To say that they aren't workers because they are "merely" relatives is crazy. If a relative does not do this home care job, what happens in the real world is usually an agency sends someone out to do it -- a stranger . Is that not "work," either? Or is it only work when a stranger does it, but not a relative? I know this because I know two home care workers, one of whom is sent out by an agency to either isolated disabled individuals to provide recreational activities, medication monitoring, physical therapy, etc., for families unable to do this. I also know one home care worker who is "merely" a relative to the disabled care recipient. Understandably, many families would prefer relatives to do this job because of issues of trust, etc.
Depending on the degree of disability, home care work can be pretty difficult and unglamorous stuff, even nerve wracking and exceedingly unpleasant if the recipient has severe mental problems. It's not just baby sitting. It can involve a variety of tasks, but this again depends on what the recipient's particular needs are, mental and/or physical.
It is work.
-B.
Mark Rickling wrote:
"On what Fitch has actually said, from an article published in Slate:
'Stern has also boosted his rolls with workers who aren't really workers at all . . . But most of those home-care workers are parents and children who got government money for taking care of family members or close friends. They didn't provide nursing services but simply bathed and fed their disabled children or elderly parents. Most home-care workers are part-time, working for one client. Their average pay is less than $700 a month (now minus dues to SEIU).' http://slate.msn.com/id/2123481/"