In the Netherlands, many part-time domestic workers fall within the scope of a particular type of labour law, that gives them fewer social protection rights and that renders private actors (households and workers) responsible for exercising those rights. Over the years, this policy has been criticised for institutionalising the differential treatment of domestic workers, which goes against ideas propagated in international initiatives, like the European Pillar of Social Rights. This contribution explores Dutch domestic workers' access to social protection in greater detail. Drawing on semi-structured interviews with 30 domestic workers, we show that the actual access to social protection greatly varies over different workers and over different employment relationships of individual workers, but generally falls below par. Our findings indicate that this is partly due to the fact that the Dutch policy option underestimates domestic workers' wariness of placing demands on the households they work for, which raises questions over the desirability of non-mediated employment relationships in the sector. We conclude with a brief discussion and suggestions for future policy directions.

中文翻译：

---

被排除在外的工人和豁免雇主：关于荷兰家庭工人获得社会保护的定性研究

在荷兰，许多兼职家政工人属于特定类型劳动法的范围，这赋予他们较少的社会保护权利，并使私人行为者（家庭和工人）负责行使这些权利。多年来，这项政策因将家庭工人的差别待遇制度化而受到批评，这违背了欧洲社会权利支柱等国际倡议中传播的理念。本文更详细地探讨了荷兰家庭工人获得社会保护的情况。通过对 30 名家政工人的半结构化访谈，我们发现，不同工人和不同雇佣关系的工人实际获得社会保护的情况差异很大，但总体低于平均水平。我们的研究结果表明，这部分是由于荷兰的政策选择低估了家庭工人对其工作的家庭提出要求的谨慎态度，这引发了对该部门非中介雇佣关系是否可取的质疑。最后我们对未来的政策方向进行了简短的讨论和建议。