All I'm saying is in the general sense, maids are for that. If they have those extra skills, then good for them. In the context of that argument that a maid is hired for that purpose, then maybe they don't need a maid but rather a nanny or caregiver. If the maid agrees to do some of those jobs but aren't really qualified for them, the employer shouldn't expect the same results they would from a professional. Again on the flipside, one being a maid does not exclude them from qualifying as nannies or caregivers. Skills need not be mutually exclusive. I admit I didn't elaborate or clarify it fully but like I said, it was in the context of the previous posts. If one needs to take care of disabled family member, maybe they're looking for a caregiver, not a maid.x9200 wrote:Why do you think so? Just because they are called "maids"? And if you call them FDH? They are what the agreed and claim they are. If they are trained and fine with the nanny or caregiver job and this is clearly explained to them at the moment of hiring then they are also the nannies and the caregivers. You suggest this is some kind of incredible burden they are brutally enforced to accept on their shoulders but the basic fact is that this is just a set of skills the maids themselves emphasise in their resumes. They are just employees and the employees have different skills.nakatago wrote:* Maids are for general household maintenance and help.
* If a household needs to take care of an indisposed family member, a caregiver is needed, not a maid.
* If a child needs to be taken care of, a nanny is needed, not a maid
I think you, and many people before are barking up the wrong tree. The problem is not with the job scope, but whether the maids are treated fairly. They can do just the basic household chores and be treated like a dog. They can be nannies, caregivers, dog walker and be treated with fairness and dignity.
Moreover, I did say maids are entitled to basic human decency.
We're on the same side of the argument here.