The end of private in-house caregiving

53 posts in this topic

15 hours ago, Marianne013 said:

The elephant in the room that jeba et al like to ignore is the fact that "this is a lot of money for people from elsewhere" is that it creates more unemployment locally.

No, because due to the costs the alternative wouldn´t be to employ a local but to go to a nursing home.

 

15 hours ago, Marianne013 said:

The "free accommodation" only works out as an extra wage if the person in question doesn't have to maintain a second residence elsewhere

That´s also not correct as I can tell from the time when I was commuting every weekend. I´d have appreciated if my then employer had provided free accommodation. Which they didn´t.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, jeba said:

No, because due to the costs the alternative wouldn´t be to employ a local but to go to a nursing home.

 

That´s also not correct as I can tell from the time when I was commuting every weekend. I´d have appreciated if my then employer had provided free accommodation. Which they didn´t.

That's almost my point: The real cost of care is hidden by exploiting foreign workers. So if you close the loophole, the real cost becomes apparent and at that point you either adjust policy or accept the nursing home. It depends on what old people are worth to a society.  But just exploiting someone else is morally wrong and I believe also at least in the long run uneconomical, because someone has to pay for all of this one way or the other.

 

I don't know what kind of contract you had and I gather this was a long time ago, but if your employer sends you away from your usual workplace *temporarily* (as opposed to relocating it permanently, in which case you either face moving or getting a new job) and you cannot reach your new designated workplace from your home they are liable to pay for accommodation - otherwise no-one would go on a business trip ever.

5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Marianne013 said:

That's almost my point: The real cost of care is hidden by exploiting foreign workers. So if you close the loophole, the real cost becomes apparent and at that point you either adjust policy or accept the nursing home. It depends on what old people are worth to a society.  But just exploiting someone else is morally wrong and I believe also at least in the long run uneconomical, because someone has to pay for all of this one way or the other.

You´re assuming that it´s exploitation to employ people from low income countries. However, they see it as an opportunity because they´re comparing it to the the alternatives they have if they don´t find employment in higher income countries. And applying that court ruling means they won´t and will be stuck in their countries. With much, much lower pay, and without health insurance. If they´re lucky enough to have a job. E.g. the going rate in the Philippines for a full time domestic worker (according to an American living there) is between US$ 150 and 250/month (without health insurance). Do you think that´s better for them?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Marianne013 You're talking sense to a stump when you try to tell jeba that it is bad to put others into conditions he would not tolerate for himself. His idea of fair is that he gets what he wants - that's fair.

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Marianne013 said:

That's almost my point: The real cost of care is hidden by exploiting foreign workers. So if you close the loophole, the real cost becomes apparent and at that point you either adjust policy or accept the nursing home. It depends on what old people are worth to a society.  But just exploiting someone else is morally wrong and I believe also at least in the long run uneconomical, because someone has to pay for all of this one way or the other.

 

What if they are paying the worker minimum wage, don't give them room and board and they just work 40 hrs. per week.  Are they still exploiting them?  Depending on cost of housing in the area, room and board can turn out to be a lot less expensive for the worker, allowing them to send more money home.

 

2 hours ago, Marianne013 said:

I don't know what kind of contract you had and I gather this was a long time ago, but if your employer sends you away from your usual workplace *temporarily* (as opposed to relocating it permanently, in which case you either face moving or getting a new job) and you cannot reach your new designated workplace from your home they are liable to pay for accommodation - otherwise no-one would go on a business trip ever.

 

It's a bit more complicated than that  A couple of years ago, I had a project in Stuttgart.  I'm an employee which means my employer needs to pay my travel costs and hotel to go work there and he gets €€€ from the client.  The client also had externals who were self-employed so they get the €€€ and pay for their own hotel and travel or sleep in their cars or whatever, nobody cares.  At the same time, the client also hired a guy who came from Bremerhaven.  This guy lived in a WG and every Friday he drove 7 hrs. to get home and on Sundays 7 hrs. to get back.  Because he chose to take that job, nobody was paying his petrol or his WG rent.  Loads of people in Germany do this.  The difference is, they normally make quite a bit more money than your average care worker and they are willing to drive 7 hrs. because they couldn't get a job like that in Bremerhaven or whereever they live.  Does that mean that the company is abusing this guy or subjecting him to conditions they would not tolerate for themselves? 

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If one accepts the conditions, then there's nothing wrong. If the company threatens to fire them if they don't, well, that's different.

 

As for the caretakers, they better start building a lot more nursing homes. Difficult to get a place in one now.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Old people that have to leave there home often don't make it long. They wither away and die. So I don't believe that  caring at home and a nursing home are in any way comparable.

 

And if we all get upset about exploiting workers I really would start somewhere else - how about chocolate and the children in Africa that harvest cocoa beans instead of being at school? Who still eats chocolate? That is exploitation in my book. A grown woman who voluntarily signs a contract to work abroad for a limited amount of time and who earns more money than she could at home is not exploitation in my book. 

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, AlexTr said:

@Marianne013 You're talking sense to a stump when you try to tell jeba that it is bad to put others into conditions he would not tolerate for himself. His idea of fair is that he gets what he wants - that's fair.

 

I haven´t read yet a suggestion how 24 h care at home could be financed under the current German labour laws (not only minimum wage, but also Arbeitszeitgesetz).

What you´re advocating is a lose-lose situation. Potential caregivers have to stay in their hellhole countries and elderly will have to go to nursing homes.

 

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, jeba said:

elderly will have to go to nursing homes.

 

Of which there are not enough of. Won't work.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, I've found the rules on how much you can calculate for a live-in employee for room and board, see https://www.lohn-info.de/sachbezugswerte_2021.html  Food is 263€ per month and a furnished room 237€ less 15% because it's in the employers home so 201,45€ for the room or 464,45€ total.

 

Assuming that room and board is a part of the salary, the employer should probably calculate minimum wage and then deduct the room and board cost.  A carer working 40 hrs. a week for minimum wage would get 1664 per month brutto, 1233 after taxes and 769 after room and board.  For the employer, the employee costs them 2073 per month of which they get back 200 for the room but the food they will have to buy.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Namu said:

A grown woman who voluntarily signs a contract to work abroad for a limited amount of time and who earns more money than she could at home is not exploitation in my book.

 

Absolutely. It is all very well getting knicker twisty about rights and conditions, but that is said from privilege. Those who live in places where pay is abysmal and the cost of living is low can truly support a family by spending time doing something like caring in a place like Germany. That might be children's education being funded, healthcare being affordable etc. Really important stuff.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, LeonG said:

A carer working 40 hrs. a week for minimum wage would get 1664 per month brutto, 1233 after taxes and 769 after room and board.  For the employer, the employee costs them 2073 per month of which they get back 200 for the room but the food they will have to buy.

The problem is that 40 hours/week may not be enough to care for a senior and according to that new ruling the time the carer is on standby has be paid at least minimum wage.

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the notion of paying at or below minimum wages for someone to care for a 'loved one'.

 

It's the Least we can do.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, catjones said:

I like the notion of paying at or below minimum wages for someone to care for a 'loved one'.

 

It's the Least we can do.

 


Except that most people can´t pay North of € 7000/month.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, LeonG said:

OK, I've found the rules on how much you can calculate for a live-in employee for room and board, see https://www.lohn-info.de/sachbezugswerte_2021.html  Food is 263€ per month and a furnished room 237€ less 15% because it's in the employers home so 201,45€ for the room or 464,45€ total.

 

Assuming that room and board is a part of the salary, the employer should probably calculate minimum wage and then deduct the room and board cost.  A carer working 40 hrs. a week for minimum wage would get 1664 per month brutto, 1233 after taxes and 769 after room and board.  For the employer, the employee costs them 2073 per month of which they get back 200 for the room but the food they will have to buy.

 

See? And there it is. We're not talking about $7000/mo. just because this employer's faulty contract created those conditions. If more hours are needed, then they must be paid. If an elderly person requires around the clock care, they are better off not using unskilled labor for that, so a nursing home is a better option.

 

What we are also not talking about is some sub-standard pittance that does not need to be allowed in a fully developed democracy. Privilege is saying that those people are lucky to get what we give them.

 

Migrants have rights.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7000 a month is however a likely sum to pay for a nursing home if it's full time care.

 

I don't think you can expect one carer to provide 24 hrs care.  The carer, apart from being unskilled, would also be burned out pretty fast.  Some light care, help getting dressed and going to bed might be fine though.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AlexTr said:

We're not talking about $7000/mo

Exactly - we are talking more than that according to that ruling according to which standby-time is to be fully paid.

 

1 hour ago, AlexTr said:

If an elderly person requires around the clock care, they are better off not using unskilled labor for that, so a nursing home is a better option.

Just because you need someone to bring you a glass of water or help you go to the toilet or if you simply don´t want to be alone doesn´t mean you need a fully qualified caregiver. There are villages in Cyprus (Filousa Kelokedaron is one example I could name in case you want to come and verify) with only a handful of elderly people living there with their in-house carers (the youngster live where there are jobs and schools). I doubt anyone of them is qualified according to professional nursing standards. And if "those people" deem themselves lucky to have such a job - who are you to say they shouldn´t have it? Outrageous! Rather show me a viable alternative (and don´t forget to point out where the money should come from).

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Costs of care with Caritas (in German)

 

Quote

2.600 Euro kostet ein Pflegeheimplatz durchschnittlich bei der Caritas Altenhilfe, das sind 31.200 Euro im Jahr. Je nach Pflegestufe, Bundesland und Einrichtung rangieren die Kosten zwischen monatlich 1.800 Euro und 3.990 Euro. Was ist darin alles enthalten und welche Kosten muss ich selbst tragen?

Die Pflegekassen bezuschussen die Leistungen für Pflege und Betreuung mit 1.023 Euro (Pflegestufe 1), 1.279 Euro (Pflegestufe 2), 1.550 Euro (Pflegestufe 3) und 1.918 Euro (Härtefall).

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, AlexTr said:

What use is showing the cost of what people don´t want (living in a nursing home) when the topic is the cost of what they want (staying in their homes)? It´s like telling the price of a bicycle to someone who wants to buy a car. Check the title of the thread (hint: it´s not about nursing homes).

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, jeba said:

What use is showing the cost of what people don´t want (living in a nursing home) when the topic is the cost of what they want (staying in their homes)?

 

There is no difference between 24h care in your home and any other product or service. If you can't pay for it you can't have it.

 

The court ruling this thread is about came as a shock to absolutely nobody. There have been plenty of articles published in major publications over the last decade pointing out that the practice of exploiting Eastern Europeans was totally illegal and that the government was turning a blind eye on the problem because of the inconvenience to those receiving care which you have pointed out quite accurately.

 

Nevertheless, the ruling is now that it is illegal and no other interpretation of the law would make any sense at all, it's called the rule of law.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now