I remain ambivalent about whether the international embrace of “decent work FOR ALL” reflects the kind of ethical commitment we need to make institutions work for structurally marginalized groups, notably racialized minorities. But it can be an important start, if the architects and foot soldiers of “decent work for all” look at the matter in a manner that recognizes systemic workplace discrimination and take concrete measures to root it out. The case of regulating decent work for domestic workers is the issue that I have focused upon most recently, as the academic expert for the ILO who was commissioned to write the Law and Practice R e p o r t (http://www.ilo.org/ilc/ILCSessions/99thSession/reports/lang--en/docName--WCMS_104700/index.ht m). One of my co-panelists will speak more about minorities as domestic workers. I will emphasize here the roots of domestic “service” in the subordinating status of the minorities who undertook that work – notably enslaved African men and women, and women and men of marginalized castes. The report focused on identifying the disadvantage that attached to the workers and impregnates the perceived social value of the work. It articulates a framework to arrive at substantive equality for domestic workers, both as a matter of process and as a goal. This means that governments and social actors need to take proactive measures to put in place a labour regulatory framework that meaningfully address the conditions of those who work and live in someone else’s household, lose “control” over the most basic of matters, most notably their time... The proactive framework should enable domestic workers to organize into collective bodies. It should promote social inclusion, by ensuring that domestic workers enjoy social protection rights including pensions and other benefits. It should regulate against abuse by racialized women who should be employed in other occupations that recognize their skill level (many migrant domestic workers are in fact nurses or teachers). In short, the domestic worker – embodied as an “other”, racially- subordinate woman – is not a slave, but a worker who contributes meaningfully to the care economy and enables market activity – she is a social citizen. By way of comment on the draft recommendations – overall I consider that the draft recommendations are replete with attentive, meaningful proposals that if implemented would make a tremendous difference in the lives of minority communities. I have communicated my detailed comments in writing, but would make the following three comments here, as they relate specifically to this presentation: 1. The conditions under which minorities migrate for work should be considered carefully. It will be particularly important to move beyond thinking of migrants exclusively through the lens of trafficking, which is an important issue but deprives the women and men who decide to leave their homes to better their livelihoods of the AGENCY that they have claimed. Rather, as with the work on decent work for domestic workers, it would be helpful to focus on the terms of migration, and the conditions met by migrants – in other words, on increasing their capabilities and reducing the structural asymmetry associated with their exercise of agency. The increasing governmental policy orientation preferring temporary migration schemes – as the OECD has counselled – rather than permanent labour migration schemes, has a serious impact on the structural position of minorities, and needs to be called into question. Migration needs to be