What do you think?
Rate this book
Household Workers Unite: The Untold Story of African American Women Who Built a Movement
Premilla Nadasen recounts in this powerful book a little-known history of organizing among African American household workers. She uses the stories of a handful of women to illuminate the broader politics of labor, organizing, race, and gender in late 20th-century America. At the crossroads of the emerging civil rights movement, a deindustrializing economy, a burgeoning women's movement, and increasing immigration, household worker activists, who were excluded from both labor rights and mainstream labor organizing, developed distinctive strategies for political mobilization and social change. We learn about their complicated relationship with their employers, who were a source of much of their anguish, but, also, potentially important allies. And equally important they articulated a profound challenge to unequal state policy. Household Workers Unite offers a window into this occupation from a perspective that is rarely seen. At a moment when the labor movement is in decline; as capital increasingly treats workers as interchangeable or indispensable; as the number of manufacturing jobs continues to dwindle and the number of service sector jobs expands; as workers in industrialized countries find themselves in an precarious situation and struggle hard to make ends meet without state support or protection--the lessons of domestic worker organizing recounted here might prove to be more important than just a correction of the historical record. The women in this book, as Nadasen demonstrates, were innovative labor organizers. As a history of poor women workers, it shatters countless myths and assumptions about the labor movement and proposes a very different vision.
248 pages, Hardcover
First published August 25, 2015
13 people are currently reading
1221 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews
September 19, 2016
Household Workers Unite is a history of domestic worker organizing that can and should inform labor organizers who face new challenges in organizing people in the new labor markets created by the retreat from manufacturing and traditional forms of employment. With the “sharing economy” or the “gig economy” the labor force is atomized in ways that resemble the challenges that faced household workers who faced a far more difficult challenge to organizing than industrialized workers. Premilla Nadasen’s history of household worker organizing can and should be a useful resource for more a broad range of workers.
Throughout the history of domestic worker organizing, black women have been at the forefront. For household workers, racism and sexism intersect to devalue their work and complicate their organizing. It was even difficult for household workers to get their work recognized as “work” given the gendered notions of women as caretakers and homemakers. There was a paternalistic assumption that even though domestics worked long days and weekends and were paid a pittance, they did the work out of love, that they were “part of the family” even though they were expected to use the back door, a separate bathroom, eat leftovers and use separate dishes. There was this “Mammy” vision that comforted employers that exploited the women who worked for them, an assumption of service owed.
Domestic workers were excluded from the Fair Labor Standards Act, denying them minimum wage, workers’ compensation for injuries on the job, unemployment insurance and even Social Security. They were also denied the right to organize, though the challenge of organizing when each individual worked for another employer meant their campaigns had to focus on changing legislation and societal attitudes toward domestic employment. When Congress had hearings about including household workers in the FLSA, they laughed about how that could end up with them having to wash dishes.
With courage and determination, women of color found ways to organize. They would do outreach on buses, work on educating employers and organizing employers as well as workers. They lobbied for changes in the law and for minimum wage. They worked to professionalize their occupation, even for changing their job title to household technician to recognize that their work is skilled and worth of respect.
Household Workers Unite is a book I would recommend highly to labor organizers and people who work to combat systemic racism, even if they do not work on labor issues. This book is a case study in intersectionality, highlighting how racism, sexism, and later, the vulnerability of immigrants, work together to devalue not only the work, but the people who do it.
It presents a more complex view of the civil rights movement and how respectability politics erased many of the contributions of African American women like Georgia Gilmore to the struggle. It also reveals a more complex picture of second wave feminism which was often indifferent to the struggle of working class and poor black women, focused on the white professional woman’s advancement. For example, Gloria Steinem was a strong supporter of the domestic worker’s unions and volunteered her efforts to mobilize women’s organizations to ensure compliance with new amendments to the FLSA.
These are the stories of many women, women whose stories are too seldom heard, women who organized with the protection of the government, who supported families without fair labor standards and who worked to change it. They have won victories, though the struggle is incomplete. As they asserted their rights and won changes in the law, employers turned to ever more vulnerable workers, immigrants who could be threatened with deportation or who could be kept ignorant of their rights. And so the work continues.
But as our economy changes, as traditional forms of work are fractured, the lessons of how to organize workers who do not work in one place or with one employer become ever more valuable.
