but they are also exploited by the government for their labor. In their essay, “Organizing Home Care,” Jennifer Klein and Eileen Boris argue that home care is the government’s method of saving money by taking advantage of poor women of color. As opposed to nursing homes, which are viewed as costly forms of institutionalization, home health care is the preferred option by both clients and the client’s loved ones, who are unable to care for them themselves. Those in need of attention and
…show more content…
The majority of the home care worker population is predominantly comprised of lower-class Latina, Black, and immigrant women who were referred to these jobs by the government to avoid being on “welfare dependency.” However, as Klein and Boris reveal, the women are not earning enough money to live comfortably and thrive. Instead, they are being exploited by the government for their labor by receiving minimal pay and a severe lack of benefits. According to a secondary source, The Gerontologist, which assessed the conditions of home care workers from a census in 2000, the benefits these women being deprived of include “health insurance, paid sick leave and vacations, and worker’s compensation.” Poverty-stricken women of color already experience enough discrimination in the United States, and this abuse of government power only perpetuates the idea that they are inferior to middle-class white women. For example, home care workers are often referred to as “domestic workers” or “housekeepers” rather than “nurses,” which implies that they are maids and servants whose only purpose is to execute menial tasks. In retaliation to this oppression, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) organized a campaign among household workers in …show more content…
Similar to the slaves in the Deep South, women of color are laboring without pay while the government, a present-day slave master, watches with no remorse. Along with the perpetuity of oppression, the concept of “choice” as it is evaluated in the field of Feminist Studies is also alluded to in Klein and Boris’s argument. After reading their essay, some readers may inquire as to why these women don’t quit their job already and search for one that offers better pay. These women don’t have the privilege of choosing between staying or leaving, for policymakers “insist that welfare recipients be pushed into these jobs to end their dependency on the state,” yet the government exacerbates their poverty. As the Report on Quality of Care and Operating Practices of the Home Attendant Program summarizes, these women make less than minimum wage, don’t get compensated for working overtime, and often wait “weeks or even months for wages.” Workers also continue to work excessively without pay because they cannot abandon their clients; they have a moral obligation to look after them. Clients, however, have proven to be the opposite of oblivious to their carer’s struggle as it has been documented that some drew upon their own SSI checks in order to aid them. The
The majority of the home care worker population is predominantly comprised of lower-class Latina, Black, and immigrant women who were referred to these jobs by the government to avoid being on “welfare dependency.” However, as Klein and Boris reveal, the women are not earning enough money to live comfortably and thrive. Instead, they are being exploited by the government for their labor by receiving minimal pay and a severe lack of benefits. According to a secondary source, The Gerontologist, which assessed the conditions of home care workers from a census in 2000, the benefits these women being deprived of include “health insurance, paid sick leave and vacations, and worker’s compensation.” Poverty-stricken women of color already experience enough discrimination in the United States, and this abuse of government power only perpetuates the idea that they are inferior to middle-class white women. For example, home care workers are often referred to as “domestic workers” or “housekeepers” rather than “nurses,” which implies that they are maids and servants whose only purpose is to execute menial tasks. In retaliation to this oppression, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) organized a campaign among household workers in …show more content…
Similar to the slaves in the Deep South, women of color are laboring without pay while the government, a present-day slave master, watches with no remorse. Along with the perpetuity of oppression, the concept of “choice” as it is evaluated in the field of Feminist Studies is also alluded to in Klein and Boris’s argument. After reading their essay, some readers may inquire as to why these women don’t quit their job already and search for one that offers better pay. These women don’t have the privilege of choosing between staying or leaving, for policymakers “insist that welfare recipients be pushed into these jobs to end their dependency on the state,” yet the government exacerbates their poverty. As the Report on Quality of Care and Operating Practices of the Home Attendant Program summarizes, these women make less than minimum wage, don’t get compensated for working overtime, and often wait “weeks or even months for wages.” Workers also continue to work excessively without pay because they cannot abandon their clients; they have a moral obligation to look after them. Clients, however, have proven to be the opposite of oblivious to their carer’s struggle as it has been documented that some drew upon their own SSI checks in order to aid them. The