How does a whole cabinet agree that domestic workers deserve a measly $90?

Ho

Tendai Ruben Mbofana

There is a profound, stomach-turning irony in policy decisions that pretend to be gifts while delivering nothing but insult. 

If you value my social justice advocacy and writing, please consider a financial contribution to keep it going. Contact me on WhatsApp: +263 715 667 700 or Email: mbofana.tendairuben73@gmail.com

The recent announcement that the cabinet has revised minimum wages for domestic workers to a baseline of $90 a month is one such decision. 

Making this grand gesture coincide with International Domestic Workers Day on June 16 is not just a failure of economic logic; it is a moral failure. 

To dress up a starvation wage as progress on a day meant to honor the dignity of labor is a masterclass in bureaucratic hypocrisy.

How does a room full of heavily subsidized policymakers, whose daily allowances likely exceed the monthly salary in question, sit around a mahogany table and collectively agree that $90 is a valid amount of money to sustain a human life?

To understand the sheer absurdity of this decision, one only has to look at the parallel baseline set by the exact same cabinet. 

Workers in unclassified operations are now legally entitled to a minimum of $270. 

By what twisted metric does a domestic worker deserve exactly one-third of that baseline? 

Does a nanny who raises children, a housekeeper who secures a home, or a carer who looks after the sick expend one-third of the effort? 

Do they pay one-third of the price for a loaf of bread, a bucket of maize meal, or a basic medical check-up?

The math of a $90 minimum wage does not work in any economy, let alone one defined by unforgiving living costs. 

Break that number down. 

It translates to roughly $3 a day. 

In today’s economic reality, $3 can barely secure a single commuter trip and a basic meal, leaving absolutely nothing for rentals, school fees, utilities, or the standard emergencies of human existence. 

By codifying this figure into law, the government has effectively institutionalized poverty. 

They have told a vital, hardworking segment of the workforce that their labor is valued less than the basic cost of keeping themselves alive.

What this policy reveals is a deep-seated, structural disregard for domestic labor. 

Because this work happens behind closed doors, often performed by women, it is treated as secondary, menial, and unworthy of a living wage. 

Yet, the entire formal economy relies on the invisible scaffolding of domestic work. 

Professionals, executives, and the very policymakers signing these decrees can only show up to their offices because someone else is managing their households, cooking their meals, and raising their children.

Tragically, this gazetted rate acts less like a protective safety net and more like an anchor dragging workers down. 

In an environment where the bargaining chip is heavily weighted in favor of the employer, declaring $90 as a legally sanctioned rate gives exploitative households a shield to hide behind. 

It justifies substandard pay under the guise of legal compliance.

International Domestic Workers Day is meant to celebrate the adoption of standards that protect the vulnerable. 

It is a day to affirm that domestic work is work, and domestic workers are workers. 

Instead, the cabinet chose this specific date to deliver a reminder of how cheap they consider that labor to be. 

If the government truly wished to honor these workers, they would have pegged the minimum wage to a realistic basket of needs, matching or exceeding the $270 floor set for other unclassified sectors. 

Instead, one cannot help but suspect a deeper, more cynical motive at play: keeping the domestic minimum wage deliberately low shields the state from pressure to raise the stagnant salaries of its own civil servants. 

If the state were to enforce a genuinely living wage for domestic workers, it would be forced to significantly bump up public sector pay just so teachers, nurses, and clerks could afford the very help their demanding schedules require.

Until our policies reflect the true cost of living, announcements like these are not achievements to be celebrated with hashtags—they are a national shame that demands immediate, empathetic revision.

• Tendai Ruben Mbofana is a social justice advocate and writer. To directly receive his articles please join his WhatsApp Channel on: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaqprWCIyPtRnKpkHe08