V. Eight Enduring Myths

Indonesia's policymakers continue to harbor a number of misconceptions about child domestic workers. Many of the fallacies are the product of a lack of government monitoring and inquiry into child domestic labor or continuing discriminatory attitudes about the role of girls and women in society. These persistent erroneous beliefs are a key contributing factor to the widespread government reluctance to adequately address the issue of the abuse and exploitation faced by child domestic workers, either through the development of new policies, or the enforcement of existing laws. To the extent that many of these false perceptions are also shared by the general public, it emphasizes the need for the government and civil society groups to engage in long-term mass media public awareness raising campaigns. The eight most worrisome and widespread enduring myths are:

Myth 1: Domestic workers are "helpers" not workers

We never [consider] these domestic workers as real workers, [nor] as real laborers.

- Dwi Untoro, official, Jakarta Manpower Agency, Jakarta

Far too many government officials fail to consider domestic workers as genuine workers, instead belittling them by labeling them as "helpers." A senior official in Jakarta's Manpower Agency told us:

We haven't included domestic work in the [definition] of a worker…. They are different in their relationship to work. They stay in their houses. They eat what their master eats. And they go where their master goes.... If you are a worker you have a certain salary, certain rights, and you don't stay in the family. It's quite tricky. Historically, this kind of worker is not paid at all.[45]

The supervisor responsible for monitoring the implementation of labor laws at the Yogyakarta Manpower office explained to Human Rights Watch why she felt child domestic workers received different protections from other workers, such as child workers in a factory: "For the child domestic workers it is more about just helping their employer, not a company, but a person."[46]

Yet, as documented by Human Rights Watch, child domestics carry out activities that are taxing and productive, and deserving of being recognized as work. The child domestics Human Rights Watch interviewed typically worked 14 to 18 hour days, seven days a week, with no holidays, although some were allowed an annual one-week leave at Eid-ul-Fitr. Nearly all of the girls we interviewed were responsible for cleaning the house, laundering the entire household's clothes by hand, ironing the clothes, preparing the family's meals, and taking care of the employer's children.

Most of the girls we spoke with, like this 17-year-old domestic worker, were responsible for child care as part of their daily responsibilities. © 2008 Bede Sheppard/Human Rights Watch

For example, 13-year-old Cinta told us that she wakes up at 5 a.m. each day. After washing, she does the dishes, cleans the rooms, cleans the floor, sweeps, irons, and feeds and dresses her employer's four children, ages four, five, seven, and eight. Cinta goes to sleep at 10 p.m., and only gets one hour of rest each day. "I get very tired," she confessed.[47]

Bethari told us about the job she has had since she was 15. She described herself as "only a baby sitter." However, in addition to being the sole person looking after the four-year-old child of her employer while the parents work from 7:30 a.m. until 6 p.m., she also hand-washes all of the child's clothes, washes the dishes, does any leftover laundry, cleans the house, and cooks two or three meals per week.[48] For these tasks she receives 200,000 rupiah (US$20) per month.

A 14-year-old domestic worker drew this picture to illustrate "All the tasks I do every day." These include sweeping, washing clothes, taking a child to school, and ironing.

The exertion of this work literally makes some girls ill. When she was just 11 years old, Ayu said, she had to quit her first job as a domestic worker because the strain was too much for her. She was responsible for looking after a nine-month-old baby-cooking, feeding and changing the baby, and putting the baby to sleep-and while the baby slept, doing the ironing. "I got sick. I got way too tired," she told Human Rights Watch.[49]

Many child domestic workers also assist their employers outside their homes.  For example, Kartika was also required to work at her employer's small shop: "I would wake up at 4 a.m. and then work until 11:30 a.m. Then I would rest until 1 p.m., and then work again until 5 p.m. Then at 6 p.m. the shop would open and I had to work at the shop until 9 p.m."[50]

As Dian, a 17-year-old domestic worker who started working at age 15, pointed out,

People believe that domestic workers are second class citizens. Some people view us as helpers and not workers. But we are workers. We have a fixed salary. I actually play a big role-without my work at the home during the day, people who live in the house would not be able to do so-called 'formal work' in their offices. And yet government people still say that we are second class citizens![51]

Myth 2: Domestic work cannot be monitored

The problem is that domestic workers work in private homes.

