{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.012002182214948172, 'fraction_numerical': 0.010365521003818877, 'mean_word_length': 5.368055555555555, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Influence of the ILO Domestic Workers Convention in Argentina, Chile and Paraguay

Since the International Labour Organization Decent Work for Domestic Workers Convention (No. 189) was adopted in 2011, twelve Latin American countries have ratified it. Argentina, Chile and Paraguay are particularly interesting when analysing how C189 influenced national reforms because they made sweeping amendments to their legislation after the Convention was adopted. In the case of Argentina and Chile, the debate on the reforms took place as the Convention was in the process of being ratified, and in Paraguay after ratification. In these countries, adapting national regulatory frameworks to the Convention’s provisions involved two main challenges. One of them was to draft legislation considering the specific nature of domestic work while guaranteeing these workers the same rights granted to employees. The other was to innovate in relation to enforcement mechanisms to ensure compliance with new laws when domestic work has been generally perceived as a relation based on affection and trust and regulated by customary practices. Comparing the way in which national legislation was shaped following the international standard in these three countries reveals diverse uses of C189 reflecting distinct approaches to regulating this activity and the features of the labour market in each country. This means that during the law-making process, C189 was read, interpreted and translated in different ways in each country for the purpose of filling the legal gaps associated with the protection of domestic workers. The aim of this article is to analyse how the principles and rights established in C189 are assimilated to different national contexts while considering the common challenges facing legislators in these three countries.  