Work–Life Integration and Workplace Rights for Domestic Workers in Support to Elderly Persons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our article shows that there is a real challenge in balancing work and family for employees working in support services in domestic work for elderly persons; their workplace rights on this issue are quite limited, and they depend largely on managers’ understanding and support. Given their difficult working conditions, these workers actually find quite a challenge in trying to reconcile work and family. Our article is based on a qualitative research mobilizing 33 semi-structured interviews with employees of the home care sector in the field of the social economy mainly but also in the private sector. We first present the concept of work–family and personal life, then the area of home care and domestic work for the elderly. Then, we present the particular challenges observed in reconciling work and family life, where possible by comparing men and women. The results highlight two major sources of differentiation: age and single parenthood. Those who are older highlight the fact that children have grown up, and they have (finally) some time for themselves, even if their working conditions are difficult (broken schedules, etc.). In contrast, single women live a much more difficult situation concerning work–family, partly because of the lack of workplace rights on this issue and because of the poor working conditions for many (broken hours of work, low wages, difficult working conditions). We conclude with some recommendations, including the Right to request, which appears to be the best option, although it would need some further analysis.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".