- Nur Asiah, director of the program responsible for overseeing women and children, Ministry of Manpower, Jakarta

 

A circular argument often emerges in the justification of government officials that domestic workers cannot be regulated or protected because they are part of the "informal sector." However, the very definition of "informal" work is simply work that has not been regulated. It is not that governments are unable to regulate because domestic workers are informal labor; instead, it is because governments fail to regulate that domestic workers are informal labor.

By labeling all domestic workers as "informal," officials are abdicating their responsibilities to protect these workers. The label "informal" denigrates and minimizes the value of the work that domestic workers carry out, by implying that the government has no role to play in protecting individuals who engage in such work. This approach ignores the reality that the existence of a large informal labor sector is often the product of failed government policies, poverty, government failures to guarantee access to free and compulsory education, inappropriate and outdated regulation, dysfunctional labor markets, and a lack of political initiatives to find adequate solutions. It also ignores the historical reality of discrimination against women, children, and the poor, and the undervaluation of their labor.

Moreover, it is simply incorrect to suggest that employers of domestic workers are not subject to labor regulations. Although the current regulatory framework is both inadequate and discriminatory, as outlined in Chapter IV there remains at least a basic obligation under the law for employers to provide domestic workers "protection which shall include protection for their welfare, safety, and health, both mental and physical."[52] Although this obligation is particularly vague and lacks clear standards, until the government provides better protections, police and labor inspectors should ensure that employers provide at least these basic standards. Under the 2003 Decree by the Minister of Manpower, it is also a felony to require anyone under the age of 18 to work between 6 p.m. and 6 a.m., or within a locked working place.[53]

Another frequent excuse provided by policymakers for failing to do more to protect child domestic workers is the difficulty in regulating labor conditions within private homes.

Yet the Indonesian government has shown no sign of investigating or piloting possible solutions to this problem, despite various solutions proposed by both domestic and international organizations, and by best practices around the world. For example, employers could be required to register with the local neighborhood association (Rukun Warga and/or Rukun Tentangga) the name and age of each domestic worker employed in their homes, and these neighborhood associations could be authorized to monitor workplace conditions and to promptly report violations to the local Manpower office and the police.[54] Local government social workers could also be empowered to monitor workplace conditions.[55] Joint visits by both a labor inspector and social workers could also be considered. The police could be encouraged to use their powers to carry out investigations, or special civil investigators could be similarly empowered.[56] Inspections can also be prioritized for households with child domestic workers. Former domestic workers may have particular skills in finding exploited child domestic workers-particularly in public spaces such as markets, in parks, or at bus stations at the times of year when child domestic workers generally migrate to cities to find employment-and can also play an important role in designing appropriate approach techniques.[57]

Many girls begin work younger than allowed by Indonesian Law. This girl, who is 13 years old, began working when she was 11 years old. © 2008 Bede Sheppard/Human Rights Watch

Regardless of the exact inspection regime, research conducted by Human Rights Watch around the world indicates that strengthening workers' associations, labor resource centers, children's drop-in centers, and devising accessible complaint mechanisms can play an important role.

One method for receiving complaints from victims that has proved effective in other countries is the establishment of 24-hour hotlines, staffed by trained personnel, who can alert officials to extract children from abusive situations, provide safe shelter, medical treatment, and counseling. A number of hotlines have been established recently in Indonesia for children. However, Human Rights Watch tried calling three of these hotlines at various times of the day over different days with almost no success. The hotline "TeSA129" (Telepon Sahabat Anak; The Friend of the Child Telephone) is run out of the Ministry of Communication and Information, and is supported by the Social Department, the Ministry of Women's Empowerment, PT Telekom Indonesia, Child Helpline International, and PLAN International.[58] The hotline operates in Jakarta, Pontianak, Makassar, and Surabaya. Although their advertising posters and stickers do not indicate this, the line currently operates only 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. on Mondays to Fridays. We made twenty-three calls to TeSA129 and only two of these calls were answered.[59] To the hotline operated by the women and children's unit at the National Police, we made seventeen calls, of which only one was answered.[60] With the child hotline run by the Commission for the Protection of Children in Indonesia (Komisi Perlindungan Anak Indonesia), we called nineteen times and were answered on just two occasions.[61]

The fact that there is much yet to be done by these government agencies to ensure the most basic complaints mechanisms run efficiently is an indication that there are many practical steps that the government could undertake to monitor the treatment of domestic workers. It is not that inspections and monitoring are impossible to do, it is that the government is simply choosing not to prioritize the protection of these young workers.