This is an important book for anti-racist organizers and labor organizers, people interested in the history of worker movements, the nexus of feminism and racism. It is, however, primarily a history of many different organizations, local, state and national organizations formed by these women. It can feel a bit like alphabet soup at times. Occasionally it can be too granular, reporting that a meeting was called to order, for example. For me, Nadasen follows too closely that advice to tell us what she is going to write about, write it, and then tell us what she wrote. It becomes redundant because she does not only apply that advice to each chapter, but to the subsections of the chapters. The feeling of having already read something shortly before had the effect of dislocating me, making me think I had lost my place.
So, it is not a perfect book, but it is an important book. I want more of it actually, more of the human side, the stories of the women, these courageous women who sought justice in the workplace, not just for themselves but for all domestic workers. I want more of the stories and ideas of those women organizing in the 20’s and 30’s, stories that make it clear that while the term intersectionality was coined in 1989, the idea of intersectionality was part of black feminist organizing long ago.
I received an advance reader’s copy from Beacon Press through LibraryThing.
http://tonstantweaderreviews.wordpres...
Throughout the history of domestic worker organizing, black women have been at the forefront. For household workers, racism and sexism intersect to devalue their work and complicate their organizing. It was even difficult for household workers to get their work recognized as “work” given the gendered notions of women as caretakers and homemakers. There was a paternalistic assumption that even though domestics worked long days and weekends and were paid a pittance, they did the work out of love, that they were “part of the family” even though they were expected to use the back door, a separate bathroom, eat leftovers and use separate dishes. There was this “Mammy” vision that comforted employers that exploited the women who worked for them, an assumption of service owed.
Domestic workers were excluded from the Fair Labor Standards Act, denying them minimum wage, workers’ compensation for injuries on the job, unemployment insurance and even Social Security. They were also denied the right to organize, though the challenge of organizing when each individual worked for another employer meant their campaigns had to focus on changing legislation and societal attitudes toward domestic employment. When Congress had hearings about including household workers in the FLSA, they laughed about how that could end up with them having to wash dishes.
With courage and determination, women of color found ways to organize. They would do outreach on buses, work on educating employers and organizing employers as well as workers. They lobbied for changes in the law and for minimum wage. They worked to professionalize their occupation, even for changing their job title to household technician to recognize that their work is skilled and worth of respect.
Household Workers Unite is a book I would recommend highly to labor organizers and people who work to combat systemic racism, even if they do not work on labor issues. This book is a case study in intersectionality, highlighting how racism, sexism, and later, the vulnerability of immigrants, work together to devalue not only the work, but the people who do it.
It presents a more complex view of the civil rights movement and how respectability politics erased many of the contributions of African American women like Georgia Gilmore to the struggle. It also reveals a more complex picture of second wave feminism which was often indifferent to the struggle of working class and poor black women, focused on the white professional woman’s advancement. For example, Gloria Steinem was a strong supporter of the domestic worker’s unions and volunteered her efforts to mobilize women’s organizations to ensure compliance with new amendments to the FLSA.
These are the stories of many women, women whose stories are too seldom heard, women who organized with the protection of the government, who supported families without fair labor standards and who worked to change it. They have won victories, though the struggle is incomplete. As they asserted their rights and won changes in the law, employers turned to ever more vulnerable workers, immigrants who could be threatened with deportation or who could be kept ignorant of their rights. And so the work continues.
But as our economy changes, as traditional forms of work are fractured, the lessons of how to organize workers who do not work in one place or with one employer become ever more valuable.
This is an important book for anti-racist organizers and labor organizers, people interested in the history of worker movements, the nexus of feminism and racism. It is, however, primarily a history of many different organizations, local, state and national organizations formed by these women. It can feel a bit like alphabet soup at times. Occasionally it can be too granular, reporting that a meeting was called to order, for example. For me, Nadasen follows too closely that advice to tell us what she is going to write about, write it, and then tell us what she wrote. It becomes redundant because she does not only apply that advice to each chapter, but to the subsections of the chapters. The feeling of having already read something shortly before had the effect of dislocating me, making me think I had lost my place.
