In 2011, the International Labour Conference (ILC), which in fact is the international parliament on labour, will decide whether domestic work will be covered by a new International Labour Organisation (ILO) Convention or a Recommendation, or both. Whatever be the form of the new instrument, its adoption will mean international recognition of domestic work as a real and genuine job. It will be difficult to predict what kind of instrument will be adopted, but one can easily predict that most trade unions and governments will be in favour of adopting a Convention.

The distinction between a Convention and a Recommendation is an important one. If a Convention is adopted by a country, it will be open for ratification. Once countries ratify a Convention, they must ensure that its provisions are implemented at the national level. This is an obligation deriving from international law.

In addition, if a Convention is adopted, for which a majority of two-thirds of the votes cast at the ILC is required, certain obligations under the ILO supervisory machinery will be put into motion. First, ratifying countries have an obligation to report on the application of the Convention. These reports are sent by the government but trade unions and employers` organisations have a right to send comments about the implementation of the Convention as well. This is a very powerful tool for social partners; each can inform the ILO about the true character of implementation, assuming that governments always tend to give a rosy picture of the application of ratified Conventions.

Ratified Conventions also provide opportunities to complain with the ILO when necessary. Governments can file complaints against each other if both countries have ratified the same Convention. This is based on Article 26 of the ILO Constitution. This procedure is rarely used because usually governments do not like accusing each other. Equally, social partners do have a right to file a so-called representation against governments. This is based on Article 24 of the ILO Constitution. This procedure is frequently used, and also allows social partners to complain against foreign governments. For clarity, `representation` is just another word for complaint, but is used in order to make a distinction between Articles 24 and 26 of the ILO Constitution.

The opportunities to engage in healthy dialogue and discussion on the application of Conventions do not exist for Recommendations. Recommendations are nothing but an advisory international instrument. These apply to all members of the ILO, irrespective of the national systems by virtue of their ILO membership. Often, Recommendations are more detailed than Conventions but it is not mandatory for a government to implement these. In case countries do not implement the provisions, there is nothing the ILO can do about it formally.

This is why domestic workers will probably be most happy if the 183 ILO member states decide to adopt a Convention, followed by speedy ratification.

Many existing ILO Conventions, however, do apply to domestic workers. Some make explicit mention of the category of domestic workers whereas other Conventions apply to `all workers` or to `workers without distinction whatsoever`. This is especially the case for the ILO fundamental human rights Conventions, dealing with child and forced labour, discrimination and freedom of association, and others.

The main question of whether these existing Conventions would apply at the national level depends on the definition and classification of domestic work at the national level. In India, domestic workers are referred to in the new law on social security for unorganised workers. Domestic work also figures in minimum wage notifications in several states.

A good example of using the ILO supervisory machinery under the existing ILO Conventions, namely ILO Convention No. 111 on discrimination regarding domestic work, comes from the Philippines. A representation was filed by the trade unions in the Philippines against the Special Administrative Region of Hong Kong. The Hong Kong government had launched a skills programme, promoting the employment of national domestic workers. It paid for this skills programme by imposing wage reductions of 10 to 15 per cent on migrant domestic workers. Migrant domestic workers in Hong Kong are predominantly from the Philippines. The Philippine unions complained to the ILO that the access to and the funding of the Hong Kong skills programme were discriminatory. The ILO Commission of Inquiry, set up to investigate the representation, agreed with the complaining unions that the Hong Kong scheme was discriminatory. Hong Kong subsequently withdrew the skills programme to look for an equitable alternative. The representation procedure, however, can only be used when both involved countries—the complainer and complainant—have ratified the same Convention in question.

Whatever be the applicability of the existing ILO Conventions to domestic workers, any new international instrument specifically targeting these workers will be a breakthrough in the recognition of domestic work. Equally, it will allow ILO constituents to target issues and problems that are unique to domestic workers such as their hidden character and the dominance in the profession of young and moderately educated women from vulnerable backgrounds. It will also allow for focusing on other typical aspects of domestic work such as the difficulties full-time workers face in stepping out of their homes to organise effectively as a group of workers or the adverse working conditions of migrant domestic workers.

A couple of aspects regarding domestic work make the implementation of any new instrument challenging. First, in the ILO set-up, employers traditionally represent economic activities that are mostly happening in a `work—place`an office, factory, shop or enterprise. In the case of domestic work, any private person employing a domestic worker in a private homestead becomes an employer. The issue thus arising revolves around the representation of employers. Which group of employers will be responsible for answering to the shortcomings in domestic working conditions? This is a matter that must be resolved in the two discussions that will take place at the ILCs of 2010 and 2011. It will require fresh, innovative and solution-oriented thinking, which is not going to be easy, especially keeping in mind that the right to collective bargaining is also: who will bargain with whom to conclude collective agreements?

The second challenging aspect relates to enforcement. Normally, labour inspectorates verify working conditions and all legal requirements regarding work at a workplace. In many countries, the labour inspectorate is not entitled or does not have the capacity to inspect private homes. It should be mentioned here, however, that in 1997, the ILC adopted Convention No. 177 on Home Work. Since home-based work is nothing but an economic activity in a private home, the adoption of C. 177 should help overcome this enforcement dilemma for domestic work. It must also be noted that India voted in favour of the adoption of C. 177 and that the Self Employed Women Association (SEWA) was a driving force behind the initiative establishing ILO standards on home work.

In conclusion, any ILO standard adopted by the ILC on domestic work will imply recognition not only of domestic work as a genuine form of employment but also firmly deal with the issue of private homesteads as a potential workplace. It will send a global signal that exploitation and abuse of domestic workers are totally unacceptable and shall be addressed with all possible technical, legal and moral means at the ILO`s disposal.