Myth 3: Employers' ability to hire a domestic worker, even if they cannot afford the minimum wage, is more important than the child domestic worker's rights

If we regulate that domestic workers be paid a minimum wage, their employers who are lower-class factory workers would spend all they earn on their domestic workers.

- Nur Asiah, director for women and children, Ministry of Manpower, Jakarta

Nur Asiah, the director of the program responsible for overseeing women and children in the Ministry of Manpower, told Human Rights Watch that she could not extend equal labor protections to domestic workers and child domestic workers as afforded other workers because it would be too expensive to employers:

The difficulty [in extending existing labor law protections] is because these employers are not just upper- and middle-class people, but also lower-middle-class people. If you use the general labor law, employers would have to pay child domestic workers the minimum wage, and the lower-middle-class employers are also earning a living at the minimum wage…. It's difficult to regulate because these lower-class factory workers couldn't go to work if they did not have domestic workers to look after their children.[62]

Arguments against a minimum wage for child domestic workers because the costs of adhering to these labor standards may be unaffordable to some employers, almost presupposes that the government bears a responsibility to ensure all families can afford domestic help. Rather, the government is obliged to protect all individuals from exploitation and abuse. A private lawyer who works on behalf of a labor agency mediating disputes when employers fail to pay their domestic workers put it bluntly: "If you don't have the money, don't invite people to work in your home."[63]

This labor placement agency uses the fact that its domestic workers do not go home for the Eid-ul-Fitr holiday as a marketing point. © 2008 Bede Sheppard/Human Rights Watch

To the extent that policymakers believe that domestic work or child care is a necessity to enable others to engage in work outside the home then the government needs to consider pursuing alternative policies that do not depend on the exploitation and under payment of child workers. For example, other alternatives might include the creation of accessible, affordable child care options for families, making workplaces more flexible for working parents, or providing for more generous maternity and paternity leave.

Myth 4: Domestic workers do not need written contracts

[Having written contracts] would become a problem.

- Justina Paula Soeyatmi, Yogyakarta City Legislature member, and chair of the Special Committee on Manpower, Yogyakarta

Policymakers are reluctant to encourage written contracts for domestic workers. We spoke with one of the drafters of a proposed labor law in Yogyakarta city, and asked her why the draft law included an article that said that domestic workers "may" have written agreements with their employers, but did not require such contracts. She told us: "Maybe [having written contracts] is fine for housewives with high education, but uneducated housewives might be afraid…. If regulations are too strict, domestic workers might lose their jobs because people would not want to employ them."[64]

Human Rights Watch's research in Indonesia and in other countries indicates that the negotiation and conclusion of written contracts detailing the rights and obligations of both sides can be beneficial to both parties, as the process helps clearly define the relationship in advance and can serve as an important point of reference. This is the standard practice for most formal-sector employment worldwide.

One agent who places child domestic workers told us that he sees considerable benefit in requiring contracts: "Before we required contracts we had lots of problems…. Employers tended to deny that they had promised more money in salary. Now that it is written in a contract there are less problems like this."[65] Although it is true that oral contracts can be just as valid as written contracts under Indonesian law, as a labor law expert explained to us, "When they are written, they are more enforceable because then it's in black and white."[66]

The creation of a standard "model" contract could help alleviate the anxieties over the use of written agreements, and establish a minimum set of acceptable standards.

Two 17-year-old girls and a 22-year-old woman study how to become baby-sitters at an employment agency in Jakarta. © 2008 Bede Sheppard/Human Rights Watch

Seventeen-year-old Lestari was a rare exception in that she has a written contract with her employer. She said she was pleased with the arrangement: "[It specifies] my day off, a menstrual day off, Eid-ul-Fitr [holiday] off, [that I must receive] adequate food, adequate salary-it says 300,000 rupiah ($30) in my contract. It's important because it mentions what my job [responsibilities] are, and the employer also has to agree with what the contract mentions."[67]

Myth 5: Housework is not a nine-to-five job

The thing is, [child domestic workers] stay in the house. And whenever [the employer] needs something, they call her.