So, it is not a perfect book, but it is an important book. I want more of it actually, more of the human side, the stories of the women, these courageous women who sought justice in the workplace, not just for themselves but for all domestic workers. I want more of the stories and ideas of those women organizing in the 20’s and 30’s, stories that make it clear that while the term intersectionality was coined in 1989, the idea of intersectionality was part of black feminist organizing long ago.
I received an advance reader’s copy from Beacon Press through LibraryThing.
http://tonstantweaderreviews.wordpres...
October 13, 2020
Using the services of household workers is a long tradition in America. In the early days, there were slaves in the South and servants in the North who cleaned, cooked, did laundry, shopped, took care of the babies, children, ill, and elderly, and prepared for guests. After the slavery was ended, many families could not afford to hire all those people so the each of the remaining staff had to perform several duties..
The situation changed greatly after Dr. Benjamin Spock published his best-selling book about baby and child care. In it, he stressed the need for mothers to be more involved with nurturing and bonding with their children. The household worker’s position within the family changed as the children’s relationship with them lessened. As the women’s movement advanced and more women went to work outside the home, household workers responsibilities changed again.
As more white women moved into the workforce, the need for household workers increased. The purpose of welfare changed, as well. Originally, in the 1930s, it was an important source for single mothers. White society began see welfare as a social ill and decided that women of color should be working rather than staying home since more jobs were available.
More recently, the employers wanted less personal involvement. Training centers were established to help the workers learn new skills.
One thing remained constant: The workers, usually black women, continued to be overworked, underpaid, and taken for granted. They often put in long hours but were not paid for overtime. They had to leave their own children and household tasks to maintain their employment. They received no benefits–minimum wages, vacation or sick days, overtime, Social Security, Workmen’s Compensation, health insurance–and could be fired at whim, for example, when they got old, without any severance pay. While many of their employers considered the women to be “one of the family,” the member they most resembled was Cinderella. Often they had to enter through the back door, use a separate bathroom, could not eat what or where the family ate, and certainly were not among the people with whom the employers socialized. The household workers were often given leftover food and no longer wearable clothing. They rarely received raises and had little chance for advancement.
Some of the major reasons this situation existed was that the women worked in isolated locations and were fearful of being fired since they needed the income to support themselves and their families. But eventually some black women realized that there was a way to reach all these women: Public places like on the buses they rode to and from work.
Using information gathered from talking with the women involved, Premilla Nadasen wrote HOUSEHOLD WORKERS UNITE to tell the stories of these women and the efforts to improve their lives through unionizing.
The one thing most of the women wanted most was respect. Their employees might brag among themselves about how well the women served their needs, but would talk around them as if they weren’t even there. Many workers preferred doing household work and thought it was better than working in factories.
Since housework was not recognized as real work, the household workers were excluded from key labor laws.
As white women began working outside the home and immigration from Europe was curtailed, the number of black domestic workers rose from 28% in 1900 to 60% in 1950.
In 1924, the United Daughters of the Confederacy launched a campaign to erect a federally funded “black mammy” monument in Washington DC. The bill passed in the House of Representatives but died in the Senate.” It was opposed by African American activists becuse they believed it glorified slavery and black subservience.
When the activists worked to improve the conditions for household workers, they included women of all races and national origin. Soon, however, most of the non-black women dropped out.
One major event that brought the situation of household workers to the forefront was the Montgomery Bus Boycott. At the start, more than half the black women workers in Montgomery were employed in white homes and relied on public transportation. Their labor was indispensable to the white community, many of whose members blamed the boycott on outside agitators. The didn’t believe their black household workers would participate in such an activity on their own. But the boycott created an opening for workers to express their political views and question the terms of their employment.
Their employment in the homes of white people gave the black household workers intimate knowledge of what was being said and done in those houses as well as access to the people in power. Often the family members and their friends would discuss things without even realizing their conversations were being overheard: The household workers were invisible to them.
At the same time, some of them, especially those more actively involved, were closely monitored. They could not talk to each other. Their telephone usage was restricted. Intercom systems were used to spy. And they were fired without pay.
The book focuses on activism from 1950s through 1970s and is arranged on the basis of the people who led the movement and the organizations they established. There is some overlap because of that and at times the names of the numerous organizations became difficult to remember. A listing, separate from the notes and index, would have proved helpful. I recognized the names of several of the leaders, some of whom worked in my own city. I was going to list them but decided that while the leaders were extremely important, it was the household workers themselves who took the risks which enabled them to achieve as much as they did. The struggle continues.
HOUSEHOLD WORKERS UNITE was an eyeopener about what life was like for the workers and how working together, through organization, can bring about necessary change. It might be the only thing that can. It was a scholarly read, heavily noted, and quite detailed.
I received a copy of this book through LibraryThing Early Reviewers.
The situation changed greatly after Dr. Benjamin Spock published his best-selling book about baby and child care. In it, he stressed the need for mothers to be more involved with nurturing and bonding with their children. The household worker’s position within the family changed as the children’s relationship with them lessened. As the women’s movement advanced and more women went to work outside the home, household workers responsibilities changed again.
As more white women moved into the workforce, the need for household workers increased. The purpose of welfare changed, as well. Originally, in the 1930s, it was an important source for single mothers. White society began see welfare as a social ill and decided that women of color should be working rather than staying home since more jobs were available.
More recently, the employers wanted less personal involvement. Training centers were established to help the workers learn new skills.
One thing remained constant: The workers, usually black women, continued to be overworked, underpaid, and taken for granted. They often put in long hours but were not paid for overtime. They had to leave their own children and household tasks to maintain their employment. They received no benefits–minimum wages, vacation or sick days, overtime, Social Security, Workmen’s Compensation, health insurance–and could be fired at whim, for example, when they got old, without any severance pay. While many of their employers considered the women to be “one of the family,” the member they most resembled was Cinderella. Often they had to enter through the back door, use a separate bathroom, could not eat what or where the family ate, and certainly were not among the people with whom the employers socialized. The household workers were often given leftover food and no longer wearable clothing. They rarely received raises and had little chance for advancement.
Some of the major reasons this situation existed was that the women worked in isolated locations and were fearful of being fired since they needed the income to support themselves and their families. But eventually some black women realized that there was a way to reach all these women: Public places like on the buses they rode to and from work.
Using information gathered from talking with the women involved, Premilla Nadasen wrote HOUSEHOLD WORKERS UNITE to tell the stories of these women and the efforts to improve their lives through unionizing.
The one thing most of the women wanted most was respect. Their employees might brag among themselves about how well the women served their needs, but would talk around them as if they weren’t even there. Many workers preferred doing household work and thought it was better than working in factories.
Since housework was not recognized as real work, the household workers were excluded from key labor laws.
As white women began working outside the home and immigration from Europe was curtailed, the number of black domestic workers rose from 28% in 1900 to 60% in 1950.
In 1924, the United Daughters of the Confederacy launched a campaign to erect a federally funded “black mammy” monument in Washington DC. The bill passed in the House of Representatives but died in the Senate.” It was opposed by African American activists becuse they believed it glorified slavery and black subservience.
When the activists worked to improve the conditions for household workers, they included women of all races and national origin. Soon, however, most of the non-black women dropped out.
One major event that brought the situation of household workers to the forefront was the Montgomery Bus Boycott. At the start, more than half the black women workers in Montgomery were employed in white homes and relied on public transportation. Their labor was indispensable to the white community, many of whose members blamed the boycott on outside agitators. The didn’t believe their black household workers would participate in such an activity on their own. But the boycott created an opening for workers to express their political views and question the terms of their employment.
Their employment in the homes of white people gave the black household workers intimate knowledge of what was being said and done in those houses as well as access to the people in power. Often the family members and their friends would discuss things without even realizing their conversations were being overheard: The household workers were invisible to them.
At the same time, some of them, especially those more actively involved, were closely monitored. They could not talk to each other. Their telephone usage was restricted. Intercom systems were used to spy. And they were fired without pay.
The book focuses on activism from 1950s through 1970s and is arranged on the basis of the people who led the movement and the organizations they established. There is some overlap because of that and at times the names of the numerous organizations became difficult to remember. A listing, separate from the notes and index, would have proved helpful. I recognized the names of several of the leaders, some of whom worked in my own city. I was going to list them but decided that while the leaders were extremely important, it was the household workers themselves who took the risks which enabled them to achieve as much as they did. The struggle continues.
