As a consequence of the lockdown measures imposed by the Belgian government to fight against COVID‐19, migrant live‐in elderly carers had to choose between safeguarding their job — at the detriment of their personal freedom, their health and their working conditions — and safeguarding their freedom but losing their job — at the detriment of their economic survival and that of their families. This article explores this dilemma from an intersectionality perspective. In order to understand their experience in times of COVID‐19 and their response to this dilemma, I analyse their position as women, as migrants, as elderly care workers, as family breadwinners and as ‘quasi‐family members’ in the families of their employer — which correspond to five interlocking systems of oppression.

No abstract

PurposeThe objective is to explore how the professionalisation of care jobs is constructed in the public and private sectors and to discuss whether the instruments used by public and private care providers contribute to solve the ambiguities linked to this type of work and which are the consequences for caregivers.Design/methodology/approachThis paper compares the way in which the professionalisation of home care services for elderly people is achieved in the public and private sectors in the region of Brussels. The findings are based on the analysis of interviews with professional actors working in the care sector in Brussels.FindingsThe analysis shows that there is no agreement over the best way of professionalising home care services for the elderly and that the efforts made by public and private providers are profoundly different.Originality/valueThe divergencies are not only the result of the strict institutional framework to which public care providers are bound, in opposition to the relative freedom of the private sector, but they also derive from a different understanding of care work.

In light of recent developments that have occurred in the domestic sector in Europe and the debate on the externalisation of domestic and care activities, this article explores the impact of the gender regime on paid domestic work. The gender regime is defined here as the combination of two dimensions: gender equality outcomes and the ‘gender contract’. The aim is to investigate whether the gender regime can contribute to explaining cross-national similarities and differences, in terms of the size of the domestic sector, its workforce composition—with a focus on the proportion of women and migrants—and its working conditions. The article shows the results of quantitative analyses conducted at the European level, which include the construction of a typology of gender regimes, based on selected indicators, and a descriptive comparative analysis of the domestic sector at national level, based on data from the 2015 European Union Labour Force Survey (EU-LFS). The findings suggest that the use of this typology of gender regimes can be a useful tool to explain cross-European differences in the domestic sector, but only regarding the size of the sector and the feminisation of the workforce. Concerning the proportion of migrants and working conditions in the domestic sector, no clear pattern emerges that can explain cross-national differences based on this typology.

No abstract