- Dwi Untoro, official, Jakarta Manpower Agency, Jakarta

Some government officials contend that housework is inherently a 24-hours-a-day activity, and therefore cannot be constrained to limited working hours. The apathetic attitude displayed by the Jakarta Manpower official in the quote above is particularly concerning given the fact that a 2003 Decree by the Minister of Manpower explicitly bans anyone under age 18 from working between 6 p.m. and 6 a.m., since such work poses "hazards on the health, safety, or moral[s]" of children.[68]

Yet many agents involved in the recruitment and placement of child domestic workers also adopt the attitude that child domestic workers can labor around the clock. One labor placement agent we contacted anonymously in Jakarta, as if we were a potential employer, told us that the standard hours for their domestic workers were from 6 a.m. to 9 or 10 p.m., but that if the employer's child woke up at night and wanted milk, then it was acceptable for the domestic workers to be expected to attend to that.  A second agency told us that after being given a few weeks to settle in, domestic workers could be expected to work from 6 a.m. until 10 p.m., and can occasionally be asked to work as late as 11 p.m. A third agency told us that they do not involve themselves with such matters, and it was an issue to be discussed between the employer and the domestic worker.[69]

In the absence of any enforcement of the 2003 Ministerial Decree which bans children from working between 6 p.m. and 6 a.m., and without any other regulations mandating the maximum number of hours that a domestic worker can be made to work, employers are pushing child domestic workers to be at their beck and call from waking until sleep. Seventeen-year-old Elok shared with us her long daily schedule:

I wake at 5 a.m. and I clean. At around 7 a.m. I cook. Around noon and in the afternoon I sweep the front porch. Then I go back inside and iron. Then in the afternoon I prepare for dinner in the evenings. After 10 p.m. I go to bed. [I get] two hours of rest during the day…. If guests come to the house I work later. From 5 a.m. to 11 p.m.… Two colleagues [of my employer] routinely come around twice a week at night. I prepare them food and drinks.[70]

When we asked some girl domestic workers to draw for us the kind of tasks they have to do every day, they illustrated activities such as ironing, cleaning the floors, laundry, and child care.

Arguments that the nature of domestic work does not lend itself to regulations on working hours and rest days fail to acknowledge the government's obligation to protect domestic workers' rights to just and favorable work, health, and right to rest. No employee can be required to be constantly at the beck and call of his or her employer. If an employer wishes occasional additional work beyond regular hours, like in the case of Elok above when her employer's friends come over to drink late at night, then the employer must compensate the employee appropriately and additionally. If an employer genuinely requires around-the-clock assistance, then a second or third shift should be hired to cover.

Myth 6: A day off is unsafe and unwise

[Child domestic workers] don't know how to use a day off anyway.

- Recruiter and distributor of domestic workers, Jakarta

Since 2004, the Women's Empowerment Ministry has been advocating with the public to grant one day of rest per week for child domestic workers, but has had trouble achieving this recommendation in the absence of binding regulation since child domestic workers still remain under the complete control of their employers.[71] As one recruiter and distributor of child domestic workers in Jakarta told us, most employers are not inclined to give their domestic workers days off, reasoning that it is not standard practice, and since many domestic workers are migrants to the city, they "don't know how to get around"[72] and are thus unable to benefit from a day off. Some employers fear that their domestic worker might become pregnant, and that the employer will be held somehow liable. Some labor placement agencies advertise that their domestic workers do not go home during the Eid-ul Fitr holiday.

Most of the girls we spoke with never got a day of rest. "I didn't get any rest days in three-and-a-half years of work," Wani told us of the job she had from age 13 to 17.[73]

The girls whom we spoke with who were granted days off said they used them for rest or recreation. "Sometimes I get one day off a month and I go visit my aunt in Jakarta," Endah told us.[74] Seventeen-year-old Siti shared, "[If] I get days off, depends on my employer. [Maybe] one day a month. I go out to the zoo. Sometimes I just stay at home…. Just watch TV."[75] When we asked some girl child domestic workers to draw for us the activities that they enjoy during their free time, they sketched us pictures of themselves reading, going for walks, watching television, and singing.

Domestic workers need time off for their own well-being and for the well-being of those in their care. Many children lack the necessary experience, strength, and endurance to fulfill the tasks that they are assigned. Excessive work hours and lack of rest days directly affect the health and growth of children. The strain of this work literally makes some girls ill. A day off for domestic workers is also an issue of safety for employers and their families, as everyone performs better and with more care when given adequate rest. Children also require time to contact and connect with their own families, so as to prevent feelings of isolation and resulting psychological problems.

When we asked some girl domestic workers to draw for us the kind of activities they like to do when they have free time, they illustrated reading, going for walks, praying, listening to music, watching television, and singing karaoke.

One domestic worker recruitment and placement agent, who we telephoned anonymously as if we were interested in hiring a domestic worker, told us that it was acceptable to forbid a domestic worker from leaving the home, and informed us that the agency's contracts stated that domestic workers were not allowed to leave the employer's house without the employer's permission. When we telephoned another agency, this time under the pretence of being a girl interested in looking for a job, we were told that we would be "bound" to the job and unable to leave the house.[76]

One transient vegetable vendor we spoke with told us about one house he visits where the two domestic workers are locked into the house, where "the windows had metal bars installed on them". As a result he has to sell them vegetables through the bars and he told Human Rights Watch that he feared that if anything such as a fire were to happen, "They would just die inside. ... They wouldn't be able to get out."C[77]

Fifteen-year-old Ratu told us how she had to escape from her physically abusive employer:

At 11 p.m., my parents came to the house. But the employer didn't allow my parents to meet me. So my parents stayed outside the house waiting all night…. [The next morning] when I threw the garbage out I saw my mother outside of the house. I was on the second floor, and my mother was near the fence… The employer said "Your parents cannot pick you up until they go to the [employment] agent and get his permission."....  On the fence there's a wall with iron spikes on top, so I went down to the first floor. My mother asked me to jump the fence. My father caught me as I jumped the fence. I had to leave my belongings in the house. I left my clothes, things for prayers, sandals.... There was no other choice. Because I didn't feel comfortable in the house, I was abused, [my employer] was violent, so I had to jump the fence.[78]

Myth 7: This is "ngenger," so the girls are treated like family

I got different treatment. When there was a family gathering and people were eating, the employer ate first, and then I had to feed the children. And then after the children were full, only then did I get to eat.

- Dewi, talking about the job she had from age 15 to 17, Bekasi

Ngenger is a Javanese word that refers to a customary practice in Java whereby a child stays in the house of a distant relative or sometimes someone who is not a relative, but is considered as part of the family. Traditionally, the child would come from a poor family and the receiving family would fund the child's schooling and daily needs. In return, and as a sign of gratitude, the child would do some forms of housework. 

In 2004, Rachmat Sentika, the then-deputy for child protection in the Ministry of Women's Empowerment told Human Rights Watch, "Our [Javanese] culture is ngenger. If [children] work in a house, they are regarded by employers as their own children and are sent to school in return for working in the house…. Sometimes they get no salary because the employer provides them food and accommodation."[79]

On our most recent visit, a number of government officials continued to express a similar attitude that the custom of ngenger was sufficient protection for child domestic workers and relieved government of any urgency in providing better protection from exploitation. For example, the Director for Women and Children in the Ministry of Manpower-who is leading the efforts to draft a new regulation for domestic workers-told us of the treatment child domestic workers usually receive: "Generally they're treated like family."[80]

Similarly, a member of the Yogyakarta City Legislature who is in charge of drafting a new law for the city that covers both child workers and domestic workers rejected the need for better labor protections. As she insisted to Human Rights Watch,

The NGOs are always proposing that we add detail to this [draft] regulation, but in Yogyakarta it is difficult to do this because domestic workers are considered not to be workers, but to be family…. So it can be said that most employers treat domestic workers well.… [And] if there is a violation of the regulation the employers [would] object if they had to deal with the police! Because they are not like workers but part of the family…. We have discussions with women and if there is a regulation that applies [to domestic workers] it will be difficult because they consider domestic workers part of the family.[81]

 

Our research indicates that current practices are a far cry from such romanticized notions.

When we put this proposition to the head of one of the largest domestic worker recruitment and placement agencies in Jakarta, he told us simply, "100 percent of my girls are treated as employees and not as family members."[82] His agency places more than 1,000 individuals into domestic jobs each year and about 80 percent of these placements are women and girls under age 20. He said, "[Whenever] politicians say this it is just their way to isolate the truth and pretend that [exploitation] does not exist, when in reality [domestic workers] are treated like slaves."[83]

This 17-year-old domestic worker is a rare exception in that she is able to attend a few hours of informal schooling one day each week. © 2008 Bede Sheppard/Human Rights Watch

The fact that the relationship between employer and domestic worker now commonly falls outside of the traditional practice of ngenger is also shown by the widespread practice of employers recruiting through commercial recruitment and placement agencies, or reliance on local vendors who draw upon their own personal connections. In this way, any kind of familial or personal connection or affiliation between the employer and the child domestic worker is lost. Instead, the primary concern of employers is the maintenance of their households, not the welfare of their employee.

Moreover, the motivation of an employer who recruits a child rather than an adult is often to find someone who will work for less, who will complain less, who is easier to order around, and who has fewer social connections.[84] These factors are also likely to make the domestic worker more vulnerable to abuse and exploitation and less able to protect herself.[85] Not every child domestic worker suffers to the same degree, but strong laws are needed to protect those at risk of mistreatment.  As in the formal sector, many employees are treated well, but clear rules help prevent those employers who might mistreat their employees from doing so.

One positive sign from our most recent visit was that at least two government officials conceded the fallacy of this argument that the culture of ngenger afforded sufficient protections. On reading the quote made by his predecessor in 2004, the new Deputy Minister for Child Protection burst out in laughter:[86]

[Sure] it was so in our customs. But the progress of the years and the changes in [our] values continue to change until now. The relationship [between domestic worker and employer] is now not because of family but is economic. I send my daughter, but you pay me for my girl, and the income is for the family in the village. This relationship is now economic not family…. The employer [thinks] 'you should work for me' not go to school.[87]

Similarly, as the mayor of Yogyakarta conceded to us: "Now the culture has changed and poor children still work with rich families, but now they are treated strictly as workers but also as second-class citizens."[88]

Myth 8: This is not a big problem

I admit that there are some people who treat their domestic workers bad, but if we calculate the percentage, it's only small.

- Justina Paula Soeyatmi, Yogyakarta City Legislature member, and chair of the Special Committee on Manpower, Yogyakarta

A "child-friendly" room within one of the newly established "women's and children's" police units. © 2008 Bede Sheppard/Human Rights Watch

When we presented individual cases of child domestic workers who had been abused and exploited, an official in the Manpower office in Jakarta dismissed our concerns: "The situation is not very horrific."[89] Other officials, as demonstrated by the quote above, dismissed the scale of the problem as being too limited to deserve government redress.

Such comments by government officials underestimate the number of girls affected by the discriminatory nature of the existing labor laws, which, as described in the next chapter, provide basic labor protections to formal workers, but exclude jobs such as domestic work that are carried out by women and girls. It also ignores the inherently vulnerable position that this form of work-confined within a private house, separated from family and peers, frequently in a strange town, and for little money-places each girl when she engages in domestic work.

Accurately counting hidden workers-particularly when the employment of underage workers is a crime-is notoriously difficult. A survey conducted by the University of Indonesia and the International Program on the Elimination of Child Labor at the International Labor Organization (ILO) in 2002-2003 estimated that there were 2.6 million domestic workers in Indonesia, out of which at least 34 percent, or more than 688,000, were children.[90] In 2007, the Indonesian Central Bureau of Statistics conducted a labor force survey that, while designed to undercount the number of child domestic workers, nonetheless suggested that out of 416,103 live-in domestic workers in Indonesia, more than 79,529 children, or 19 percent of the total, work as live-in domestic workers.[91]