HOUSEHOLD WORKERS UNITE was an eyeopener about what life was like for the workers and how working together, through organization, can bring about necessary change. It might be the only thing that can. It was a scholarly read, heavily noted, and quite detailed.
I received a copy of this book through LibraryThing Early Reviewers.
January 4, 2016
I thought this was an extremely interesting book about the household workers movement led by Black women that I never existed. It gave me so much new knowledge about household workers and the labor movement, at large. A bit repetitive in some parts, but overall I really enjoyed learning about the amazing work these women did, how they manuevered in their workplaces and homes and about the important advances these women made - they were all so inspiring!
February 1, 2016
It's worth a read, especially for the introduction to less well-known organizers like Dorothy Bolden and Carolyn Reed, and the creation of the Household Technicians of America. And the book's thesis is worth consideration. Household and domestic workers have been agitating for better conditions, pay, and respect (like other workers) in the U.S. since at least the 1880s. But because traditional labor organizers and unions didn't know how to apply their model to the unique situation of domestic workers, they had to organize themselves in creative ways, like flyering at bus stops and cooking [what one might call bribes] to get others to a meeting.
Most domestic workers worked singly inside their employer's home, not creating a commodity for the market per se, but doing the reproductive work of caring for the home, for children, for sick and elderly. This led to a unique cluster of alliances and antagonisms, among mostly African American female workers and mostly white female employers, 2nd-wave feminists, Civil Rights activists, and labor unions. A classic example of institutionalized sexism and racism, domestic workers were excluded from most of the labor protections enacted under the New Deal, including paid sick leave and minimum wage. It was only until the '70s, when domestic workers had organized themselves into a national organization (the Household Technicians of America) with support from the National Committee on Household Employment, that minimum wage was extended and many of these protections were codified into standard household work contracts. And even these victories only went so far -- healthcare workers, now largely paid by the state, were excluded from the minimum wage bill, and it still remains notoriously difficult to enforce for individual domestic workers.
The individuals profiled in the book, which focuses on the '50s through the '70s, are fascinating and empowering characters, and their stories are enough to make the reader think seriously about household work -- its value and the respect it actually gets. But the academic writing does bog down the narrative, forcing the reader through a re-statement of the key arguments at the beginning and end of every chapter. Too, it occasionally makes tantalizing claims without then offering the evidence. For instance, the author writes that domestic workers in Montgomery during the bus boycott were able gather intelligence about the opposition by eavesdropping on their white employers. If that's the case, then wow! That's a story I'd like to know the details on. But here, it's merely mentioned in a single sentence.
Most domestic workers worked singly inside their employer's home, not creating a commodity for the market per se, but doing the reproductive work of caring for the home, for children, for sick and elderly. This led to a unique cluster of alliances and antagonisms, among mostly African American female workers and mostly white female employers, 2nd-wave feminists, Civil Rights activists, and labor unions. A classic example of institutionalized sexism and racism, domestic workers were excluded from most of the labor protections enacted under the New Deal, including paid sick leave and minimum wage. It was only until the '70s, when domestic workers had organized themselves into a national organization (the Household Technicians of America) with support from the National Committee on Household Employment, that minimum wage was extended and many of these protections were codified into standard household work contracts. And even these victories only went so far -- healthcare workers, now largely paid by the state, were excluded from the minimum wage bill, and it still remains notoriously difficult to enforce for individual domestic workers.
The individuals profiled in the book, which focuses on the '50s through the '70s, are fascinating and empowering characters, and their stories are enough to make the reader think seriously about household work -- its value and the respect it actually gets. But the academic writing does bog down the narrative, forcing the reader through a re-statement of the key arguments at the beginning and end of every chapter. Too, it occasionally makes tantalizing claims without then offering the evidence. For instance, the author writes that domestic workers in Montgomery during the bus boycott were able gather intelligence about the opposition by eavesdropping on their white employers. If that's the case, then wow! That's a story I'd like to know the details on. But here, it's merely mentioned in a single sentence.
January 24, 2016
Before reading this book, I had a limited knowledge of current issues surrounding domestic workers. I also also aware of the stereotypes of domestic work and workers in both the past and present in the United States, as I'm sure most Americans are. I had essentially no knowledge about the household workers movement described in this book, which is remarkable considering how many years the movement stretches over.
The book is a detailed account of so much work done by black women to fight for household worker's rights. Because I knew so little about it beforehand, I was fascinated by the information in the book. There was exploration of the role both race and gender played in the struggle and how the view of housework as being separate from the work world leads to household workers' rights being overlooked in comparison to the rights of other workers.
I'm glad this book exists because I don't think this is a topic written about as often as it should be, and it deals with an issue that includes the intersectionality of race and gender. If you're at all interested in this topic, I would recommend this book.
I received this book through Goodreads First Reads for an honest review.
http://hmweasley-blog.blogspot.com/20...
The book is a detailed account of so much work done by black women to fight for household worker's rights. Because I knew so little about it beforehand, I was fascinated by the information in the book. There was exploration of the role both race and gender played in the struggle and how the view of housework as being separate from the work world leads to household workers' rights being overlooked in comparison to the rights of other workers.
I'm glad this book exists because I don't think this is a topic written about as often as it should be, and it deals with an issue that includes the intersectionality of race and gender. If you're at all interested in this topic, I would recommend this book.
I received this book through Goodreads First Reads for an honest review.
http://hmweasley-blog.blogspot.com/20...
November 29, 2016
I never really gave house cleaners too much thought. I have had them in my family (my mother and both of her sisters at times cleaned houses to supplement their incomes), and known some friends and even co-workers work as cleaning ladies, but really never thought of them organizing for better wages or working conditions. Those I know didn't, but they did keep an eye on the going rates!
It's a story that needed to be told and I am glad Premilla Nadasen researched and wrote it! I like histories about unsung heroes. They are rarely ever mentioned in history classes or books and deserve to be. Bravo to them all and Nadasen for thinking of them!
It's a story that needed to be told and I am glad Premilla Nadasen researched and wrote it! I like histories about unsung heroes. They are rarely ever mentioned in history classes or books and deserve to be. Bravo to them all and Nadasen for thinking of them!
May 29, 2017
This was one of those books that covered a fascinating topic, but did so in a way that was anything but engaging. The author could very well be writing a thesis paper, for all the dry phrasing she uses. I can get through a lot of non-fiction tomes, but I think this was the most difficult one to stick with. Every 50 pages or so, I found a nugget that kept me going until the next one. There was soooo much repetition, both of facts and of phrases. Topics that took up 20 page chapters could have easily been handled in far less space, but for the author's wordiness. Great topic, but don't pick this one up unless you suffer from insomnia!!
May 28, 2022
This book had lots of great information, I could see someone using it for a research paper and getting a lot of use out of it. I, however, am not writing a research paper and it was not so scintillating at times.
There were lots of good stats interspersed, but hard to follow at times. Money especially was difficult to translate into a complete picture. $3 a week sounds truly terrible to me but I'm missing a lot of context in what that looked like. Did they have a steady housing situation for their family? Did their kids go hungry? I kind of ended the book with an incomplete picture of the household workers' lives.
There were lots of good stats interspersed, but hard to follow at times. Money especially was difficult to translate into a complete picture. $3 a week sounds truly terrible to me but I'm missing a lot of context in what that looked like. Did they have a steady housing situation for their family? Did their kids go hungry? I kind of ended the book with an incomplete picture of the household workers' lives.
October 11, 2016
This is a meticulously researched scholarly work that recounts the history of domestic service in the US, especially how it was shaped by racial and gender discrimination. A fabulous book for anyone interested in the intersection of race, class, and the role of women in society. While it's attention to detail, with so many names and acronyms makes it easier to digest in smaller doses, the stories of the brave women who fought for their careers and dignity will stay with the reader long after the final page.
March 2, 2016
Review to come
Read
January 17, 2017331.47811 N129 2015
February 19, 2017
Written well and throughly researched
August 8, 2017
I deeply appreciate this book. Many unsung heroes to learn about!
May 5, 2021
Very informative but not very engaging.
April 29, 2020
I won this book in exchange for an honest review.
Very informative book on the history of the challenges faced by domestic workers, or "Household Technicians" in their journey towards unionizing. I read this book for the PopSugar challenge: Read a book on a subject you know nothing about
Very informative book on the history of the challenges faced by domestic workers, or "Household Technicians" in their journey towards unionizing. I read this book for the PopSugar challenge: Read a book on a subject you know nothing about
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews